Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[El Dude]

Just reading the comments, I think Novak is now just a tennis ball in the Fedal Wars. Federer fans have become partial to him.

What does this even mean? In other words, what are you implying?

What I see is just about everyone in the tennis world agreeing that Novak is the GOAT, or at least first among equals - except Rafa fans and maybe a few stray Roger holdouts and/or outlying views, or people who take into account all of tennis history like Sackmann.

But I think I get what you're implying, which is that Federer fans have become "partial" to him to slight Rafa. I mean, just say it, Kieran. It is a silly notion, to be honest.

Also, I think goat obsessions are great but they’re making sports conversation a little skewed. During the World Cup we had the bizarre suggestion that if Messi won the World Cup, he’d become goat. Messi didn’t win the World Cup - Argentina did. But Messi scored the opening penalty in the shoot out. After this, he had no say in the outcome. Argentina might have missed the rest of their penalties and France won. Would this outcome mean that Messi was a lesser player than he was when he scored his penalty? But because Goat talk rules everything in sports now, to some people it would have. And all this going on while Pele was dying in his bed. Most of the people invested in crowning Messi never seen Pele or Maradona play, they just want the goat to be a modern player, so they too can somehow participate…

I do agree on this. It isn't unlike during the 2017 AO final, when the announcers were talking about how it would decide the GOAT debate. That was ridiculous then. No single match or moment can decide the GOAT. I even questioned the idea that some said here in 2015, that if Novak won the calendar Slam he'd be the unquestioned GOAT. I mean it would have been an amazing accomplishment, but he still had probably the best single season in Open Era history...so winning one more match would have pushed him over the edge? Doesn't make sense.

My view is that for "GOAT" to be meaningful, it has to take a broad number of factors in mind, but the factors also have to be weighed - and more so, it has to be based on the actual record.

But if you re-read the comments, you might notice a striking and frequent phenomena: there are a group of Rafa fans here that only mention those factors which benefit Rafa, ignoring or minimizing anything else. Most of the similar posts from Novak fans or advocates don't do that, and I think the reason is simple: They don't have to. Meaning, the argument for Novak is relatively easy to make, because the record supports it.

We're at the point where it is basically a bias test: If you look at the overall records and don't recognize that Novak is #1 in the GOAT rankings (at least the Open Era), it is a tell-tale sign that you're biased.

But here's the caveat: Saying that Novak is #1 on the GOAT rankings doesn't mean that Rafa or Roger etc aren't also great, are among the top tier of GOAT candidates. Each has "flavors of GOATness" that are unique to them. This is why I'm tempted to use terms like "GOAT Rankings," because it implies an ordered list of multiple players, and a spectrum, rather than a singular player. Meaning, if the #1 player is "100" and the #2 player is "99" and the #3 player is "98," they're almost exactly equal...which I think is the case with the Big Three and perhaps Laver.

But when everything is accounted for, at least at this moment in time, Novak comes out as #1 on those hypothetical rankings. It is pretty obvious for anyone who is able to check their bias.

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff. My only issue with this sort of chart is that from a visual perspective, it weighs everything the same. And furthermore, it doesn't differentiate how big of a lead the top of the three has in a given category. In other words, it is a two-dimensional depiction of something that really has four dimensions.

 

[shawnbm]

People get a bit nutty defending their man or lady in these things. If someone surpasses others statistically, like Novak has as to both Roger and Rafa, people get riled and the emphasis on minutiae begins. It still does not change who the best player on the day would be on clay or grass or hard court, and there will never be a way of measuring that objectively. All one can hope for is to say they have seen the best over time and then, as the years go by, one finds it gets harder to really declare one is clearly above the others (a necessary foundation in any GOAT discussion) without some qualifying lingo. I go back to Connors, Borg and McEnroe, and through the Lendl, Edberg and Becker times and Sampras and Agassi after that. All were so great and I loved watching them play. But, I have to confess that I never saw anyone like McEnroe is his (short) prime do things with the facility he did, or anyone on clay like Borg until Nadal came along. Pistol Pete on grass? Who could beat him at his best? Could Roger or Novak at their peak? Hard one--I don't know if I could bet against Sampras, but those two spring to mind. The ultimate would have been Borg and Nadal on clay--can you imagine? They both can rally forever, but I personally believe Borg could and would have out rallied even Rafa--but Nadal was a more ferocious baseliner than Borg such that he might have hit more winners. Still, fun stuff.

And none of that even touches Laver, Rosewall, Hoade or the great Pancho Gonzalez. What if all the guys we knew had to face THOSE guys with a wooden racquet???? We will never know, but it is fun. I guess I really do not subscribe to GOATness. It is simply something one can't do. I do recall being stunned by the seemingly incredible dominance of some player. I already mentioned Johnny Mac, but Federer made me feel the same way. To me Rafa was Connors/Borg reincarnate in some ways, which makes him very fascinating and thrilling to watch. I candidly did not take much to the Serbian Slayer--but I can't deny that he is as great and amazing in terms of his skill as anyone I have seen. I wish I could have seen Pancho and Lew Hoade and those guys. What little I saw of Laver was impressive, but he was in his forties then.

Well, a long post but I guess as I age I am beginning to care less about alleged GOATness, but I can say statistically you can't deny Novak is likely going to end up on top if not already there. He is an amazing player and his mental fortitude is right up there with the best I have seen--he wills himself to win, which is a very admirable quality (I wish I had it).

 

[Moxie]

It was the greatest choke job of Medvedev's career. Corrected that there for you.

I dunno...the 5-1 up and serving for it v. Nadal at the YEC in 2019 would surely be up there. I'd have voted for that one.

If you saw that AO final, Medvedev was immaculate in the first set, but he never found that level again. You can call that a "choke" if you're inclined, but I'd say you're not taking into account that Nadal choked the 2nd set. And that Nadal had Medvedev on his back foot much of the rest of that match. Didn't he even fail to serve it out in the 5th? There is a difference between a guy having a real chance, and a guy "choking it." It was a great battle, after the first set, and Nadal won it. With game and will. No real surprise there. You can't judge Bo5 matches by the quality of 1 set. I know you know that.

 

[El Dude]

People get a bit nutty defending their man or lady in these things. If someone surpasses others statistically, like Novak has as to both Roger and Rafa, people get riled and the emphasis on minutiae begins. It still does not change who the best player on the day would be on clay or grass or hard court, and there will never be a way of measuring that objectively. All one can hope for is to say they have seen the best over time and then, as the years go by, one finds it gets harder to really declare one is clearly above the others (a necessary foundation in any GOAT discussion) without some qualifying lingo. I go back to Connors, Borg and McEnroe, and through the Lendl, Edberg and Becker times and Sampras and Agassi after that. All were so great and I loved watching them play. But, I have to confess that I never saw anyone like McEnroe is his (short) prime do things with the facility he did, or anyone on clay like Borg until Nadal came along. Pistol Pete on grass? Who could beat him at his best? Could Roger or Novak at their peak? Hard one--I don't know if I could bet against Sampras, but those two spring to mind. The ultimate would have been Borg and Nadal on clay--can you imagine? They both can rally forever, but I personally believe Borg could and would have out rallied even Rafa--but Nadal was a more ferocious baseliner than Borg such that he might have hit more winners. Still, fun stuff.

Nice post - and thanks for grounding us ;-)

I do think that both Roger and Novak would have challenged Pete on grass, although it might have depended on the condition of the grass. One thing we never got to witness, sadly, is Pete serving against Novak. That would have been something to behold. And of course we did get a glimpse of Pete vs. Roger, but it was old Pete and young Roger.

Anyhow, for gits and shiggles, here's Peak Elo by surface - maybe not as "objective" as you want, but still gives us a sense of peak levels of various players on different surfaces:

CLAY

1. Nadal 2669
2. Borg 2650
3. Djokovic 2538
4. Lendl 2536
5. Vilas 2521

6-10: Clerc 2469, Muster 2458, Federer 2453, Nastase 2440, Connors 2439

GRASS

1. Borg 2562
2. Laver 2561
3. Federer 2547
4. Connors 2542
5. Djokovic 2540

6-10: McEnroe 2517, Sampras 2501, Rosewall 2500, Murray 2487, Edberg 2482

(#14. Nadal 2401)

HARD

1. Djokovic 2670
2. Federer 2637
3. Sampras 2524
4. Lendl 2512
5. Nadal 2506

6-10: Agassi 2500, Murray 2490, Laver 2459, McEnroe 2453, Edberg 2429

(#33. Borg 2295)

CARPET

1. McEnroe 2690
2. Borg 2582
3. Lendl 2563
4. Becker 2542
5. Laver 2540

6-10. Connors 2530, Edberg 2444, Smith 2441, Sampras 2407, Ashe 2405)

Note that Novak is the only player who is top 5 in all three current surfaces.

And none of that even touches Laver, Rosewall, Hoade or the great Pancho Gonzalez. What if all the guys we knew had to face THOSE guys with a wooden racquet???? We will never know, but it is fun. I guess I really do not subscribe to GOATness. It is simply something one can't do. I do recall being stunned by the seemingly incredible dominance of some player. I already mentioned Johnny Mac, but Federer made me feel the same way. To me Rafa was Connors/Borg reincarnate in some ways, which makes him very fascinating and thrilling to watch. I candidly did not take much to the Serbian Slayer--but I can't deny that he is as great and amazing in terms of his skill as anyone I have seen. I wish I could have seen Pancho and Lew Hoade and those guys. What little I saw of Laver was impressive, but he was in his forties then.

Well, a long post but I guess as I age I am beginning to care less about alleged GOATness, but I can say statistically you can't deny Novak is likely going to end up on top if not already there. He is an amazing player and his mental fortitude is right up there with the best I have seen--he wills himself to win, which is a very admirable quality (I wish I had it).

The only thing I would insert into your reminiscing is carpet - with McEnroe being the "King of the Rug" ;-).

But yeah, we don't know how current guys would have played with older surfaces and tech, nor vice versa. I've heard it said that of old-time greats, Pancho is the most likely to have excelled in today's game...hard to imagine the diminutive Laver or Rosewall being as dominant; but it doesn't matter - greatness is about--or should be about--dominance relative to the context you played in. That's one of the reasons I like Elo, because a 2500 Elo in 2022 is (supposedly) the same degree of dominance as 2500 in 1970.

But your last paragraph expresses why I don't care to argue for Roger as GOAT - not only because I think Novak has the statistical edge now, but because it just doesn't matter. He's my GOAT (or FOAT - Favorite...), and my love of watching him play can't be taken away by seeming him at #2, 3, 4, or 5 on a list. In that regard, I agree with you: that a lot of the heat in these debates comes from people caring too much about "their guy" being the best, which often has more to do with "fan psychology" than it does statistical argument.

The GOAT debate is just a fun mental exercise...a puzzle, if you will, on how to determine greatness based upon available records. I don't think there is a final, absolutely true answer - and maybe never will be.

 

[Andy22]

The Goat debate should be based who was most dominant on single surface and who played best tennis.

Nadal is most dominant player on single surface and nobody played better tennis than Nadal on clay.

We have our Goat Nadal .

The inspirational never give up legacy of Nadal is stronger anything Djokovic or Federer ever did.

Nadal made stronger connections with fans that wasn't based on beautiful shots or Nationalism.

 

[BratSrbin]

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - GOAT List

Open Era GOAT List (a.k.a. GOATometer) compares tennis player career achievements expressed by GOAT Points

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Rank	Name	Pts	Tourn P	Rank P	Ach P	GS	TF	AF	M	O	BT	T	W@1
1	Novak Djokovic	1023	562	223	238	22	6	0	38	-	66	93	374
2	Roger Federer	928	566	200	162	20	6	0	28	-	54	103	310
3	Rafael Nadal	890	526	185	179	22	0	0	36	1	59	92	209
4	Jimmy Connors	616	402	151	63	8	1	2	20	-	31	109	268
5	Ivan Lendl	605	395	141	69	8	5	2	18	-	33	94	270
6	Pete Sampras	522	316	140	66	14	5	2	11	-	32	64	286
7	John McEnroe	512	321	128	63	7	3	5	17	-	32	77	170
8	Bjorn Borg	483	254	132	97	11	2	1	11	-	25	66	109
9	Andre Agassi	417	292	82	43	8	1	0	17	1	27	60	101
10	Rod Laver	389	202	101	86	5	0	2	18	-	25	72	219
11	Boris Becker	369	267	61	41	6	3	2	12	-	23	49	12
12	Stefan Edberg	328	243	62	23	6	1	0	6	1	14	42	72
13	Andy Murray	315	228	55	32	3	1	0	14	2	20	46	41
14	Mats Wilander	243	179	38	26	7	0	0	8	-	15	33	20
15	Guillermo Vilas	242	191	32	19	4	1	0	3	-	8	62	0
16	Ilie Nastase	228	163	46	19	2	4	0	6	-	12	65	88
17	Ken Rosewall	220	159	40	21	4	0	2	7	-	13	40	26
18	Arthur Ashe	211	174	23	14	3	0	1	4	-	8	45	0
19	John Newcombe	210	160	35	15	5	0	1	6	-	12	41	8
20	Lleyton Hewitt	180	114	52	14	2	2	0	2	-	6	30	80

 

[Andy22]

Ultimate tennis statistics.com Goat list is meaningless everyone knows this even Djokovic fans.

Meanwhile sportingnews Got Nadal as the true Goat.
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/ten...derer-nadal-djokovic/bhqliho5migps1wghxs7qq1i

 

[Kieran]

What does this even mean? In other words, what are you implying?

What I see is just about everyone in the tennis world agreeing that Novak is the GOAT, or at least first among equals - except Rafa fans and maybe a few stray Roger holdouts and/or outlying views, or people who take into account all of tennis history like Sackmann.

But I think I get what you're implying, which is that Federer fans have become "partial" to him to slight Rafa. I mean, just say it, Kieran. It is a silly notion, to be honest.

I do agree on this. It isn't unlike during the 2017 AO final, when the announcers were talking about how it would decide the GOAT debate. That was ridiculous then. No single match or moment can decide the GOAT. I even questioned the idea that some said here in 2015, that if Novak won the calendar Slam he'd be the unquestioned GOAT. I mean it would have been an amazing accomplishment, but he still had probably the best single season in Open Era history...so winning one more match would have pushed him over the edge? Doesn't make sense.

My view is that for "GOAT" to be meaningful, it has to take a broad number of factors in mind, but the factors also have to be weighed - and more so, it has to be based on the actual record.

But if you re-read the comments, you might notice a striking and frequent phenomena: there are a group of Rafa fans here that only mention those factors which benefit Rafa, ignoring or minimizing anything else. Most of the similar posts from Novak fans or advocates don't do that, and I think the reason is simple: They don't have to. Meaning, the argument for Novak is relatively easy to make, because the record supports it.

We're at the point where it is basically a bias test: If you look at the overall records and don't recognize that Novak is #1 in the GOAT rankings (at least the Open Era), it is a tell-tale sign that you're biased.

But here's the caveat: Saying that Novak is #1 on the GOAT rankings doesn't mean that Rafa or Roger etc aren't also great, are among the top tier of GOAT candidates. Each has "flavors of GOATness" that are unique to them. This is why I'm tempted to use terms like "GOAT Rankings," because it implies an ordered list of multiple players, and a spectrum, rather than a singular player. Meaning, if the #1 player is "100" and the #2 player is "99" and the #3 player is "98," they're almost exactly equal...which I think is the case with the Big Three and perhaps Laver.

But when everything is accounted for, at least at this moment in time, Novak comes out as #1 on those hypothetical rankings. It is pretty obvious for anyone who is able to check their bias.

Well now, since you believe in goats and I don’t - never have - which one of us has to check their bias?

 

[Kieran]

The Goat debate should be based who was most dominant on single surface and who played best tennis.

Nadal is most dominant player on single surface and nobody played better tennis than Nadal on clay.

We have our Goat Nadal .

The inspirational never give up legacy of Nadal is stronger anything Djokovic or Federer ever did.

Nadal made stronger connections with fans that wasn't based on beautiful shots or Nationalism.

Surfaces matter across the whole season, and 70% of the season and 50% of the slams are on surfaces that are advantageous to Novak and Roger. More than 50% when we factor in grass. But this is practical from a tournament organisers perspective. It’s less costly to maintain a HC court, and venue. Less costly to have indoor hard courts than transplanting clay onto the floor for a week every year. This is practical, and the faster surfaces are more entertaining. We should be glad that Wimbledon has resisted changing to hards - it’s not so far fetched - and that France still has the other traditional tennis surface…

 

[Kieran]

People get a bit nutty defending their man or lady in these things. If someone surpasses others statistically, like Novak has as to both Roger and Rafa, people get riled and the emphasis on minutiae begins. It still does not change who the best player on the day would be on clay or grass or hard court, and there will never be a way of measuring that objectively. All one can hope for is to say they have seen the best over time and then, as the years go by, one finds it gets harder to really declare one is clearly above the others (a necessary foundation in any GOAT discussion) without some qualifying lingo. I go back to Connors, Borg and McEnroe, and through the Lendl, Edberg and Becker times and Sampras and Agassi after that. All were so great and I loved watching them play. But, I have to confess that I never saw anyone like McEnroe is his (short) prime do things with the facility he did, or anyone on clay like Borg until Nadal came along. Pistol Pete on grass? Who could beat him at his best? Could Roger or Novak at their peak? Hard one--I don't know if I could bet against Sampras, but those two spring to mind. The ultimate would have been Borg and Nadal on clay--can you imagine? They both can rally forever, but I personally believe Borg could and would have out rallied even Rafa--but Nadal was a more ferocious baseliner than Borg such that he might have hit more winners. Still, fun stuff.

And none of that even touches Laver, Rosewall, Hoade or the great Pancho Gonzalez. What if all the guys we knew had to face THOSE guys with a wooden racquet???? We will never know, but it is fun. I guess I really do not subscribe to GOATness. It is simply something one can't do. I do recall being stunned by the seemingly incredible dominance of some player. I already mentioned Johnny Mac, but Federer made me feel the same way. To me Rafa was Connors/Borg reincarnate in some ways, which makes him very fascinating and thrilling to watch. I candidly did not take much to the Serbian Slayer--but I can't deny that he is as great and amazing in terms of his skill as anyone I have seen. I wish I could have seen Pancho and Lew Hoade and those guys. What little I saw of Laver was impressive, but he was in his forties then.

Well, a long post but I guess as I age I am beginning to care less about alleged GOATness, but I can say statistically you can't deny Novak is likely going to end up on top if not already there. He is an amazing player and his mental fortitude is right up there with the best I have seen--he wills himself to win, which is a very admirable quality (I wish I had it).

Great stuff Shawn, and to go back to McEnroe, I think he was the most naturally gifted tennis player I ever seen. I nudge him ahead of Roger just because John’s game was so unorthodox that it’s never been repeated. I became a tennis coach shortly after Mac’s prime and he’d thrown the text books out the window, with his abbreviated swings, his stance, his positioning, his serve. He was the only player who I’d apply the cliche to, that the racket seemed like an extension of his arm. Technically, Borg was also an innovation, like something grown in a lab, but Mac was almost ridiculous, he made the heavy seem feather light. Roger was similarly gifted but classically so, like a beautiful illustration of textbook tennis. Players like that irritate me because I was always cheering for the other bloke…

 

[britbox]

The reality of sport is that it's a results business. Sure, we can talk all day about who the biggest celebrity is, who we felt "looked the best", who transcended the sport the most, or who was the easiest on the eye... but the hard logic is that the most successful player in the results business is a Serb called Novak Djokovic. Sure, it's not quite over yet, but it feels like watching a sand castle try and defy the incoming tide.

 

[BratSrbin]

Ultimate tennis statistics.com Goat list is meaningless everyone knows this even Djokovic fans.

Meanwhile sportingnews Got Nadal as the true Goat.
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/ten...derer-nadal-djokovic/bhqliho5migps1wghxs7qq1i

"1. Rafael Nadal​

As Federer did in 2017 and 2018 and Djokovic followed by dominating after his elbow surgery, Nadal is now enjoying a purple patch very few predicted and it places him out in front in the all-time standings. Djokovic's coronavirus saga left him unable to chase a 10th Australian Open in January 2022 and Nadal capitalised, coming from two sets down to defeat Medvedev lift the trophy at Melbourne Park for a second time — 13 years after his first title.


There have been no such gaps in Nadal's mastery of Roland-Garros and a stirring quarterfinal win over Djokovic set him en route to a scarcely credible 14th major on clay last year. If Nadal had only his Paris dominance to his name it would place him among the all-time greats. But he also remodelled his game to compete and then triumph at Wimbledon against a prime Federer at a stage when their rivalry beautifully cajoled each man to greater heights.

Djokovic has had the better of their rivalry on grass of late and Nadal has not reached a Wimbledon final since 2011, adding an extra layer of frustration to his withdrawal last time around after a titanic quarterfinal win over Taylor Fritz that pushed his body to and, ultimately, beyond the limit. Djokovic's refusal to get a coronavirus vaccination boosted Nadal's chances at last year's US Open, but a surprise defeat to Frances Tiafoe meant there would be no third Slam triumph in 2022.


A hobbling Nadal was upset by Mackenzie McDonald in straight sets in the second round of the Australian Open. Once again, it feels very hard to separate him and Djokovic, meaning Rafa needs another magical performance at his old Roland-Garros stomping ground."


In this part that marks Nadal as the best, No1e is mentioned as much as Nadal. Weird? Perhaps this is a subconscious acknowledgment that No1e is the best.

 

[TheSicilian]

I would be interested to see some statistics table about slams only, not sure how it would exactly be measured, but some kinda ranking for who has defeated the better players on route to a slam, does anything like that exist anywhere.

 

[shawnbm]

Y'all have fun!

 

[El Dude]

I would be interested to see some statistics table about slams only, not sure how it would exactly be measured, but some kinda ranking for who has defeated the better players on route to a slam, does anything like that exist anywhere.

UTS has a "Hardest Title" statistic. Here are the hardest GS, according them:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Hardest Grand Slam Title

Hardest Grand Slam Title at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Notably, the top two are two of Stanimal's, who has three of the top five. In the 2014 AO he defeated Rafa, Berdych, Djokovic. In the 2015 RG, it was Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.

Del Potro beat Rafa and then Roger back-to-back in the 2009 USO.

One that stands out to me is the 1980 US Open: McEnroe had to defeat Lendl, Connors, then Borg. Hard to top that.

 

[El Dude]

But for me, the most impressive tournament win of the Open Era might be Rod Laver's Tennis Champions Classic in 1971. It had a crazy round robin, in which Laver beat the following opponents: Ashe twice, Emerson twice, Okker twice, Ralston, Taylor, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall. Then he beat Ralston in the SF and Okker in the Final. Meaning, he won 13 matches against guys who were top 10ish equivalent in best of fives.

 

[TheSicilian]

UTS has a "Hardest Title" statistic. Here are the hardest GS, according them:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Hardest Grand Slam Title

Hardest Grand Slam Title at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Notably, the top two are two of Stanimal's, who has three of the top five. In the 2014 AO he defeated Rafa, Berdych, Djokovic. In the 2015 RG, it was Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.

Del Potro beat Rafa and then Roger back-to-back in the 2009 USO.

One that stands out to me is the 1980 US Open: McEnroe had to defeat Lendl, Connors, then Borg. Hard to top that.

Thanks! I have been looking for something like this for a long time!

 

[Fiero425]

Thanks! I have been looking for something like this for a long time!

That was a true "Golden Age" of tennis w/ so many greats & different winners of majors including Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, & Vilas! At any given major, there could be a dozen players who won at least 1 major! W/ the hoarding of the Big 3, it can end up being devoid of multiple winners; esp. this past AO where Novak was the lone winner after Nadal upset early in the tourn.!The current era has what's left of the Big 3, overall even w/ such talent, it'll still be thought of as "weak" allowing just 3 players to own the ATP tour for 20 yrs.!

 

[shawnbm]

UTS has a "Hardest Title" statistic. Here are the hardest GS, according them:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Hardest Grand Slam Title

Hardest Grand Slam Title at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

Notably, the top two are two of Stanimal's, who has three of the top five. In the 2014 AO he defeated Rafa, Berdych, Djokovic. In the 2015 RG, it was Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.

Del Potro beat Rafa and then Roger back-to-back in the 2009 USO.

One that stands out to me is the 1980 US Open: McEnroe had to defeat Lendl, Connors, then Borg. Hard to top that.

McEnroe shone so brightly from 1979-1984--he was the gatekeeper for the hard and grass court majors, with 1984 being the apex for him.