Tennis Abstract's top 128 Players

[Moxie]

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.”

There's a lot of "myth" to Bjorn Borg. But if he pops up at #12 based on the ELO, he's not ALL myth, right? Before we go any further, I will say again that Borg was the guy that brought me to real tennis fandom. Come for the teen idol, stay for the tennis. So prejudice is involved here. That's my caveat.

I will counter what Laver said with the point that, neither Laver nor anyone had seen anyone as intense and committed to tennis as Borg was. Of course Laver figured that intensity would burn itself out. They were used to playing more of a club game. Players drank and smoked, including on court. I would venture to argue that Borg, aside from everything else he did for tennis, he made it a real sport. As Martina did, when she got more fit and forced Chrissie to. Same era.

There are reasons that Borg burned out, and it's not just intensity on the court, as Laver claimed. It was surely that he was, as the author claims, that he was The Beatles of tennis. Plus, there was, surely, partying and cocaine. Note how the post on Borg says that NY was so hard for him to stay focused compared to when he played European events. #studio54 Anyway, it was a lot to deal with, and players now how more people to protect them.

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.

I get the endless question about Nadal: if he didn't play so hard, he wouldn't get hurt as much. But then, would he have won as much? The comparisons with Borg have long been made, for many reasons, most notably the predictions of the shortened career. Note in the article about Borg that they said he was pretty beat up by the USO. As was McEnroe. That's why many thought Nadal would never win the USO. Another thing we get from Rafa detractors is that Rafa plays slow, and they call it gamesmanship, even though they're willing to agree that he is one of the most intense players ever, and that his mental ability to stay "present" is one of his gifts. IMO, if you agree with the ability to focus, you have to accept the OCD part. It's part and parcel of the whole thing.

As to Roger playing more at peak level, I see that as a different complaint. If he could have played at his top level all the time, he would have. That isn't the same as saying if Rafa had been less injured, meaning if he had played a less-physical game, or with less intensity, he might have been a very or completely different player. I'm still not that person who will "blame" Rafa for his injuries. He's less lucky, physically, than his compatriots in the Big 3, and that started before he ever won a Major. Roger and Novak have had very little to complain about, in their long tennis careers, physically. You can say it's their game, but it's also luck. Anyone can roll an ankle, get an appendicitis, or have a car accident, or get mono. Lucky for them that none of those things every happened.

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.

I think what Borg couldn't sustain was a life-lesson for the players who came after him. As you say, and the guy we're following here says: he led the way for what was to come. It wasn't easy on him to be the first. He DID try to take a break and come back. With his wooden racquet (Don't forget that was another part of the tennis era that he was overcoming.) If you ask me, Borg might have lasted if he'd stayed in. He needed, and he took a break at the wrong time. Tennis passed him by really quickly.

As much as I love and loved him, I'm still going to ask the hive mind here: Should he be #12? Is it more myth than substance?

 

[El Dude]

By "myth" I don't mean that he wasn't great, but that the What If story is largely a myth, based upon a hypothesis that may not hold water: That if Borg had kept playing, he would have kept winning at a similar pace.

. Borg's ranking is just fine - but it is based upon what he accomplished, which was substantial. But I think to look at 11 Slams through age 24 and expect a ton more is conjecture that, upon deeper analysis--including Laver's accurate prediction of burnout (as well as your excellent point about the changing nature of the sport at that time)--might be incorrect.

That said, I suspect that if he had taken a short hiatus and come back refreshed, say, in Roland Garros 1982, he might have won two or three more Slams. But probably not more than that, for a variety of reasons: the changing sport, the rise of McEnroe and Lendl, the emergence of Wilander, and more to the point I was making, the hypothesis that Borg could have re-discovered his intensity that made him so good for those previous seven years. Of course we'll never know.

My point in comparison to Nadal and Federer, is the idea of changing one thing about a player in isolation with the total package. We can't just imagine a context-free adjustment without considering how it might impact other elements of a player's game and career.

To me the more valid What If, as Sackmann points out in the next installment, is Monica Seles. She's the one who really could have become the undisputed GOAT of women's tennis if not for tragedy--or at least made the Big Four of Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena a Big Five. Meaning, I think there is more basis to imagine the trajectory of her career without the stabbing. Unlike Borg (or other players), there is a clear and isolatable incident that impacted her career in a hugely negative way.

 

[Moxie]

By "myth" I don't mean that he wasn't great, but that the What If story is largely a myth, based upon a hypothesis that may not hold water: That if Borg had kept playing, he would have kept winning at a similar pace.

Borg's ranking is just fine - but it is based upon what he accomplished, which was substantial. But I think to look at 11 Slams through age 24 and expect a ton more is conjecture that, upon deeper analysis--including Laver's accurate prediction of burnout (as well as your excellent point about the changing nature of the sport at that time)--might be incorrect.

That said, I suspect that if he had taken a short hiatus and come back refreshed, say, in Roland Garros 1982, he might have won two or three more Slams. But probably not more than that, for a variety of reasons: the changing sport, the rise of McEnroe and Lendl, the emergence of Wilander, and more to the point I was making, the hypothesis that Borg could have re-discovered his intensity that made him so good for those previous seven years. Of course we'll never know.

I think we mean the same thing by the "myth" of Borg. It's the "what ifs" of the after he abdicated. But if you say he's right there with the ELO, I'm good with that. He was a magnificent champion, and a game-changer in many ways. My first favorite. I have no complaints.

I totally agree with you that things might have been different if he'd taken a short hiatus. We'll never know, but if he had rather stayed more in the game, he might also have embraced the new graphite racquets, rather than coming back so much later, and insisting on his old wooden stick. But I agree with you that 2-3 more slams was not outrageous to have expected. He was still young, and very fit, if he'd have had the will to stick with the game.

My point in comparison to Nadal and Federer, is the idea of changing one thing about a player in isolation with the total package. We can't just imagine a context-free adjustment without considering how it might impact other elements of a player's game and career.

Completely agree with this.

To me the more valid What If, as Sackmann points out in the next installment, is Monica Seles. She's the one who really could have become the undisputed GOAT of women's tennis if not for tragedy--or at least made the Big Four of Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena a Big Five. Meaning, I think there is more basis to imagine the trajectory of her career without the stabbing. Unlike Borg (or other players), there is a clear and isolatable incident that impacted her career in a hugely negative way.

This is a very interesting point about Seles, and a unique one, because what caused the disruption in her career was not of her choosing. It was a completely inorganic event. No matter what we wonder about Borg, he chose to walk away. Seles did not choose her path, and her career was on a clear upward trajectory. If it's fair to project "what ifs" on anyone, it's on Seles.

 

[El Dude]

I think we mean the same thing by the "myth" of Borg. It's the "what ifs" of the after he abdicated. But if you say he's right there with the ELO, I'm good with that. He was a magnificent champion, and a game-changer in many ways. My first favorite. I have no complaints.

I totally agree with you that things might have been different if he'd taken a short hiatus. We'll never know, but if he had rather stayed more in the game, he might also have embraced the new graphite racquets, rather than coming back so much later, and insisting on his old wooden stick. But I agree with you that 2-3 more slams was not outrageous to have expected. He was still young, and very fit, if he'd have had the will to stick with the game.

Completely agree with this.

This is a very interesting point about Seles, and a unique one, because what caused the disruption in her career was not of her choosing. It was a completely inorganic event. No matter what we wonder about Borg, he chose to walk away. Seles did not choose her path, and her career was on a clear upward trajectory. If it's fair to project "what ifs" on anyone, it's on Seles.

As a little aside, Borg's highest Elo - according to Sackmann's stat site - is indeed among the very highest. His two best seasons, 1980 and '79, are 3rd and 4th highest of the ATP era (1973-2022)...only Novak's 2015 and Mac's 1984 are higher, and just barely.

Still not sure what I think about Elo, to be honest, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Wander]

As a little aside, Borg's highest Elo - according to Sackmann's stat site - is indeed among the very highest. His two best seasons, 1980 and '79, are 3rd and 4th highest of the ATP era (1973-2022)...only Novak's 2015 and Mac's 1984 are higher, and just barely.

Still not sure what I think about Elo, to be honest, but that's a different discussion.

If you look at the Tennis 128 articles that actually have the mid-season peak Elo ratings, Borg did in fact have a higher absolute peak Elo than McEnroe (2473 vs 2442). The problem for Borg with the year end numbers is that his second halfs of seasons tended to be a bit weaker than the first halfs, Rafael Nadal-style if you like. In 1980 - when Borg achieved his highest Elo rating - five of his six losses of the season came after Wimbledon, losing him 45 Elo points in the process.

Chris Evert was just revealed as the #8.

 

[El Dude]

Some folks won't like this, but Rafa is up next: https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/

I can only assume that he's ranked lower than Novak and Roger because his Elo ratings aren't quite as good, according to Tennis Abstract's formula. Rafa's best seasonal Elo is 2312 in 2013, compared to Roger's at 2361 in 2006 and Novak's 2435 in 2015 (which is also the best ever). Furthermore, Rafa only led the ATP in Elo three times compared to Roger eight times and Novak nine times.

Hey, don't kill the messenger

 

[El Dude]

My guess is that the final four, in order, will be:

1. Djokovic
2. Laver
3. Federer
4. Tilden

But we shall see...

 

[Moxie]

Some folks won't like this, but Rafa is up next: https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/

I can only assume that he's ranked lower than Novak and Roger because his Elo ratings aren't quite as good, according to Tennis Abstract's formula. Rafa's best seasonal Elo is 2312 in 2013, compared to Roger's at 2361 in 2006 and Novak's 2435 in 2015 (which is also the best ever). Furthermore, Rafa only led the ATP in Elo three times compared to Roger eight times and Novak nine times.

Hey, don't kill the messenger

Nobody even tried to kill the messenger. But Bill Tilden, over Rafa...seriously? He died in 1953. Who alive even watched him play? This from wikipedia:
Tilden often is considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[26]


Bill Tilden in 1919
Allison Danzig, the main tennis writer for The New York Times from 1923 through 1968, and the editor of The Fireside Book of Tennis, called Tilden the greatest tennis player he had ever seen. "He could run like a deer," (EDIT: Where have I heard that before?)

Danzig once told CBS Sports. An extended Danzig encomium to Tilden's tennis appears in the July 11, 1946 issue of The Times, in which he reports on a 1920s-evoking performance in the first two sets of a five-set loss by the 53-year-old Tilden to Wayne Sabin, at the 1946 Professional Championship at Forest Hills.[27]

In 1975, Don Budge ranked his top five players of all time and rated Tilden number four behind Vines, Kramer and Perry.[28]

In his 1979 autobiography, Jack Kramer, the long-time tennis promoter and great player, included Tilden in his list of the six greatest players of all time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilden#cite_note-kramer-30Kramer began playing tennis with Tilden at age 15 at the Los Angeles Tennis Club (LATC).

In 1983, Fred Perry ranked the greatest male players of all time and put them in to two categories, before World War 2 and after. Perry ranked Tilden number one in the pre-World War 2 list.[29]

In the early years of the 21st century, Sidney Wood compiled his list of the Greatest Players of All Time (later published posthumously in a memoir "The Wimbledon final that never was and other tennis tales from a bygone era"). Wood first entered Wimbledon in 1927 and won the title in 1931. "From that time on, through to the late 1970s (doubles only towards the end), I was privileged to compete against virtually every top player in the world" said Wood. Wood ranked Tilden number three, behind Budge and Kramer.[30]


Bill Tilden at the 1921 World Hard Court Championships in Paris

In the United States' sports-mad decade of the Roaring Twenties, Tilden was one of the six dominant figures of the "Golden Age of Sport", along with Babe Ruth, Howie Morenz, Red Grange, Bobby Jones, and Jack Dempsey.[34]

It's all very nice, but really? I've said before that you can't make a formula that really tells you everything about the best in sports, or basically anything. But seriously, why would Tilden, in 2023, even be in the top 10? I get it that Laver is complicated to place, but Tilden? I suppose it might not be Tilden, but who's left? And if he's above Nadal, I would have to wash my hands.

 

[El Dude]

It's all very nice, but really? I've said before that you can't make a formula that really tells you everything about the best in sports, or basically anything. But seriously, why would Tilden, in 2023, even be in the top 10? I get it that Laver is complicated to place, but Tilden? I suppose it might not be Tilden, but who's left? And if he's above Nadal, I would have to wash my hands.

Why wouldn't he? He was one of the most dominant players ever - either the best or among the best for two decades. Why should only recent player be considered the greatest? The point of such lists is not to imagine an artificial scenario in which TIlden c. 1930 plays Rafa c. 2010, but to consider how they performed in the context within which the played.

Or as Sackmann said in his intro:

In general, I follow Roger Federer’s edict that you can only compare players to their own eras. Objectively speaking, today’s players are better than those of the past. They take advantage of personalized training and nutrition, technologically advanced rackets and strings, high-quality coaching from younger ages, and all the tactical knowledge developed by their predecessors. In that sense, Novak Djokovic is unquestionably better than Bill Tilden, and so is Adrian Mannarino. That’s not a very interesting way of approaching the problem, though. The Tennis 128 reflects the fact that there have been strong eras and weak eras, but the ultimate test of any player is how they performed against their peers.

Makes sense to me - but that's always how I've approached the issue.

p.s. I'd still rank Rafa higher, though! But I've always included Tilden in my "herd of GOATs."

 

[Wander]

Also, let's consider the fact that Rafa's career is not yet over while Tilden played at a high level into his 50s, and in his late 40s could still occasionally upset the best players in the world. The fact that he had more longevity than basically anyone else ever probably helped him be pushed ahead of Nadal on this formula.

I believe Jeff said in a recent podcast talking about this project that someone in the top 10 was so close to the player ahead of them that a different result at the US Open this year could've resulted in them swapping places. Sounds to me like he meant exactly the Tilden-Nadal pairing.

 

[El Dude]

Also, let's consider the fact that Rafa's career is not yet over while Tilden played at a high level into his 50s, and in his late 40s could still occasionally upset the best players in the world. The fact that he had more longevity than basically anyone else ever probably helped him be pushed ahead of Nadal on this formula.

I believe Jeff said in a recent podcast talking about this project that someone in the top 10 was so close to the player ahead of them that a different result at the US Open this year could've resulted in them swapping places. Sounds to me like he meant exactly the Tilden-Nadal pairing.

That's interesting, and yet again makes me wonder what his determining formula is. But it does sound like that if Rafa wins another Slam, Sackmann will push him past Tilden.

This highlights, again, one of the main problems with ranking players in terms of greatness: how to balance peak and career. We can see this in comparing Serena vs. Graf. Graf was far more consistently dominant during her career, and took only 13 years to accumulate her 22 Slams, while Serena took 19 years to get to 23, and was up and down through her career. In some ways Serena's career is more impressive, because it means she was good enough to win a Slam over the course of a 19-year span, while Steffi was essentially done before she was 30 (and her last Slam was sort of a dead-cat bounce, like Pete's...she was essentially done as a great player at 27, after 1996). On the other, it also implies a less dominant player: someone who was great for two decades, but with less sustained "super-greatness."

If we take an accumulative-only approach, we end up with lists like GOAT Points, which ranks Connors and Lendl higher than Sampras and Borg (on the other hand, Elo likes Connors and Lendl better than Sampras, who was likely hampered by his weakness on clay and the relative lack of other all-time greats in the latter half of his career).

It is also presumably why Sackmann ranks Borg and McEnroe so high: their peak level was about as good as anyone's ever has been, even though both had relatively short prime careers (After 1985, Mac fell off sharply).

 

[Wander]

That's interesting, and yet again makes me wonder what his determining formula is. But it does sound like that if Rafa wins another Slam, Sackmann will push him past Tilden.

He does outline his determining formula in the introduction. 1/3 of the formula is just the absolute peak Elo rating. 1/3 is the average of best 5 seasons. And finally 1/3 is the entire career (ignoring any years under a certain Elo threshold to not punish anyone for hanging around too long or whatnot). So the formula ends up being relatively "peak-centric" because two thirds of it look at only a span of 5 years or less. This is also why Maureen Connolly, Alice Marble and some others with short careers end up higher than they would with purely cumulative formulas.

 

[El Dude]

He does outline his determining formula in the introduction. 1/3 of the formula is just the absolute peak Elo rating. 1/3 is the average of best 5 seasons. And finally 1/3 is the entire career (ignoring any years under a certain Elo threshold to not punish anyone for hanging around too long or whatnot). So the formula ends up being relatively "peak-centric" because two thirds of it look at only a span of 5 years or less. This is also why Maureen Connolly, Alice Marble and some others with short careers end up higher than they would with purely cumulative formulas.

Oh, thanks - I must have missed him breaking it down like that.

I actually like that balance of peak and career and do something similar with some of my formulas. But I also like to look at actual titles and Slam results as well, as well as traditional rankings, which he seems to ignore in favor of Elo-only.

My main problem with his approach is that it somewhat penalizes players like Rafa and Sampras - great competitors, but who specific challenges that brought their Elo down. Rafa is noteworthy because his best Elo seasons are way down the list and he only led the ATP twice, vs. eight times by Federer, nine by Novak.

So for me, Elo should be balanced with traditional rankings, and overall career with peak.

 

[Moxie]

Why wouldn't he? He was one of the most dominant players ever - either the best or among the best for two decades. Why should only recent player be considered the greatest? The point of such lists is not to imagine an artificial scenario in which TIlden c. 1930 plays Rafa c. 2010, but to consider how they performed in the context within which the played.

Or as Sackmann said in his intro:

In general, I follow Roger Federer’s edict that you can only compare players to their own eras. Objectively speaking, today’s players are better than those of the past. They take advantage of personalized training and nutrition, technologically advanced rackets and strings, high-quality coaching from younger ages, and all the tactical knowledge developed by their predecessors. In that sense, Novak Djokovic is unquestionably better than Bill Tilden, and so is Adrian Mannarino. That’s not a very interesting way of approaching the problem, though. The Tennis 128 reflects the fact that there have been strong eras and weak eras, but the ultimate test of any player is how they performed against their peers.

Makes sense to me - but that's always how I've approached the issue.

p.s. I'd still rank Rafa higher, though! But I've always included Tilden in my "herd of GOATs."

Here's my problem with the "ancients," and Tilden is one. And you know this isn't about being a disgruntled Rafa fan, because I've asked you this question before. One is that we mostly only have second-hand accounts as to their greatness, in terms of the eye-test. I know that's not part of this set of criteria, and there are a few films from the old days. And Bill does look very great, especially as he's playing practically in street clothes.



But the other is, how stiff was the competition, really? I know you can only play who is on offer, but Tilden, clearly a great athlete and big tennis IQ, didn't even really play tennis until about aged 19-20. He started practicing against a backboard at 17. What does that say about the competition? Only a few countries really played seriously. And the game was divided between amateur and professional, so he only played half the competition (more or less) at any one time. He played Bill Johnson quite a few times in finals, and look at the flags.

More than a few people have argued that Sackmann shouldn't lump men and women together. I'd argue you'd also be better served not lumping really pre-Open era oldsters with today's game.

Your quote above of Roger's, that you can only compare players in their eras, is something I have always been in favor of. And even that is complicated, because not every group is born, or peaks, at exactly the same time. But there are far fewer variables. What might be interesting would be to rank players by eras and rank eras.

You said something about if I only would say that modern era players are better. I think no one disagrees with that. And I have no problem rehabilitating and recognizing Bill Tilden. BUT, at a certain point I feel we're comparing so much apples to oranges that I can't really buy into it. Laver I get. He straddled the pro-Am and Open eras, and acquitted himself like no one else. Plus, some of us even remember watching him play.

You like to compare things to baseball. I see that ESPN puts Babe Ruth at #1 of greatest of all time. I have no idea of the criteria. Sure, why not? But are you happy with that one? Fat, cigar-smoking heavy drinker who played in the segregated days? Well-deserved? Or more myth than truth? Apples to oranges?

 

[El Dude]

Here's my problem with the "ancients," and Tilden is one. And you know this isn't about being a disgruntled Rafa fan, because I've asked you this question before. One is that we mostly only have second-hand accounts as to their greatness, in terms of the eye-test. I know that's not part of this set of criteria, and there are a few films from the old days. And Bill does look very great, especially as he's playing practically in street clothes.



But the other is, how stiff was the competition, really? I know you can only play who is on offer, but Tilden, clearly a great athlete and big tennis IQ, didn't even really play tennis until about aged 19-20. He started practicing against a backboard at 17. What does that say about the competition? Only a few countries really played seriously. And the game was divided between amateur and professional, so he only played half the competition (more or less) at any one time. He played Bill Johnson quite a few times in finals, and look at the flags.

View attachment 7377
More than a few people have argued that Sackmann shouldn't lump men and women together. I'd argue you'd also be better served not lumping really pre-Open era oldsters with today's game.

Your quote above of Roger's, that you can only compare players in their eras, is something I have always been in favor of. And even that is complicated, because not every group is born, or peaks, at exactly the same time. But there are far fewer variables. What might be interesting would be to rank players by eras and rank eras.

You said something about if I only would say that modern era players are better. I think no one disagrees with that. And I have no problem rehabilitating and recognizing Bill Tilden. BUT, at a certain point I feel we're comparing so much apples to oranges that I can't really buy into it. Laver I get. He straddled the pro-Am and Open eras, and acquitted himself like no one else. Plus, some of us even remember watching him play.

You like to compare things to baseball. I see that ESPN puts Babe Ruth at #1 of greatest of all time. I have no idea of the criteria. Sure, why not? But are you happy with that one? Fat, cigar-smoking heavy drinker who played in the segregated days? Well-deserved? Or more myth than truth? Apples to oranges?

Well yes, I'm perfectly fine with Ruth being #1, because he was the most dominant player of all time, relative to his peers - at least for an extended period of time (a few others have been similarly dominant, but no one for as long and as consistently as Ruth). That informs why I'm fine with Tilden being top 10 all-time (among men). His dominance--relative to the time he played in--is consistent with one of the 5 or 10 greatest of all time.

Maybe we can differentiate between "greatness" and "skillfulness." Players have become more and more skillful over time, but greatness is something a bit different.

I think you are partially leaning into the notion of comparing players to their peers, but not fully (enough for my tastes). You seem to default back to a variation of, "But modern players are so much better," which is understandable because they are likely more skillful, but I feel is an unfair and impossible comparison.

Again, the view that Federer, Sackmann, and myself share is that you can only compare players relative to their peers - and the further you move away (forward or back), the harder it is to compare. But you can compare how dominant one player (say, Tilden) was relative to the context he played, to how dominant another (say, Sampras) was relative to the context he played in. Sackmann believes Tilden was more dominant than Sampras, based upon his methodology, but it doesn't mean he think he's more skillful. I think he'd be the first to say that a time-traveling Sampras would squash Tilden like a bug (well, if he could take a racket with him or adjust to the old wooden ones...and just imagine Pete in white slacks and a sweater vest).

I don't know about Federer, but Sackmann and I both feel (as far as I can tell) that while no ranking can ever be objectively absolute, you can still make a go of it - if only for gits and shiggles. You can make an informed estimate.

What I don't understand is that if he's using Elo only, how is he ranking guys like Tilden, for whom there is no Elo data? At least none on his own stat site. Is he estimating, and how is he doing that? Maybe he's got the data but isn't publishing it? I know Tennis Base has tons of pre-Open Era data...it is the only site, I believe, that actually has complete(ish) pre-Open Era records. I've tried to find data on tournaments and it is just so damn hard...even for the WTA of the first couple decades of the Open Era...it is very hard to differentiate levels of tournaments, and some results are missing and seemingly unavailable. I found this out when I was trying to do one of my graphs for Navratilova and Evert, and it was hard to discern which tournaments were Masters equivalent, ATP 500, etc. Even the 90s is a bit dicey...the WTA tournament scheme was a mess until recently, and changing frequently.

 

[Wander]

Well yes, I'm perfectly fine with Ruth being #1, because he was the most dominant player of all time, relative to his peers - at least for an extended period of time (a few others have been similarly dominant, but no one for as long and as consistently as Ruth). That informs why I'm fine with Tilden being top 10 all-time (among men). His dominance--relative to the time he played in--is consistent with one of the 5 or 10 greatest of all time.

Maybe we can differentiate between "greatness" and "skillfulness." Players have become more and more skillful over time, but greatness is something a bit different.

I think you are partially leaning into the notion of comparing players to their peers, but not fully (enough for my tastes). You seem to default back to a variation of, "But modern players are so much better," which is understandable because they are likely more skillful, but I feel is an unfair and impossible comparison.

Again, the view that Federer, Sackmann, and myself share is that you can only compare players relative to their peers - and the further you move away (forward or back), the harder it is to compare. But you can compare how dominant one player (say, Tilden) was relative to the context he played, to how dominant another (say, Sampras) was relative to the context he played in. Sackmann believes Tilden was more dominant than Sampras, based upon his methodology, but it doesn't mean he think he's more skillful. I think he'd be the first to say that a time-traveling Sampras would squash Tilden like a bug (well, if he could take a racket with him or adjust to the old wooden ones...and just imagine Pete in white slacks and a sweater vest).

I don't know about Federer, but Sackmann and I both feel (as far as I can tell) that while no ranking can ever be objectively absolute, you can still make a go of it - if only for gits and shiggles. You can make an informed estimate.

What I don't understand is that if he's using Elo only, how is he ranking guys like Tilden, for whom there is no Elo data? At least none on his own stat site. Is he estimating, and how is he doing that? Maybe he's got the data but isn't publishing it? I know Tennis Base has tons of pre-Open Era data...it is the only site, I believe, that actually has complete(ish) pre-Open Era records. I've tried to find data on tournaments and it is just so damn hard...even for the WTA of the first couple decades of the Open Era...it is very hard to differentiate levels of tournaments, and some results are missing and seemingly unavailable. I found this out when I was trying to do one of my graphs for Navratilova and Evert, and it was hard to discern which tournaments were Masters equivalent, ATP 500, etc. Even the 90s is a bit dicey...the WTA tournament scheme was a mess until recently, and changing frequently.

Jeff does have the Elo data for the men that was used in creating these rankings but it's not currently on his site for all the old players because it's incomplete. Some series of matches from pre-open pro era in particular were still missing from his database. The women's side currently has the Elo ratings because I believe he had a major update in the women's match database recently that inspired him to start this project. I've emailed with Jeff a little bit so I know he intends to update the project and the rankings in case any added data changes anything.

 

[Kieran]

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.

No need to bring Rafa into an entry about Borg, brother. Bjorn’s myth is like the myth of Schubert and Lord Byron - that they lived so full and left so much, then died so young. He never grew old in tennis. We didn’t see Bjorn with a Bobby Charlton hairstyle in his early thirties, bandaged knees and gaunt eyes, using old man tricks to defang an impertinent young rat. It’s an absence from his repertoire, but not one that really detracts from his reputation. The legend of the youthful tragic genius is its own reward. We need at least one in tennis, and yeah, I know he actually did play in 1983 and 1991, but somehow this only adds to his myth, it doesn’t detract from it, and I can only think that this is because his impact was so pervasive. He was a first generation professional, a different creature to the old amateur game inhabitants, he was sleek and futuristic. One of the greatest of all time, and certainly the most iconic of all time.

As for wondering whether he could have played longer, well Rafa has played long, and with a more savage intensity. We’ll never know, but we can’t disregard it. I’m sure Bjorn has often regretted his decision to leave, but I think his goal was to win the CYGS, become the best of all time, and that became less likely once McEnroe peaked and Lendl served notice at Paris in 1981, and the work he put in was too great for him to be satisfied with occasional victories. He might have been wrong in this, by the way, but we’ll never know.

I don’t know what the “myth of a healthier Rafa” even means. You’re suggesting that if he’d been healthier he’d have been less intense? This is pseudo-science bro. Next you’ll need telling me the vaccine I was jabbed with will last a lifetime, that it’ll stop the spread, that it’ll keep me safe..

 

[El Dude]

No need to bring Rafa into an entry about Borg, brother. Bjorn’s myth is like the myth of Schubert and Lord Byron - that they lived so full and left so much, then died so young. He never grew old in tennis. We didn’t see Bjorn with a Bobby Charlton hairstyle in his early thirties, bandaged knees and gaunt eyes, using old man tricks to defang an impertinent young rat. It’s an absence from his repertoire, but not one that really detracts from his reputation. The legend of the youthful tragic genius is its own reward. We need at least one in tennis, and yeah, I know he actually did play in 1983 and 1991, but somehow this only adds to his myth, it doesn’t detract from it, and I can only think that this is because his impact was so pervasive. He was a first generation professional, a different creature to the old amateur game inhabitants, he was sleek and futuristic. One of the greatest of all time, and certainly the most iconic of all time.

As for wondering whether he could have played longer, well Rafa has played long, and with a more savage intensity. We’ll never know, but we can’t disregard it. I’m sure Bjorn has often regretted his decision to leave, but I think his goal was to win the CYGS, become the best of all time, and that became less likely once McEnroe peaked and Lendl served notice at Paris in 1981, and the work he put in was too great for him to be satisfied with occasional victories. He might have been wrong in this, by the way, but we’ll never know.

I don’t know what the “myth of a healthier Rafa” even means. You’re suggesting that if he’d been healthier he’d have been less intense? This is pseudo-science bro. Next you’ll need telling me the vaccine I was jabbed with will last a lifetime, that it’ll stop the spread, that it’ll keep me safe..

Good stuff on Borg.

Funny how you get defensive about Rafa, when I also mentioned Roger. My mention of them is that fans often speak of more ideal circumstances in which they would have been hypothetically even better or more accomplished. My point is that we just don't know how any changes would have impacted them...like a game of pick-up sticks, you move one, and a bunch of others move as well.

So I find it more pseudo-science to imagine a more perfect Rafa or Roger, without the downsides...so a healthier Rafa that could still play as intensely, but without injury, or a fiercer Roger that didn't blow matches like 2019 Wimbledon. They're myths - like envisioning a Sampras that was good on clay, or imagining Borg re-finding his mojo and having another run like 78-80. I mean, it could have happened, but we'll never know.

 

[El Dude]

Jeff does have the Elo data for the men that was used in creating these rankings but it's not currently on his site for all the old players because it's incomplete. Some series of matches from pre-open pro era in particular were still missing from his database. The women's side currently has the Elo ratings because I believe he had a major update in the women's match database recently that inspired him to start this project. I've emailed with Jeff a little bit so I know he intends to update the project and the rankings in case any added data changes anything.

Thanks. Do you know how his Elo differs from UTS? I know his numbers are lower, but was wondering how they differed in terms of calculations. They do yield some interesting differences, for instance:

Sackmann has Agassi #1 in 1999 and Safin #1 in 2000, but UTS has Sampras #1 both years. Both have Agassi #1 in 1995.

Both have Roger #1 2003-07, and 2009-10, but Sackmann has Novak #1 in 2017 (???) and UTS has Roger #1 in 2017 (makes more sense).

In some cases I find myself agreeing more with Sackmann, others UTS.

 

[Kieran]

Good stuff on Borg.

Funny how you get defensive about Rafa, when I also mentioned Roger. My mention of them is that fans often speak of more ideal circumstances in which they would have been hypothetically even better or more accomplished. My point is that we just don't know how any changes would have impacted them...like a game of pick-up sticks, you move one, and a bunch of others move as well.

So I find it more pseudo-science to imagine a more perfect Rafa or Roger, without the downsides...so a healthier Rafa that could still play as intensely, but without injury, or a fiercer Roger that didn't blow matches like 2019 Wimbledon. They're myths - like envisioning a Sampras that was good on clay, or imagining Borg re-finding his mojo and having another run like 78-80. I mean, it could have happened, but we'll never know.

I’m not defensive about Rafa, I’m pointing out that it’s not necessary to call “a healthy Rafa” a myth when actually, your position on a healthy Rafa is also a myth. Rafa wins 1 in every 3 slams he’s played. He’s skipped 12 since he turned pro, and he’s been obviously injured in many others, most obviously Paris in 2016 and Australia in 2014. It’s not impossible to imagine that his record would be improved if he was healthy for all those slams.

Much more importantly though, sometimes I need to keep my Rafa-blade sharpened for future battles…