Tennis Abstract's top 128 Players

[Kieran]

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.



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.

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.

Hey, we’ve seen this “weaker field” argument used before!

The thing with different eras is that you could parachute into the 70’s age see that to Borg the only measure of greatness was to win the calendar year slam, in pursuit of Rod Laver. That was it. If he won 3 slams that season but not the fourth, then he wasn’t happy. He got to 11 slams but didn’t think it important to equal the record held by Emerson. So it wasn’t “slam absolutism” for him.

Sampras was the ultimate alpha, in the sense that he wanted to stay number one and beat Connors record five in a row, (which he did and it’s one of the greatest records in tennis history) but at the same time, if Pete won nothing in the season until Wimbledon, then he won that, his attitude would be, “you can have all the small change, but it’s no good if you don’t win when it matters.” To him, slams were where the real kudos lies, when it comes to what you win. And of course, he’s right - nobody can tell you who won the1997 Monte Carlo or Indian wells off the top of their head, but they’ll remember Wimbledon. Pete was kind of a prototype for the Big 3 in that sense. He took a big aim at the record books.

Being number one, winning slams, beating your rivals, they’re all part of being great at tennis, but in different eras players prioritised things differently. What’s been constant though, are the grand slams. their prestige doesn’t come from their ranking points, it’s their place in the history of the sport that brings prestige to the players who win them.

None of this is an advert for slam absolutism. I think nowadays the counting up MS titles and WTF’s as being an almost equal measure of greatness is a result of the Big 3 fan battles, and the modern media obsession with goats, in every sport. We see memes that show Novak has 60, Rafa 58, Roger 57, and I’m wondering, what are they talking about? Then it has to get backdated to Pete, Ivan, Bjorn, to exclude them on this basis - but they hadn’t included themselves on this basis, in the first place!

 

[El Dude]

Hey, we’ve seen this “weaker field” argument used before!

I'm just pointing out the context of those six years in a row of #1. It was quite different than the field of Lendl's peak. So I'm not as much saying that Sampras had a weak era, but that Lendl had a very strong one - at least as far as top players are concerned.

The thing with different eras is that you could parachute into the 70’s age see that to Borg the only measure of greatness was to win the calendar year slam, in pursuit of Rod Laver. That was it. If he won 3 slams that season but not the fourth, then he wasn’t happy. He got to 11 slams but didn’t think it important to equal the record held by Emerson. So it wasn’t “slam absolutism” for him.

Sampras was the ultimate alpha, in the sense that he wanted to stay number one and beat Connors record five in a row, (which he did and it’s one of the greatest records in tennis history) but at the same time, if Pete won nothing in the season until Wimbledon, then he won that, his attitude would be, “you can have all the small change, but it’s no good if you don’t win when it matters.” To him, slams were where the real kudos lies, when it comes to what you win. And of course, he’s right - nobody can tell you who won the1997 Monte Carlo or Indian wells off the top of their head, but they’ll remember Wimbledon. Pete was kind of a prototype for the Big 3 in that sense. He took a big aim at the record books.

I think a primary difference between our perspectives is that you tend to highlight the "prestige" and the perspective of individual players - what they're after and care about, in terms of tournaments and titles. I'm trying to take a "meta-historical"perspective to see how it all fits together. Not saying one approach is right and the other is wrong, but it highlights different things.

Being number one, winning slams, beating your rivals, they’re all part of being great at tennis, but in different eras players prioritised things differently. What’s been constant though, are the grand slams. their prestige doesn’t come from their ranking points, it’s their place in the history of the sport that brings prestige to the players who win them.

Yes, I understand. But see above - "prestige" isn't synonymous with "greatness." They overlap quite a bit, but I don't equate the two. Prestige says, "One guy won the Slam, who cares about the other guys?" Greatness at least incorporates the fact that one guy went 7-0 and earned 2000 points, the other 6-1 and 1200 points, two others 5-1 and 720 points, etc. Prestige only cares about the trophy, but greatness recognizes that "720" is still meaningful.

Or to put it another way, I would say that prestige is part of greatness, but not everything. It doesn't include other important factors like consistency or overall greatness. It highlights the highest peaks you've climbed, but it ignores the peaks you almost climbed, or the lesser peaks, or all the hiking in between.

To put it another way, climbing to the summit of Mount Everest is amazing and deserving of accolades. But making it 90% of the way, or even just to base camp, is still an accomplishment. Just as hiking lesser peaks is also an accomplishment.

None of this is an advert for slam absolutism. I think nowadays the counting up MS titles and WTF’s as being an almost equal measure of greatness is a result of the Big 3 fan battles, and the modern media obsession with goats, in every sport. We see memes that show Novak has 60, Rafa 58, Roger 57, and I’m wondering, what are they talking about? Then it has to get backdated to Pete, Ivan, Bjorn, to exclude them on this basis - but they hadn’t included themselves on this basis, in the first place!

I don't see anyone who really holds that view (what you wrote in bold). Again, this isn't either/or. Masters and WTFs aren't "almost equal," but they are part of the conversation. On the other hand, nothing wrong with looking at them from different angles, each which give different types of info, be they Slam titles, big titles, overall titles, weeks at #1, etc.

But I do here your point about the problem of evaluating the past with the criteria of the present. On the other hand, it is an impossible task, as every era--and every player--had different priorities. I mean, some players just wanted to make as much money as possible and didn't care about the prestige of Slam titles or some such. Some probably just wanted to party and sleep with lots of women. Some cared about some Slams, but not others. Etc.

Anyhow, one of the problems with comparing, say, pre-1990 eras to now is that the ATP tour has become more codified. There were different tiers and categories back then, but they could change year to year, and there wasn't as clear a demarcation between different tournament levels. The ATP finally put together a system where point values roughly correlate to difficult - that wasn't always the case. The WTF was even worse.

So we have a more consistent schedule now, with clear tiers of tournaments: Slams, WTF, ATP 1000, (Olympics), ATP 500, ATP 250. The points do a good job of assigning relative value, in terms of difficulty. But to go back to something I said above, it isn't the same as prestige. A Masters is worth half as many points, which is how the ATP values it in terms of rankings, but no player would say that they'd rather have three Masters titles than one Slam title. But that is, again, prestige, which is ultimately subjective. Greatness is a bit different.

 

[Kieran]

I think a primary difference between our perspectives is that you tend to highlight the "prestige" and the perspective of individual players - what they're after and care about, in terms of tournaments and titles. I'm trying to take a "meta-historical"perspective to see how it all fits together. Not saying one approach is right and the other is wrong, but it highlights different things.

That’s right, we’re highlighting different things, but while I get that Sackmann is trying to collate data in a neat way so that comparisons can be made across the eras, so MS titles in the 80’s (a series which didn’t even exist then) are treated as if they were the same as they were in the 90’s and now, I think it’s an impossible task. It might even become misleading.

It’s certainly never going to please people like me who think that measures of greatness aren’t consistent across the eras, because it’s the players who pursue greatness and we have to listen to how they defined it when they played, and why they defined it that way. Now, this isn’t as subjective as it sounds, and I know you what I mean by this, and where I’m going with it.

There have been many titles which have had unearned prestige handed to them, like the Grand Slam Cup, in the 90’s, and it was fought and haggled over by the most successful players in the GS those years, in the expectation that it might endure. Then this event vanished. It was transient. Yet players invested in it, thinking it might last. There was the old World Championship Tennis in the 70’s and 80’s. Yet none of these obsolete events are included in the modern stats comparing eras, because they didn’t endure. The sport changed, perspectives changed. And the different measures players place on what defines “greatness” also change. But at the same time, certain things have started the same and are proven, endurable measuring sticks. So the upshot is, it’s very difficult to see a one-size-fits-all criteria being shoehorned across the generations - inappropriately, I would say, because it assumes it can ignore the historical context, and apply our modern measure of greatness to the past.

By the way, when I say “prestige”, I don’t mean “to hell with the losers.” I mean there’s certain tournaments have a cache that great players want a bite of, much more than they want to nibble on the smaller apples. This is what a great champions ambition looks like. As you say, “no player would say that they'd rather have three Masters titles than one Slam title.” They might even trade thirteen or more MS to win one slam. I never heard of players in the past equating lesser tournaments with greatness, though they would naturally be won by players who are winning everything. Lendl was fabulously successful when he first came along but what I remember most when he was young was that he lost his first 4 slam finals. Trust me, it was news - big news. Nobody gave him any kudos for anything he did, until he broke his duck there. Then he was taken seriously…

 

[El Dude]

That’s right, we’re highlighting different things, but while I get that Sackmann is trying to collate data in a neat way so that comparisons can be made across the eras, so MS titles in the 80’s (a series which didn’t even exist then) are treated as if they were the same as they were in the 90’s and now, I think it’s an impossible task. It might even become misleading.

It’s certainly never going to please people like me who think that measures of greatness aren’t consistent across the eras, because it’s the players who pursue greatness and we have to listen to how they defined it when they played, and why they defined it that way. Now, this isn’t as subjective as it sounds, and I know you what I mean by this, and where I’m going with it.

There have been many titles which have had unearned prestige handed to them, like the Grand Slam Cup, in the 90’s, and it was fought and haggled over by the most successful players in the GS those years, in the expectation that it might endure. Then this event vanished. It was transient. Yet players invested in it, thinking it might last. There was the old World Championship Tennis in the 70’s and 80’s. Yet none of these obsolete events are included in the modern stats comparing eras, because they didn’t endure. The sport changed, perspectives changed. And the different measures players place on what defines “greatness” also change. But at the same time, certain things have started the same and are proven, endurable measuring sticks. So the upshot is, it’s very difficult to see a one-size-fits-all criteria being shoehorned across the generations - inappropriately, I would say, because it assumes it can ignore the historical context, and apply our modern measure of greatness to the past.

By the way, when I say “prestige”, I don’t mean “to hell with the losers.” I mean there’s certain tournaments have a cache that great players want a bite of, much more than they want to nibble on the smaller apples. This is what a great champions ambition looks like. As you say, “no player would say that they'd rather have three Masters titles than one Slam title.” They might even trade thirteen or more MS to win one slam. I never heard of players in the past equating lesser tournaments with greatness, though they would naturally be won by players who are winning everything. Lendl was fabulously successful when he first came along but what I remember most when he was young was that he lost his first 4 slam finals. Trust me, it was news - big news. Nobody gave him any kudos for anything he did, until he broke his duck there. Then he was taken seriously…

Yes, but I think that's where "conventional wisdom" is wrong - or, at least, skewed, because it highlights the guy with the W and fades out everyone else. Similarly with 13 Masters vs. one Slam...a player might prefer the latter, but the former player is greater (all other things being equal). Thus again, prestige does not equal greatness, and "kudos" is a very deceptive measure of greatness (not to mention un-measurable).

I mean, who was the better player in 1998, Marcelo Rios or Petr Korda? Korda won a Slam but only an ATP 250 otherwise; Rios won 7 titles, including the Grand Slam Cup and three Masters, and was ranked #2 year-end, while Korda was #13. Korda gets kudos for a Slam, but Rios was better (that year, at least).

Another point that highlights the problem of Slams as ultimate (which I know you're not saying outright): Rod Laver in the early years of the Open Era. He was almost certainly the best player on tour, won a ton of titles, but after 1969, skipped most of the Slams due to political reasons. And actually, the point system works to recognize his dominance - Ultimate Tennis Statistics applies ATP era rankings to the 1968-71 period, and Laver is #1 in all four years - as he should be - despite playing only four Slams in 1970-71, and only making it to one QF.

Or we can compare the three-Slam winners of the Open Era: Jan Kodes, Gustavo Kuerten, Stan Wawrinka, and Andy Murray. One player is not like the other three, and far greater, but all got equal "kudos" for Slam titles.

As for the Grand Slam Cup, it most definitely is included in modern stat formulas. Ultimate Tennis Statistics weighs it equally with Masters tournaments; I think there's an argument to be made that it should be ranked slightly higher, because the competition was fiercer due to a large pot (didn't it have the highest earnings at one point?).

As for Sackmann, I don't know his formula but I know he's focusing on Elo, not as much titles. So I'm not sure how he's comparing Masters titles of different eras, though I'm guessing he's weighing the different tournaments in a relatively traditional hierarchy (i.e. GS > Tour Finals > Masters > ATP 500 > ATP 250). I wish he was more transparent with his formula.

But I think his approach is what any such approach should be: Comparing a player's dominance relative to his peers. That's all we can do, right? The components of dominance change, but how dominant a player is relative to his peers is something that can be measured - at least to some extent.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, but I think that's where "conventional wisdom" is wrong - or, at least, skewed, because it highlights the guy with the W and fades out everyone else. Similarly with 13 Masters vs. one Slam...a player might prefer the latter, but the former player is greater (all other things being equal). Thus again, prestige does not equal greatness, and "kudos" is a very deceptive measure of greatness (not to mention un-measurable).

I mean, who was the better player in 1998, Marcelo Rios or Petr Korda? Korda won a Slam but only an ATP 250 otherwise; Rios won 7 titles, including the Grand Slam Cup and three Masters, and was ranked #2 year-end, while Korda was #13. Korda gets kudos for a Slam, but Rios was better (that year, at least).

Another point that highlights the problem of Slams as ultimate (which I know you're not saying outright): Rod Laver in the early years of the Open Era. He was almost certainly the best player on tour, won a ton of titles, but after 1969, skipped most of the Slams due to political reasons. And actually, the point system works to recognize his dominance - Ultimate Tennis Statistics applies ATP era rankings to the 1968-71 period, and Laver is #1 in all four years - as he should be - despite playing only four Slams in 1970-71, and only making it to one QF.

Or we can compare the three-Slam winners of the Open Era: Jan Kodes, Gustavo Kuerten, Stan Wawrinka, and Andy Murray. One player is not like the other three, and far greater, but all got equal "kudos" for Slam titles.

As for the Grand Slam Cup, it most definitely is included in modern stat formulas. Ultimate Tennis Statistics weighs it equally with Masters tournaments; I think there's an argument to be made that it should be ranked slightly higher, because the competition was fiercer due to a large pot (didn't it have the highest earnings at one point?).

As for Sackmann, I don't know his formula but I know he's focusing on Elo, not as much titles. So I'm not sure how he's comparing Masters titles of different eras, though I'm guessing he's weighing the different tournaments in a relatively traditional hierarchy (i.e. GS > Tour Finals > Masters > ATP 500 > ATP 250). I wish he was more transparent with his formula.

But I think his approach is what any such approach should be: Comparing a player's dominance relative to his peers. That's all we can do, right? The components of dominance change, but how dominant a player is relative to his peers is something that can be measured - at least to some extent.

It’s an interesting topic, isn’t it? For instance, I agree that a player who wins 13 masters series is better than the one who wins a single slam. Players like Andres Gomes won the FO, Tomas Johansson won Australia, and they’re nobody’s idea of perfection. But against this, if a player wins 13 MS titles but no slams, he becomes more a question mark than anything: the question being, why did he always fail at the higher end of things? But in compiling a list, we can safely place him among the better players, even if his twin won a slam.

I agree with you about Murray. I’m not a simple Slam absolutist. I’m not simply a stats absolutist either. I’m more concerned about context. Remember, we began this by discussing Sampras being ranked lower than McEnroe and Lendl on Sackmann’s list. I could never accept this, because it isn’t true. Nor are they as close as you believe. But how can I prove this, or how can you prove otherwise, when we both use different measures of greatness?

I don’t think everything is subjective, and I there’s a lot to be said for having seeing players at their peak, to really know what they were like, rather than seeing them only through cold statistics, but statistics can’t be disregarded either. They have their place, but I think one area we might disagree on is what weight to place on them, when the tournaments being recorded are themselves often not what they used to be, particularly in the eyes of the players, and of course, changing priorities etc, but that’s only to repeat myself, which nobody wants…

 

[El Dude]

It’s an interesting topic, isn’t it? For instance, I agree that a player who wins 13 masters series is better than the one who wins a single slam. Players like Andres Gomes won the FO, Tomas Johansson won Australia, and they’re nobody’s idea of perfection. But against this, if a player wins 13 MS titles but no slams, he becomes more a question mark than anything: the question being, why did he always fail at the higher end of things? But in compiling a list, we can safely place him among the better players, even if his twin won a slam.

I agree with you about Murray. I’m not a simple Slam absolutist. I’m not simply a stats absolutist either. I’m more concerned about context. Remember, we began this by discussing Sampras being ranked lower than McEnroe and Lendl on Sackmann’s list. I could never accept this, because it isn’t true. Nor are they as close as you believe. But how can I prove this, or how can you prove otherwise, when we both use different measures of greatness?

I don’t think everything is subjective, and I there’s a lot to be said for having seeing players at their peak, to really know what they were like, rather than seeing them only through cold statistics, but statistics can’t be disregarded either. They have their place, but I think one area we might disagree on is what weight to place on them, when the tournaments being recorded are themselves often not what they used to be, particularly in the eyes of the players, and of course, changing priorities etc, but that’s only to repeat myself, which nobody wants…

We're actually pretty close on this - and contrary to how it might seem, I certainly am not a stats absolutist either, even if I veer more that way than most here (a lot of that is just the fun of the numbers...I'm a nerd like that). And yeah, context is crucial. But the problem is that it is hard to quantify...so I'm not sure how we apply stat systems to context.

Anyhow, nice convo!

 

[Kieran]

We're actually pretty close on this - and contrary to how it might seem, I certainly am not a stats absolutist either, even if I veer more that way than most here (a lot of that is just the fun of the numbers...I'm a nerd like that). And yeah, context is crucial. But the problem is that it is hard to quantify...so I'm not sure how we apply stat systems to context.

Anyhow, nice convo!

I know you’re not a stats absolutist either, I think the way we’re real fans is in getting absorbed in the craziness of matches that drives us insane. The bloody significance we put into these rich idiots is impossible to justify. Some day after a big match the missus will check my pulse and I’ll be gone!

But it’s great way to a spend time. I get as much from watching a great rally as I get from an amazing riff, or a powerful scene in a film. I think tennis can be that beautiful and I think we all share that, even if we all have differing ideas of beauty…

 

[El Dude]

I know you’re not a stats absolutist either, I think the way we’re real fans is in getting absorbed in the craziness of matches that drives us insane. The bloody significance we put into these rich idiots is impossible to justify. Some day after a big match the missus will check my pulse and I’ll be gone!

But it’s great way to a spend time. I get as much from watching a great rally as I get from an amazing riff, or a powerful scene in a film. I think tennis can be that beautiful and I think we all share that, even if we all have differing ideas of beauty…

Rich idiots, lol. I must say, tennis is a bit more relaxed for me now that Roger's done. I have players I like, but no one that grabs me in the same way...yet. Still trying to figure out who is my next guy. I mostly have a few kinda favorites, but no true favorite.

As I think I've said, I've always enjoyed a good Rafa-Novak final...not only is it more relaxing because I can just enjoy the tennis, but man those two going at it is like nothing the game has ever seen. I'll be sad when that's over.

 

[El Dude]

BTW, Ivan Lendl is up next...

The Tennis 128: No. 20, Ivan Lendl - Heavy Topspin

I’m counting down the 128 best players of the last century. Beware of GOATs. * * * Ivan Lendl [TCH/USA] Born: 7 March 1960 Career: 1978-94 Plays: Right-handed (one-handed backhand) Peak rank: 1 (1983) Peak Elo rating: 2,402 (1st place, 1986) Major singles titles: 8 Total singles titles: 94 * * *...

www.tennisabstract.com

Another interesting article.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I understand. But see above - "prestige" isn't synonymous with "greatness." They overlap quite a bit, but I don't equate the two. Prestige says, "One guy won the Slam, who cares about the other guys?" Greatness at least incorporates the fact that one guy went 7-0 and earned 2000 points, the other 6-1 and 1200 points, two others 5-1 and 720 points, etc. Prestige only cares about the trophy, but greatness recognizes that "720" is still meaningful.

Just nipping in for a second here. I still owe your conversation with Kieran a full read, but:

Sure 720 at a Major is meaningful, but even a bunch of them doesn't equate to winning a Major. I think that only factors into "greatness" when you have the Majors to add to significant SFs and QFs. The "prestige" wins are what matters. I wonder if "prestige" isn't too subjective a term. Sort of loaded. We already have "Majors" as a term. We know what the big titles are. Doesn't this go back to your potentially over-balancing Wimbledon? Or do you mean winning a Major against a really high-ranked opponent? If you're trying to keep it subjective, I think the word "prestige" is a problem. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[El Dude]

Just nipping in for a second here. I still owe your conversation with Kieran a full read, but:

Sure 720 at a Major is meaningful, but even a bunch of them doesn't equate to winning a Major. I think that only factors into "greatness" when you have the Majors to add to significant SFs and QFs. The "prestige" wins are what matters. I wonder if "prestige" isn't too subjective a term. Sort of loaded. We already have "Majors" as a term. We know what the big titles are. Doesn't this go back to your potentially over-balancing Wimbledon? Or do you mean winning a Major against a really high-ranked opponent? If you're trying to keep it subjective, I think the word "prestige" is a problem. Wouldn't you agree?

Well that's my point about "prestige." Wimbledon is slightly more prestigious than any other tournament, but not more important in terms of assessing greatness. In other words, it highlights the point I'm trying to make: that "prestige" and "greatness" aren't synonymous. The former is more a subjective designation of desirability and bragging rights (or "kudos") while the latter should be an as objective as possible measurement of greatness.

So I agree that twenty Slams SFs doesn't equate with one W, as far as prestige goes - or what the players want to accomplish. But in terms of assessing the relative greatness of two players? Well, one who reaches twenty SFs vs one who wins one but otherwise never reaches the second week of a Slam (aka, a "one Slam wonder")...the latter player has the prestigious trophy, but all other things being equal, the former is the greater player. For example, David Ferrer is a greater player than Gaston Gaudio, and it isn't particularly close.

 

[Moxie]

Well that's my point about "prestige." Wimbledon is slightly more prestigious than any other tournament, but not more important in terms of assessing greatness. In other words, it highlights the point I'm trying to make: that "prestige" and "greatness" aren't synonymous. The former is more a subjective designation of desirability and bragging rights (or "kudos") while the latter should be an as objective as possible measurement of greatness.

So I agree that twenty Slams SFs doesn't equate with one W, as far as prestige goes - or what the players want to accomplish. But in terms of assessing the relative greatness of two players? Well, one who reaches twenty SFs vs one who wins one but otherwise never reaches the second week of a Slam (aka, a "one Slam wonder")...the latter player has the prestigious trophy, but all other things being equal, the former is the greater player. For example, David Ferrer is a greater player than Gaston Gaudio, and it isn't particularly close.

OK, but Gaudio is a pretty bad example, you have to admit. He didn't even make the list, and everyone knows he flunked that RG. What about Juan Martin del Potro? He's 87 on the list, to Ferrer's 79. Or Marat Safin, with 2 Majors. He didn't make the list, either. I think some people might want to argue that Ferrer was a greater player than they were.

 

[El Dude]

OK, but Gaudio is a pretty bad example, you have to admit. He didn't even make the list, and everyone knows he flunked that RG. What about Juan Martin del Potro? He's 87 on the list, to Ferrer's 79. Or Marat Safin, with 2 Majors. He didn't make the list, either. I think some people might want to argue that Ferrer was a greater player than they were.

Those are examples of where I'd diverge from Sackmann -- I would rank Safin and Del Potro higher than Ferrer. On the other hand, I find it interesting how these sorts of systems (GP too) rank Ferrer higher, presumably because he was far more consistent.

Del Potro and Safin are great examples of how stats will never do their peak, on-court, level justice.

As for Gaudio, I think he's a great example, because he serves the point of how "prestige" and "greatness" are different. One-Slam wonders, in general. Or even comparing guys that just won a single Slam. Guys like Del Potro, Roddick, Moya, Noah, even Cilic, were far greater players than Gaudio - yet they all won the same number of Slams, or "gold medals."

Poor Gaudio - he's always used as an example of the quintessential flukey one-Slam wonder. But here's a fun fact: There are actually three guys in the Open Era with fewer GP that won Slams: Gaudio (29 GP), Thomas Johansson (25), Mark Edmondson (24), Brian Teacher (23). Pat Cash and Adrian Panatta (39 each) are the next group up, along with guys like Albert Costa, Carlos Alcaraz (so far), and Andres Gimeno (ignoring his Pro record).

Another way to look at that is that Alcaraz has already had a better career than Gaudio, Johansson, Edmondson, and Teacher.

Oh, the top GP for one-Slam winners: Roddick (169), Chang (153), Ivanisevic (125), Muster (123), Gerulaitis (120), Del Potro (110).

 

[Moxie]

Those are examples of where I'd diverge from Sackmann -- I would rank Safin and Del Potro higher than Ferrer. On the other hand, I find it interesting how these sorts of systems (GP too) rank Ferrer higher, presumably because he was far more consistent.

Del Potro and Safin are great examples of how stats will never do their peak, on-court, level justice.

I think we're all agreeing that any system that relies purely on stats is inherently flawed, and will eventually bump up against a perceived reality that everyone else would pretty much say is more true. But that's why you brought this here...so we could discuss. I still say Gaudio is a poor example, because he's an extreme example. Del Potro and Safin are better examples of why consistency isn't everything, which you agree with. However, if Gaudio is an example of one great big prize (prestige) v. consistency, I get why you like him as an example.

As for Gaudio, I think he's a great example, because he serves the point of how "prestige" and "greatness" are different.

I still owe some reading back to see how you're defining them. Sorry for the delay.

One-Slam wonders, in general. Or even comparing guys that just won a single Slam. Guys like Del Potro, Roddick, Moya, Noah, even Cilic, were far greater players than Gaudio - yet they all won the same number of Slams, or "gold medals."

Poor Gaudio - he's always used as an example of the quintessential flukey one-Slam wonder. But here's a fun fact: There are actually three guys in the Open Era with fewer GP that won Slams: Gaudio (29 GP), Thomas Johansson (25), Mark Edmondson (24), Brian Teacher (23). Pat Cash and Adrian Panatta (39 each) are the next group up, along with guys like Albert Costa, Carlos Alcaraz (so far), and Andres Gimeno (ignoring his Pro record).

Poor Gaudio, nothin'. You recently said when you started following tennis, and it was more recently than I had thought. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch that RG 2004 final v. Coria, and perhaps you never have. (It's hard to recommend, but I did watch it live.) Coria was the best clay-courter at that time and was hugely favored. Gaudio came out like a deer-in-the-headlights, and Coria was running all over him. Gaudio was 2 sets and I think a break down, when the French crowd did the "wave" to encourage him. He laughed, he relaxed, and he won the 3rd set. Then he started to play better, and Coria started to freak out that it was slipping away from him. They were both kind of head-cases, let's face it. But it started to be like watching a train wreck for Coria. Gaudio won it fair and square, but without crowd intervention you have to think it would have been over in straights. And the two of them basically imploded after that final. Did Gaudio "fluke" it? If you'd been watching, you'd have thought so.

Adriano Panatta is famous as the only guy who beat Borg at Roland Garros, and he did it twice, once to win the title. That is the only other equivalent to beating Nadal at Roland Garros and winning the title, which has only been done once, and it took about 17 years. Panatta beat Borg in the QFs in 1976, and held on to win the title. That's worth something.

I know nothing about Mark Edmondson or Brian Teacher, but I will tell you this about Thomas Johansson winning the 2002 Australian Open: he beat Marat Safin in the final, when Safin was pretty clearly indulging in too much extra-curricular activity. "The Safinettes" ring a bell? So, yeah, there is such a thing as winning a Major and not having much else to say for yourself. So, yes, you can prize consistency over a stroke of luck, but I think that puts Panatta too low.

Another way to look at that is that Alcaraz has already had a better career than Gaudio, Johansson, Edmondson, and Teacher.

Not surprising.

Oh, the top GP for one-Slam winners: Roddick (169), Chang (153), Ivanisevic (125), Muster (123), Gerulaitis (120), Del Potro (110).

Also not surprising, except, to me, Gerulaitis. For no good reason. I just thought he was flakier.

 

[El Dude]

I think we're all agreeing that any system that relies purely on stats is inherently flawed, and will eventually bump up against a perceived reality that everyone else would pretty much say is more true. But that's why you brought this here...so we could discuss. I still say Gaudio is a poor example, because he's an extreme example. Del Potro and Safin are better examples of why consistency isn't everything, which you agree with. However, if Gaudio is an example of one great big prize (prestige) v. consistency, I get why you like him as an example.

I still owe some reading back to see how you're defining them. Sorry for the delay.

Poor Gaudio, nothin'. You recently said when you started following tennis, and it was more recently than I had thought. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch that RG 2004 final v. Coria, and perhaps you never have. (It's hard to recommend, but I did watch it live.) Coria was the best clay-courter at that time and was hugely favored. Gaudio came out like a deer-in-the-headlights, and Coria was running all over him. Gaudio was 2 sets and I think a break down, when the French crowd did the "wave" to encourage him. He laughed, he relaxed, and he won the 3rd set. Then he started to play better, and Coria started to freak out that it was slipping away from him. They were both kind of head-cases, let's face it. But it started to be like watching a train wreck for Coria. Gaudio won it fair and square, but without crowd intervention you have to think it would have been over in straights. And the two of them basically imploded after that final. Did Gaudio "fluke" it? If you'd been watching, you'd have thought so.

Adriano Panatta is famous as the only guy who beat Borg at Roland Garros, and he did it twice, once to win the title. That is the only other equivalent to beating Nadal at Roland Garros and winning the title, which has only been done once, and it took about 17 years. Panatta beat Borg in the QFs in 1976, and held on to win the title. That's worth something.

I know nothing about Mark Edmondson or Brian Teacher, but I will tell you this about Thomas Johansson winning the 2002 Australian Open: he beat Marat Safin in the final, when Safin was pretty clearly indulging in too much extra-curricular activity. "The Safinettes" ring a bell? So, yeah, there is such a thing as winning a Major and not having much else to say for yourself. So, yes, you can prize consistency over a stroke of luck, but I think that puts Panatta too low.


Not surprising.

Also not surprising, except, to me, Gerulaitis. For no good reason. I just thought he was flakier.

Gerulaitis had a relatively long career, and a very strong period of about ten years in the top 20, five or six of which he was mostly in the top 5. 26 titles, a Slam, WCT title, 4 Masters.

I only meant "poor Gaudio" because he's the quintessential one-Slam wonder. But yeah, even poorer Coria! What a sad career arc. Even if Rafa hadn't come along, he didn't seem to have the mentality to win the big ones.

 

[El Dude]

A couple more men added - some old-timers. That leaves Tilden, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic unaccounted for.

4. Tilden
5. Nadal
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Rosewall
9. Gonzales
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

 

[El Dude]

Mac is on the board. Borg and Tilden are almost certainly up next.

Oh, and any more gripes about Mac over Pete? ;-) Seriously, though, I can only assume this is the result of his Elo formula, and perhaps heavy weight on a player's peak year - Mac's 1984 was better than any season by Sampras by a good margin, and among the four best ever (along with Laver 69, Roger 06, Novak 15).

 

[El Dude]

Borg's up next:

The Tennis 128: No. 12, Björn Borg - Heavy Topspin

I’m counting down the 128 best players of the last century. Hope I didn't forget anybody... * * * Björn Borg [SWE] Born: 6 June 1956 Career: 1972-81 Plays: Right-handed (two-handed backhand) Peak rank: 1 (1977) Peak Elo rating: 2,473 (1st place, 1980) Major singles titles: 11 Total singles...

www.tennisabstract.com

 

[El Dude]

Reading through the Borg entry I'm struck by how the myth of Borg playing beyond 1981 is just that...a myth. The Laver quote says a lot:

Back in 1974, Laver got his first good look at the intensity that Borg brought to every point of every match that the 17-year-old played. “If you play this hard,” warned the Rocket, “your mind will be drained, you’ll burn out in seven years.”

It reminds me of the myth of a "healthier Rafa." A healthier Rafa would be a less intense and physical Rafa, and thus a lesser player. There's something similar with Roger, and how "if only he played to his peak level more, he'd have been unbeatable." Or some such that I occasionally hear from diehard Roger fans.

The point being, what we consider the flaws of our favorite players are often (always?) the flip-side of their strengths. And more so, imagining them without those flaws is somewhat of an impossibility - a myth (in the lesser, non-Campbellian sense of the word). Borg was amazing for seven years, but couldn't possibly sustain that for 10-15 -- not at the level that made him amazing. Maybe he could have taken a long vacation in 1982 and come back refreshed...but even then, could he have played at the same level as he did before? Could he have kept pace with Mac and Lendl, or Wilander? I'm not so sure. The What If scenario seems based on an assumption that probably isn't true.

 

[El Dude]

The last few paragraphs are really worth reading, and show how Borg was, in some ways, the "father of modern tennis":

Borg arrived on tour as one of the fittest guys around, the player willing to practice more than anyone else. By the time he quit, Vilas was suffering through even more brutal sessions, and Lendl was organizing his life around tennis with a single-mindedness that surpassed the Swede’s.

That level of intensity, on and off the court, would eventually come to define men’s tennis. As late as the Pete Sampras era, top players would talk about coasting on some points to save energy for others. You don’t hear that much anymore. No one presaged the first-ball-to-last-ball pressure of Rafael Nadal–or David Ferrer for that matter–more than Borg.

In 1983, Vitas Gerulaitis lamented the increasing homogeneity of the tour. “In five years tennis is going to be very boring,” he told journalist Michael Mewshaw. “We’ll have a draw with 128 Borgs.”

I’m not sure what Vitas would think of the game in 2022. There is certainly less variety than there was back when he was challenging the original Big Three of Borg, McEnroe, and Connors. The preferred tactics these days are absolutely more Björn than Johnny Mac. The standard of play–especially among the rank and file–has risen enormously as well. Even the men who skimp on topspin or cling to a one-handed backhand have, in their match preparation and their on-court demeanor, become more like the Swede.

A draw of 128 Borgs? We’re not quite there yet, but Björn, more than any player of his era, offered a glimpse of the future.