Tennis Abstract's top 128 Players

[El Dude]

I think his placing on the list is in fact entirely driven by the Elo formula. There are a couple of names where he had to abandon the algorithm due to lack of data. Namely Karel Koželuh and Ora Washington, but I think at this point the order of the list is entirely down to what the algorithm spat out. The articles themselves of course contain a combination of statistical and subjective analysis of a player's greatness.

Andy Murray is simply one of those players who ends up higher than expected on a list like this because of playing essentially the entirety of his career in a very difficult era where big titles were hard to come by. The fact that he broke through to be comfortably the 4th best player of the 2010s gives him very good Elo numbers (both for peak and longevity). The Elo algorithm rates the 2010s so high that even Kei Nishikori and David Ferrer made the top 128, and at much higher placings than most would ever expect.

Well said, and this points out what is wrong with an "Elo-only" approach, imo. Actually, as much as GOAT Points has its issues, it is better in my mind because it tries to take "everything" into account (in the statistical record). So it includes Elo, ATP rankings, tournament results, as well other factors like "won all four Slams." And of course that's where GP has its problem: by trying to account for everything, it ends up veering into "A player's greatness is the sum of their parts."

I don't think there is a good, final answer - at least not yet. Baseball has settled on WAR (Wins Above Replacement) as the One Stat to Rule Them All, but even then there's debate: which version is best, how to score defense, etc. The creators of WAR would be the first to tell us that it is only an approximation, and the formula itself is subject to fine-tuning. It doesn't help its validity, though, that the Godfather of Stats--Bill James--doesn't like it, instead preferring (you guessed it) his own proprietary formula, Win Shares.

All that said, as I have said several times over the years, I do think that Andy Murray is generally underrated, and that systems like GP and Elo rankings partially right this wrong by pushing him higher than a facile look at Slam titles only implies. I think it is a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly) to rank him ahead of Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander as Sackmann does, but I do think there's a good argument that he belongs closer to those guys than the gang of lesser multi-Slam winners like Courier, Vilas, Ashe, Nastase, Safin, Hewitt, etc. As with the last two decades, Murray is an "in-betweener": the guy who separates the true greats from the rest of the pack.

 

[Kieran]

I did love Bud Collins, and he went back a long time. But the amateur era was SO different. It was basically a club game. Are the players from that era plausibly comparable? Did you ever read the book that we tout around here on occasion: A Handful of Summers? @Kieran will remember who wrote it. It is arguably the most poetic book ever written about tennis. It talks about what it was like in the amateur game. Aside from the geometry within the lines, it's not even the same game anymore.

That book is by Gordon Forbes. Very funny book too, and evocative, and instructive about the way the game moves through the ages. Players at Wimbledon with their lucky black rackets. Funny characters, and legends too, all bunking in together to save on the cost of things. I think it ends in 1977 with the heroes watching Borg at Wimbledon, and marvelling at how professional it all was. Would love to see what they’d make of Rafa.

For Metallica fans, Lars Ulrich’s dad is in the book, he was an idiosyncratic kind of quirky intellectual player, with some scenes of unintended comedy in the book too. I looked him up recently, he’s an interesting man, and still alive. A tennis champ, jazz musician, author, painter, now 94 years old…

 

[Wander]

That book is by Gordon Forbes. Very funny book too, and evocative, and instructive about the way the game moves through the ages. Players at Wimbledon with their lucky black rackets. Funny characters, and legends too, all bunking in together to save on the cost of things. I think it ends in 1977 with the heroes watching Borg at Wimbledon, and marvelling at how professional it all was. Would love to see what they’d make of Rafa.

For Metallica fans, Lars Ulrich’s dad is in the book, he was an idiosyncratic kind of quirky intellectual player, with some scenes of unintended comedy in the book too. I looked him up recently, he’s an interesting man, and still alive. A tennis champ, jazz musician, author, painter, now 94 years old…

Wow, crazy to see that despite never being quite a top player he played his first Major in 1948 and his final one in 1974 at the US Open aged 45. Now that's a long ass career. I knew that the elder Ulrich was a respected pro player but never knew that he played for such a long time.

 

[Kieran]

Wow, crazy to see that despite never being quite a top player he played his first Major in 1948 and his final one in 1974 at the US Open aged 45. Now that's a long ass career. I knew that the elder Ulrich was a respected pro player but never knew that he played for such a long time.

Yeah! And they travelled rough in them days, very basic accommodation, simple gear. It’s a great book, and Forbes wrote another book, Too Soon to Panic, but I haven’t read that one…

 

[Moxie]

Yeah! And they travelled rough in them days, very basic accommodation, simple gear. It’s a great book, and Forbes wrote another book, Too Soon to Panic, but I haven’t read that one…

I haven't read that one, either, though the expression, "Too Soon to Panic" is one of my favorites. His books have gone out-of-print or are hard to find, and my copy of "A Handful of Summers" has gone missing, sadly. Forbes probably wasn't a great tennis player, but he was a great writer, and a genial companion on the page.

 

[Moxie]

Well said, and this points out what is wrong with an "Elo-only" approach, imo. Actually, as much as GOAT Points has its issues, it is better in my mind because it tries to take "everything" into account (in the statistical record). So it includes Elo, ATP rankings, tournament results, as well other factors like "won all four Slams." And of course that's where GP has its problem: by trying to account for everything, it ends up veering into "A player's greatness is the sum of their parts."

I don't think there is a good, final answer - at least not yet. Baseball has settled on WAR (Wins Above Replacement) as the One Stat to Rule Them All, but even then there's debate: which version is best, how to score defense, etc. The creators of WAR would be the first to tell us that it is only an approximation, and the formula itself is subject to fine-tuning. It doesn't help its validity, though, that the Godfather of Stats--Bill James--doesn't like it, instead preferring (you guessed it) his own proprietary formula, Win Shares.

I won't try to speak to all of these efforts at perfecting the art/math of assessing greatness via stats. I get the impetus behind it, but I think it always requires more narrative and context than numbers can provide. Which is why there will never be a definitive GOAT. But it does help the discussion to have all of this.

All that said, as I have said several times over the years, I do think that Andy Murray is generally underrated, and that systems like GP and Elo rankings partially right this wrong by pushing him higher than a facile look at Slam titles only implies. I think it is a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly) to rank him ahead of Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander as Sackmann does, but I do think there's a good argument that he belongs closer to those guys than the gang of lesser multi-Slam winners like Courier, Vilas, Ashe, Nastase, Safin, Hewitt, etc. As with the last two decades, Murray is an "in-betweener": the guy who separates the true greats from the rest of the pack.

Totally agree that Murray is underrated, around here, and in general. I remember the days when you were putting players in groups, and Murray was for a long time just his own group. An "in-betweener," as you say. When Novak leapt up to another level, in 2011, it stopped being the Big 4, and became more the Big 3, then Murray, then a big step down. He's had a more than HOF career, competing against the arguably 3 best of all time. No other player held his own against Roger, Rafa and Novak than Andy did, by a long shot. Stan had some big and flashy wins over them, but look at the H2Hs.

 

[El Dude]

Here's some controversy: He just ranked Pete Sampras at #21, which means he ranks Lendl, McEnroe and Borg higher. Discuss .

Still unranked are Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Rosewall, Laver, Gonzales, and Tilden, so he has Sampras at #11. My guess is that coming up next are Tilden and Rosewall; then Lendl, McEnroe and Borg; then Gonzales; then the historic "Big Four" in some form or fashion, with Novak probably being #1.

The men's rankings thus far are:

10. Lendl
11. Sampras
12. Budge
13. Connors
14. Kramer
15. Murray
16. Becker
17. Vines
18. Perry
19. Agassi
20. Edberg
21. Vilas
22. Drobny
23. Ashe
24. Wilander
25. Newcombe
26. Emerson
27. Segura
28. Sedgman
29. Nastase
30. Riggs
31. Lacoste
32. Seixas
33. Santana
34. Bromwich
35. Trabert
36. Smith
37. Hoad
38. Cochet
39. Ferrer
40. Roddick
41. Patty
42. Crawford
43. Hewitt
44. Del Potro
45. Chang
46. Von Cramm
47. Gerulaitis
48. Parker
49. Okker
50. Roche
51. Richards
52. Courier
53. Kovacs
54. Ivanisevic
55. Kozeluh
56. Schroeder
57. Johnston
58. Quist
59. Nishikori
60. Cooper
61. Stich
62. Borotra
63. Wawrinka

EDIT: Added Lendl

 

[Kieran]

Here's some controversy: He just ranked Pete Sampras at #21, which means he ranks Lendl, McEnroe and Borg higher. Discuss .

It means his conclusions are obviously faulty. We can compare Borg to Sampras, but never McEnroe or Lendl…

 

[Moxie]

It means his conclusions are obviously faulty. We can compare Borg to Sampras, but never McEnroe or Lendl…

To me, it keeps proving, once again, that trying to reduce it to a formula is a fool's errand. (Not saying you're a fool, @El Dude, because I know you like your numbers. Best it gives us talking points, though, which you seem to be down with.)

 

[El Dude]

It means his conclusions are obviously faulty. We can compare Borg to Sampras, but never McEnroe or Lendl…

Comparing those four is interesting, because it highlights the difference between the "consensus historical view" and statistical analysis. One thing that I've found when taking a deeper look at the stats, with regards to those four players, are two things:

1) Borg, McEnroe and Lendl are all very close (statistically speaking).
2) The gap between Sampras and Borg/McEnroe/Lendl is smaller than I'd imagined - that is, based upon Slam count and conventional wisdom/historical memory ("What people say").

I'm not saying those two things are correct, just that they are statistically correct. I was a kid in the late 70s and 80s and barely watched any tennis, just a match here and there, so can't really compare them in terms of the eyeball test. But the consensus is pretty clear, which is a combination of Slam count (veering into absolutism) and a kind of received historical knowledge: Sampras is considered the best of the four due to Slam count and six years in a row being #1, but Borg was as good or better in terms of peak, but with a shorter career. Mac has a high peak (and the best single season of any of them), but his later career was very weak and keeps him a notch lower. Lendl had the lowest peak of the four, but partially made up for it with consistency.

My point being, the two statistical points above don't quite match up with the "consensus historical view" I mention, and which you seem to be re-iterating -- and which may overly be influenced by Slam count. I'm not saying one or the other is right or wrong, just that there's some discrepancy here, and I wouldn't immediately write off what Sackmann is saying because it doesn't jive with the consensus view.

To illustrate this a bit, here the four players from the "visual representations" charts I posted in another thread:

As you can see, they look rather similar - in terms of the total presence of their career achievements, as represented visually. Just looking at those charts and none of the four stand out as clearly the best. Borg and Sampras fared better at Slams, but Mac and Lendl were more dominant everywhere else, for the most part.

Again, this is not to say that we should ignore our eyeball test, or conventional wisdom, or even reduce the stature of Slams, and just go with what accumulative stats tell us - be they this sort of visual representation or Sackmann's formula. But it is interesting how stats sometimes bring forth stuff that doesn't jive with "what we all know." I think it is worth considering a balance of the two. I certainly have come to feel that Sampras is closer to this group than he is to the group of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (and Laver).

 

[El Dude]

To me, it keeps proving, once again, that trying to reduce it to a formula is a fool's errand. (Not saying you're a fool, @El Dude, because I know you like your numbers. Best it gives us talking points, though, which you seem to be down with.)

Yes, a fool's errand - but a fun one. And of course Sackmann said in the intro that ranking players like this is ridiculous (I think he even used that word).

As I think I've shared before, I was a very casual fan of tennis until about 2010 or so. At that point, I started researching tennis history and got into the stats. My blogs that I started writing not long after were not an attempt for me to say, "This is the truth of things" as if I was claiming some kind of absolutist knowledge on tennis (as Ricardo still thinks, for some odd reason), and more so me sharing my findings, and my ongoing journey of trying to understand the history of the game - and how players stack up against each other.

But I agree with what you say: no formula will ever fully encapsulate a player's overall greatness, nor can it adequately rank them. But as you say, it can be a good starting point for discussion. And I would add, as I said to Kieran, sometimes we might discover something that challenges conventional wisdom...and at least makes us see things from a different angle, even if it doesn't change our view.

As an example, I tend to think that Ivan Lendl is a bit underrated - that he's far closer to Pete Sampras than he is to, say, another 8-Slam winner, Andre Agassi. Lendl's reduced reputation is, I think, largely due to two factors: His was consistently very, very good, but not as flashy as guys like Borg, Mac, and Sampras (this is illustrated by his 8-11 Slam final record...19 Slam finals is amazing, but he's the only ATG great to have a losing record in them...until we come to Andy and his 3-8 record); two, he never won Wimbledon, and whether we like it or not, Wimbledon is the "first among equals" of Grand Slam tournaments, at least as far as conventional wisdom goes.

Anyhow, if I were ever going to try my hand again at making a GOAT list, I think I'd create several systems, each of which highlights different things. One would be Slam-focused; another would be rankings focused; and a third would be something weird, like comparing players tournament by tournament (e.g. who was best at the AO, RG, Wim, USO, etc). But I think the key to any such system or ranking is finding the best balance of peak and total career...and I just don't know how to do that in a satisfactory way. In some sense, the ultimate litmus test is Borg, and he's also the guy that breaks every system, because he ranks much lower than he should because of his shortened career. On the other hand, if you go too far the other way and over-emphasize peak, you unfairly diminish guys whose greatest quality was their consistency and longevity.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, a fool's errand - but a fun one. And of course Sackmann said in the intro that ranking players like this is ridiculous (I think he even used that word).

As I think I've shared before, I was a very casual fan of tennis until about 2010 or so. At that point, I started researching tennis history and got into the stats. My blogs that I started writing not long after were not an attempt for me to say, "This is the truth of things" as if I was claiming some kind of absolutist knowledge on tennis (as Ricardo still thinks, for some odd reason), and more so me sharing my findings, and my ongoing journey of trying to understand the history of the game - and how players stack up against each other.

But I agree with what you say: no formula will ever fully encapsulate a player's overall greatness, nor can it adequately rank them. But as you say, it can be a good starting point for discussion. And I would add, as I said to Kieran, sometimes we might discover something that challenges conventional wisdom...and at least makes us see things from a different angle, even if it doesn't change our view.

As an example, I tend to think that Ivan Lendl is a bit underrated - that he's far closer to Pete Sampras than he is to, say, another 8-Slam winner, Andre Agassi. Lendl's reduced reputation is, I think, largely due to two factors: His was consistently very, very good, but not as flashy as guys like Borg, Mac, and Sampras (this is illustrated by his 8-11 Slam final record...19 Slam finals is amazing, but he's the only ATG great to have a losing record in them...until we come to Andy and his 3-8 record); two, he never won Wimbledon, and whether we like it or not, Wimbledon is the "first among equals" of Grand Slam tournaments, at least as far as conventional wisdom goes.

Anyhow, if I were ever going to try my hand again at making a GOAT list, I think I'd create several systems, each of which highlights different things. One would be Slam-focused; another would be rankings focused; and a third would be something weird, like comparing players tournament by tournament (e.g. who was best at the AO, RG, Wim, USO, etc). But I think the key to any such system or ranking is finding the best balance of peak and total career...and I just don't know how to do that in a satisfactory way. In some sense, the ultimate litmus test is Borg, and he's also the guy that breaks every system, because he ranks much lower than he should because of his shortened career. On the other hand, if you go too far the other way and over-emphasize peak, you unfairly diminish guys whose greatest quality was their consistency and longevity.

All good stuff, and I'm not going to debate the points. Just to say that all attempts at going "pure stats" still includes choices made that influences the data. To go back to Sackmann: He says this in his original thesis statement: "Any best-of-all-time list is subjective. Still, I tried to make mine as objective as possible. The ranking is primarily based on an algorithm that incorporates three things: a player’s peak, their five best years, and their entire career. Those components are measured by Elo ratings. I only considered seasons above a fairly high threshold, and there are no negative values for bad seasons. I’m interested in how good players were at their best, not whether they stuck around for too many seasons at the end." But he still has to determine the player's "peak" and their "best 5 years." Already, he moves the needle by choosing that. It's a quibble, but you get my point. I'm a filmmaker, and started my life in documentaries. We all know there is no completely objective choice. Where I put the camera matters. As do my editorial choices. I can try to be as objective as possible, but I have made choices.

As to your point above, in bold, about Wimbledon: IS Wimbledon really the "first among equals" at the Majors? It surely likes to think so. It pre-dates the US Open by 4 years, RG by 10, and the AO by 30-odd. I think that attitude is mostly sentimental, though, and certainly buys into Wimbledon's own anglo-centricity, which it pushes pretty hard. Anyway, if you are going to do a Slam-focused GOAT list, I would caution you about where you put the camera.

 

[El Dude]

All good stuff, and I'm not going to debate the points. Just to say that all attempts at going "pure stats" still includes choices made that influences the data. To go back to Sackmann: He says this in his original thesis statement: "Any best-of-all-time list is subjective. Still, I tried to make mine as objective as possible. The ranking is primarily based on an algorithm that incorporates three things: a player’s peak, their five best years, and their entire career. Those components are measured by Elo ratings. I only considered seasons above a fairly high threshold, and there are no negative values for bad seasons. I’m interested in how good players were at their best, not whether they stuck around for too many seasons at the end." But he still has to determine the player's "peak" and their "best 5 years." Already, he moves the needle by choosing that. It's a quibble, but you get my point. I'm a filmmaker, and started my life in documentaries. We all know there is no completely objective choice. Where I put the camera matters. As do my editorial choices. I can try to be as objective as possible, but I have made choices.

As to your point above, in bold, about Wimbledon: IS Wimbledon really the "first among equals" at the Majors? It surely likes to think so. It pre-dates the US Open by 4 years, RG by 10, and the AO by 30-odd. I think that attitude is mostly sentimental, though, and certainly buys into Wimbledon's own anglo-centricity, which it pushes pretty hard. Anyway, if you are going to do a Slam-focused GOAT list, I would caution you about where you put the camera.

The Wimbledon thing is one of appearance and reputation, and not something I would change in terms of GOAT points or such, because it isn't harder to win than the others. But if you ask a thousand players of any age, child to pro, which Grand Slam they most want to win, I'm guessing that Wimbledon gets the largest share (and the smallest the AO); and if you ask a random person on the street to name a tennis tournament, "Wimbledon" would be the most common answer.

But I understand and agree with what you say about the subjective element - it is always there when you go beyond simple results. That was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for me, in creating a system: How to weigh different factors? How many weeks at #1 is a GS title equivalent to? Etc, etc.

 

[Moxie]

The Wimbledon thing is one of appearance and reputation, and not something I would change in terms of GOAT points or such, because it isn't harder to win than the others. But if you ask a thousand players of any age, child to pro, which Grand Slam they most want to win, I'm guessing that Wimbledon gets the largest share (and the smallest the AO); and if you ask a random person on the street to name a tennis tournament, "Wimbledon" would be the most common answer.

Yes, and they trade hard on all of that, but the brand is weakened. Mainly by the fact that there is almost no grass tennis left, and then by their politicizing it this year. I'm as sentimental as the next person about Wimbledon, but we have to admit that's a bit of a fairy tale compared to the reality in today's tennis.

But I understand and agree with what you say about the subjective element - it is always there when you go beyond simple results. That was one of the biggest stumbling blocks for me, in creating a system: How to weigh different factors? How many weeks at #1 is a GS title equivalent to? Etc, etc.

Exactly. As soon as you make a choice about an equivalency, you've made a choice, and your prejudices come into play. So eventually, you have to stop. You've inserted yourself as much as you can. (By which I don't mean "you.") You can invite conversation with statistics, but you can't completely shape it. If you try too hard, you're shaping it, or at the very least, fall in danger of defending your statistics. The best case is only a discussion-opener.

 

[Kieran]

Borg and Sampras fared better at Slams, but Mac and Lendl were more dominant everywhere else, for the most part.

Where is “everywhere else?”

Sampras was world number 1 six years running. He was the best player in the world throughout his peak. Who else ever was? What were Sampras criteria for greatness? What were Borg’s? McEnroe? Lendl? It wasn’t about doing better “everywhere else”, winning the runner up prize in the clay or American swing of the tour by winning Cinci or Rome. It was being the best at the top end, where the stakes were highest, add the rewards were greatest.

Borg and Sampras I’d compare with anyone, but McEnroe and Lendl clearly aren’t at that same level.

Again, this is not to say that we should ignore our eyeball test, or conventional wisdom, or even reduce the stature of Slams, and just go with what accumulative stats tell us - be they this sort of visual representation or Sackmann's formula. But it is interesting how stats sometimes bring forth stuff that doesn't jive with "what we all know."

I certainly knew that Pete didn’t give a shit about anything other than being the best of his time. He targeted the great tournaments, and the number 1 spot to achieve this - the statistics there show that he succeeded…

 

[El Dude]

Where is “everywhere else?”

Sampras was world number 1 six years running. He was the best player in the world throughout his peak. Who else ever was? What were Sampras criteria for greatness? What were Borg’s? McEnroe? Lendl? It wasn’t about doing better “everywhere else”, winning the runner up prize in the clay or American swing of the tour by winning Cinci or Rome. It was being the best at the top end, where the stakes were highest, add the rewards were greatest.

Borg and Sampras I’d compare with anyone, but McEnroe and Lendl clearly aren’t at that same level.

I certainly knew that Pete didn’t give a shit about anything other than being the best of his time. He targeted the great tournaments, and the number 1 spot to achieve this - the statistics there show that he succeeded…

"Everywhere else" is tournaments other than Slams. You do realize that there are other tournaments? Sampras was mediocre on clay and won only 11 Masters titles, compared to Lendl's 18 and McEnroe's 17. I agree that Sampras is the greater player due to his higher Slam count, and they're about equal in terms of tour finals, but on Masters and lesser tournaments (500/250), Mac and Lendl are significantly better, narrowing the gap.

 

[Kieran]

"Everywhere else" is tournaments other than Slams. You do realize that there are other tournaments? Sampras was mediocre on clay and won only 11 Masters titles, compared to Lendl's 18 and McEnroe's 17. I agree that Sampras is the greater player due to his higher Slam count, and they're about equal in terms of tour finals, but on Masters and lesser tournaments (500/250), Mac and Lendl are significantly better, narrowing the gap.

You do realise that in Sampras day, masters series events were not a measure of greatness? They were slam tune ups, bigger than other tune ups but tune ups nonetheless.

This is why I said we have to understand what the criteria for greatness was for all these players. It wasn’t tune ups…

 

[El Dude]

You do realise that in Sampras day, masters series events were not a measure of greatness? They were slam tune ups, bigger than other tune ups but tune ups nonetheless.

This is why I said we have to understand what the criteria for greatness was for all these players. It wasn’t tune ups…

But was that true during Lendls/McEnroe, just a decade before? Or at least as true? And should we judge them by the context of Sampras' prime? The context changes over different eras, even ones that are close together.

As you know, I don't like Slam Absolutism. Tennis is a whole season - even in Sampras' day. I do realize that Masters weren't as big a deal, but they still mostly had the best players, and players still tried to win. It isn't just tune-ups, then a Slam, then tune-ups, then a Slam.

I mean, we can just look at raw Slam counts. Sampras won 14, Lendl 8, McEnroe 7. I do not think those numbers represent their relative greatness, which is why other tournaments matter.

All of this points to why I think rankings are the closest thing to a single measurement. Different tournaments hold different value over time, but rankings are more consistent.

 

[Kieran]

But was that true during Lendls/McEnroe, just a decade before? Or at least as true? And should we judge them by the context of Sampras' prime? The context changes over different eras, even ones that are close together.

Of course. The Italian Open, as it was, was considered a big event but not essential to being called “great.” The masters series itself didn’t exist before 1990. Nobody talked about these events as being indicators of greatness. They weren’t totted up in lieu of slams and granted as an alternative passport stamp to greatness. It would shock players of that time if they knew how these events were being thought of now.

I’m not saying we’re thinking wrongly these days, by investing more significance to them - but we’re thinking wrongly if we mix things up for the sake of an historical ranking neatness and apply a prestige to the same events that took place back then that they didn’t have in their time.

Remember, the Australian Open wasn’t even considered as important as the other slams. It’s not always about Slam absolutism - it’s about discovering what players in a different era were playing for. Nobody was totting up MS events back then, the way they do now.

And by the way, remember this, that slam totals in themselves weren’t considered the measure of the GOAT. That only started when Pete set that goal for himself.

As you know, I don't like Slam Absolutism. Tennis is a whole season - even in Sampras' day. I do realize that Masters weren't as big a deal, but they still mostly had the best players, and players still tried to win. It isn't just tune-ups, then a Slam, then tune-ups, then a Slam.

Largely, it was, although the IW/Miami double header was still in the same place in the calendar, and there was a time when the old Lipton was called the fifth slam, but that didn’t mean players pursued it like a slam, or felt a desire to add it to their totals, to compete a set or anything.

The clay MS were tune ups, though even then Monte Carlo was bigger than Barcelona, for example.

I mean, we can just look at raw Slam counts. Sampras won 14, Lendl 8, McEnroe 7. I do not think those numbers represent their relative greatness, which is why other tournaments matter.

All of this points to why I think rankings are the closest thing to a single measurement. Different tournaments hold different value over time, but rankings are more consistent.

Pete was number one six years running, all through his prime, nobody had done that before or since, so even going by rankings he was ahead of those players. I’ve never heard of Peter being downgraded in this way. When he finished playing almost everyone was saying he was the greatest ever - now he’s alongside the McEnroe and Lendl?

Not buying it, brother. It has nothing to so with slam absolutism, it has to do with priorities, and in all the things these players prioritised, he was a higher level than them…

 

[El Dude]

Of course. The Italian Open, as it was, was considered a big event but not essential to being called “great.” The masters series itself didn’t exist before 1990. Nobody talked about these events as being indicators of greatness. They weren’t totted up in lieu of slams and granted as an alternative passport stamp to greatness. It would shock players of that time if they knew how these events were being thought of now.

I’m not saying we’re thinking wrongly these days, by investing more significance to them - but we’re thinking wrongly if we mix things up for the sake of an historical ranking neatness and apply a prestige to the same events that took place back then that they didn’t have in their time.

Remember, the Australian Open wasn’t even considered as important as the other slams. It’s not always about Slam absolutism - it’s about discovering what players in a different era were playing for. Nobody was totting up MS events back then, the way they do now.

And by the way, remember this, that slam totals in themselves weren’t considered the measure of the GOAT. That only started when Pete set that goal for himself.

Right, so how did they measure greatness? Overall performance. That's all I'm saying. Slams are the highest peaks, but there are other mountains. When assessing greatness, we're not just looking at the biggest trophies. Everything counts, even small tournaments. I mean, one measure of greatness is bringing your best game as frequently as possible - that is one factor that separates the men from the boys, imo, and why Federer is one of the greatest ever and David Nalbandian a top player for a few years, but basically forgotten. Nalbandian--at his best--could challenge and even beat peak Federer, but he didn't have the mental fortitude to find that level day after day, tournament after tournament.

This is also why I've sometimes played with the idea that there are different tiers of factors. Primary are Slam titles and rankings (especially weeks at #1, but also #2, top 5, top 10, etc); secondary factors are QF/SF/F at Slams, other titles; tertiary might be win-loss record, etc.

But if we're comparing two players in a given season, and one has Slam results of W, 4R, 1R, 1R, and the other F, F, SF, QF, I'm not sure that the former had the better season. I know they get the trophy, but the latter had an overall better year. I mean, even going on records: the first guy went 12-3, the second guy 21-4. Who had the better year? Again, the trophy is what players want, but when assessing the greatness of a player, we have to look beyond hardware and weigh overall performance.

Largely, it was, although the IW/Miami double header was still in the same place in the calendar, and there was a time when the old Lipton was called the fifth slam, but that didn’t mean players pursued it like a slam, or felt a desire to add it to their totals, to compete a set or anything.

The clay MS were tune ups, though even then Monte Carlo was bigger than Barcelona, for example.

Well you remember that era and I don't (or wasn't paying attention). And I do realize and agree that different tournaments had different value at different times, and it doesn't neatly line up with ATP points. But even so, the emphasis on different tournaments doesn't always equate with their difficulty, and even as you describe Pete's era, that wasn't always the case. It seems you're talking about a relatively short period of time when Slams were absolute, and everything else was just tune-ups. Was that the case in the 70s and before? I don't think so, but could be wrong.

Pete was number one six years running, all through his prime, nobody had done that before or since, so even going by rankings he was ahead of those players. I’ve never heard of Peter being downgraded in this way. When he finished playing almost everyone was saying he was the greatest ever - now he’s alongside the McEnroe and Lendl?

Not buying it, brother. It has nothing to so with slam absolutism, it has to do with priorities, and in all the things these players prioritised, he was a higher level than them…

I'm not downgrading Sampras - Sackmann is. I'm just saying that I think he's closer to Lendl and McEnroe than he is the Big Three, but I still rank him ahead of those two. It just isn't a huge gap, and if we're talking about context, Pete's six year run was partially due to a weaker field in the mid-90s, at least as far as ATGs are concerned. Lendl peaked during one of the most "ATG dense" eras - the late 80s. Early on he still had to deal with late peak Connors and peak Borg, then peak McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and then early peak Sampras and Agassi. He had one of the most ATG crowded careers, with no gap, no easy periods.

In fact, my guess is that's why Sackmann's formula ranks Lendl higher: more difficult context.