When do players peak? (The Definitive Answer - with Charts!)

[Moxie]

Good stuff. I imagine that every young tennis player dreams of being Novak*, Roger or Rafa, and then the reality of the tour hits, and the "great leveling" occurs....they find their true level or tier against better and better competition (high school, college/futures, challengers, the ATP tour, and then the various tournament levels). The vast majority, of course, never become Novak*, Roger or Rafa, or even Andy Murray or Courier or Stich, etc...most settle into "journeyman" status, and at most win an ATP 250 or two. I imagine that there's a point in the career of 95% of tennis players in which they ask, "Is this worth it? I'm been in the 50-150 range for most of my career and just turned 26...what are my actual chances of ever making it big?"

Totally get the *Novak joke. I'm going to use Rafa as an example here, not as a counter, but just because I know more about his career arc. I imagine it was similar for Roger and Novak. Carlos Moyà talked to this point years back, when he was still just Rafa's friend and mentor. He said that when Rafa went pro, he figured he'd have some adjustments to make, but he mostly kept on winning, in Challengers, etc. Then when he went to the main tour, Carlos thought, "This is really when he'll have to make a big adjustment," but he kind of kept on winning. This is elite talent. There's a reason that the Big 3 left school and turned pro so young...they'd run out of competition at the junior level.

But what happens to normal humans is that they go from big fish/small pond to very big pond, and then the rubber hits the road. I wonder how many who went through college have done especially well. McEnroe did one year at Stanford, then turned pro. For the money? I don't think so much, as it wasn't great then. He'd run out of competition, and he didn't want to put off his pro-career. (Worked out for him.)

Some, I imagine, gradually just fade out. Some remain on tour and collect paychecks and enjoy small victories and pleasures, on and off the court. Only a few re-double their efforts and find an extra gear...but even among those, very very few actually go from perennial journeymen to legit Slam-seeded guys after their 25th birthday or so.

As of this writing, there are exactly two thousand players with ATP points...I don't know how to convert that to the Open Era, but we're likely talking tens of thousands of players (my guess is somewhere in the 15-30K range....remembering that most or many of those 2K players are ranked for multiple years).

Surely, lots of them fade out. I knew a guy who did a year or two on the tour. Went from being top player at Yale, to a very small fish on the tour. And he had enough family money to press on. I think you realize when what you're cut out to do is be a coach.

But I think we're talking about the middle-level players. The journeymen. Mostly, I think we're talking about the guys who make it into the top 20 or even sneak into the top 10, but are never more than bridesmaids, because these are the ones we care about. As I wrote to Jelenafan above, I think talent is a big dividing line, but so is ambition.

In Open Era history, less than six hundred have won a title, 134 have won big titles, and 57 have won Slams. In terms of rankings, exactly 100 players have reached the ATP top 5 ("elite") and just 28 have reached #1. So if there have been, say, 30K players from 1968 to the present who have earned ATP points in some form or fashion (or would have, in the few years before ATP rankings), only about 1-in-50 (or so) will win an ATP title (250 or higher), only 1-in-250 will win a big title, 1-in-500 a Slam, and 1-in-1000 reach #1.

(Those numbers are wild estimates, but even if off by a significant degree, they still give the general idea of how hard it is to make it to the top).

*EDITED due to the silliness of @Nadalfan2013

I'm often shocked by how few tournaments even lots of top players have won. Names we know. I've mentioned this before, but David Nalbandian won 11 tournaments. Granted, a few were big ones, and he made a Wimbledon final. He also made $11m US. He lacked something in drive and ambition and commitment. We obviously shouldn't use the Big 3 as a measuring stick for most players. Nor even Major winners in the past against other players. Players can have perfectly respectable careers they can be proud of without having achieved the great heights. We talk about Ferrer a lot, but he's a good example, though most couldn't even hope for that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a combination of knowing your limits, being limited by your ambition, loving the game and being able to make a living at it, and being a bit dulled of ambition by making a lot of money, even without winning the big prizes. Not all of those things apply to all level of players. I'm thinking, at the top level, of players like Dimitrov, Zverev, maybe Shapo, etc. who had that early success, such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic enjoyed. But then it didn't come so easy after, and it seems to have made them petulant. There's some feeling of entitlement, IMO, whereas Roger, Rafa and Novak pressed passed expectations, accolades, early victories and any sense of entitlement into the stratosphere. There is a talent differential, that's just a fact. But there is also a level of ambition that others lack. Once they started pushing each other, in the Fedal days, they went off the charts and left everyone in the dust. What I don't get is why some of the younger players don't catch that vibe. They're closer to it than we are. Is it because they can't?

A reason we're so excited about Alcaraz and Rune is that they seem to have that same fire. I guess we'll see.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yep, exactly. For every Tom Cruise there are literally thousands of really good-looking men waiting tables, running community theaters, maybe a few dozen of whom get lucky and get gigs on stage or screen, but only one of them becomes Tom Cruise.

And then there’s Rafael Nadal who is not only really good looking but also the greatest athlete of all time as well as a super talented actor as shown in the Shakira video.

 

[El Dude]

Totally get the *Novak joke. I'm going to use Rafa as an example here, not as a counter, but just because I know more about his career arc. I imagine it was similar for Roger and Novak. Carlos Moyà talked to this point years back, when he was still just Rafa's friend and mentor. He said that when Rafa went pro, he figured he'd have some adjustments to make, but he mostly kept on winning, in Challengers, etc. Then when he went to the main tour, Carlos thought, "This is really when he'll have to make a big adjustment," but he kind of kept on winning. This is elite talent. There's a reason that the Big 3 left school and turned pro so young...they'd run out of competition at the junior level.

Yes, very true. There are pauses of consolidation (Sampras in 88-89, Rafa in 03-04), but even then, underneath the surfaces, there's development happening. More to the point, one difference between great players and everyone else is, as you said, the greats keep going up (winning). Those pauses are just that - pauses. And they generally don't last long. Lots of 18 year olds look like they could become great, a Gasquet or Berdych, but at some point their momentum slows and they start stalling out at various levels. You can see this in the pattern and trajectory of their rankings, and even moreso Elo.

For example, Rafa reached the 2000 Elo level a few months before his 19th birthday (to be exact, February 14 of 2005 - just before his first title of the year at Costa Do Sauipe, an ATP 250). For context, historically speaking 2000 Elo is about #30 level -- equivalent to Slam seeded. Gasquet reached 2000 Elo around his 19th birthday - so not far behind Rafa.

But at that point, the 2000 Elo level, Rafa went on to win six titles in less than four months, including an ATP 250, two ATP 500s (Acapulco and Barcelona), two Masters (Monte Carlo and Rome), and of course, his first Slam. I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing his 250-point Elo rise in 3-4 months is one of the fastest in Open Era history.

Meanwhile, Gasquet slowed and stalled and didn't get to 2100 Elo until he was around 25 years old -- six years later -- and never quite got to 2200, peaking at 2196 at age 29. Whereas Rafa went from 2000 Elo to Gasquet's peak in a matter of months - and before even his first Roland Garros win.

I go into that detail because it is an extreme comparison of what you're talking about, using Elo as a lens. It is also how we can get a sense of which young players might or might not be destined for greatness - that is, where their Elo rating goes in that crucial age 19-21ish developmental period (it is also why I'm more bearishing on FAA, who is now looking more and more like a future 2nd tier guy, at least according to Elo).

But what happens to normal humans is that they go from big fish/small pond to very big pond, and then the rubber hits the road. I wonder how many who went through college have done especially well. McEnroe did one year at Stanford, then turned pro. For the money? I don't think so much, as it wasn't great then. He'd run out of competition, and he didn't want to put off his pro-career. (Worked out for him.)

Surely, lots of them fade out. I knew a guy who did a year or two on the tour. Went from being top player at Yale, to a very small fish on the tour. And he had enough family money to press on. I think you realize when what you're cut out to do is be a coach.

Did @Fiero425 ever try to go pro? I can't remember.

Did you see Borg vs. McEnroe? There aren't a lot of tennis films, but that's the only one that I think is actually very good. I mention it because it does a good job depicting both the pressure top players experience (a lot of it self-created), but also the "fire in the belly" that sets them apart from others.

But I think we're talking about the middle-level players. The journeymen. Mostly, I think we're talking about the guys who make it into the top 20 or even sneak into the top 10, but are never more than bridesmaids, because these are the ones we care about. As I wrote to Jelenafan above, I think talent is a big dividing line, but so is ambition.

I'm often shocked by how few tournaments even lots of top players have won. Names we know. I've mentioned this before, but David Nalbandian won 11 tournaments. Granted, a few were big ones, and he made a Wimbledon final. He also made $11m US. He lacked something in drive and ambition and commitment. We obviously shouldn't use the Big 3 as a measuring stick for most players. Nor even Major winners in the past against other players. Players can have perfectly respectable careers they can be proud of without having achieved the great heights. We talk about Ferrer a lot, but he's a good example, though most couldn't even hope for that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a combination of knowing your limits, being limited by your ambition, loving the game and being able to make a living at it, and being a bit dulled of ambition by making a lot of money, even without winning the big prizes. Not all of those things apply to all level of players. I'm thinking, at the top level, of players like Dimitrov, Zverev, maybe Shapo, etc. who had that early success, such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic enjoyed. But then it didn't come so easy after, and it seems to have made them petulant. There's some feeling of entitlement, IMO, whereas Roger, Rafa and Novak pressed passed expectations, accolades, early victories and any sense of entitlement into the stratosphere. There is a talent differential, that's just a fact. But there is also a level of ambition that others lack. Once they started pushing each other, in the Fedal days, they went off the charts and left everyone in the dust. What I don't get is why some of the younger players don't catch that vibe. They're closer to it than we are. Is it because they can't?

Yes, all well said. Novak said that this differential was mostly mental, but I think he exaggerated a bit, underselling the real differences in talent. Or rather, it is a combination of mental and actual physical talent. I don't think the only thing separating Nadal and Gasquet is mentality, but I do think what separated Ferrer and Gasquet is mostly mental. Meaning, I think Gasquet was every bit as talented as Ferrer - if not more so - but didn't have that strong mentality that Ferrer. And of course guys like Nalbandian and Safin will forever haunt their fans, because they truly did have the talent to be much greater than they were, but not the mentality.

A reason we're so excited about Alcaraz and Rune is that they seem to have that same fire. I guess we'll see.

Yep - the fire in the belly. Sinner seems to have it too, he's just more toned down about it (some are comparing him to Roger, in terms of his demeanor). I also question whether he's as talented, which is why I think he'll end up being third fiddle - but a very good third fiddle.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, very true. There are pauses of consolidation (Sampras in 88-89, Rafa in 03-04), but even then, underneath the surfaces, there's development happening. More to the point, one difference between great players and everyone else is, as you said, the greats keep going up (winning). Those pauses are just that - pauses. And they generally don't last long. Lots of 18 year olds look like they could become great, a Gasquet or Berdych, but at some point their momentum slows and they start stalling out at various levels. You can see this in the pattern and trajectory of their rankings, and even moreso Elo.

For example, Rafa reached the 2000 Elo level a few months before his 19th birthday (to be exact, February 14 of 2005 - just before his first title of the year at Costa Do Sauipe, an ATP 250). For context, historically speaking 2000 Elo is about #30 level -- equivalent to Slam seeded. Gasquet reached 2000 Elo around his 19th birthday - so not far behind Rafa.

But at that point, the 2000 Elo level, Rafa went on to win six titles in less than four months, including an ATP 250, two ATP 500s (Acapulco and Barcelona), two Masters (Monte Carlo and Rome), and of course, his first Slam. I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing his 250-point Elo rise in 3-4 months is one of the fastest in Open Era history.

Meanwhile, Gasquet slowed and stalled and didn't get to 2100 Elo until he was around 25 years old -- six years later -- and never quite got to 2200, peaking at 2196 at age 29. Whereas Rafa went from 2000 Elo to Gasquet's peak in a matter of months - and before even his first Roland Garros win.

I go into that detail because it is an extreme comparison of what you're talking about, using Elo as a lens. It is also how we can get a sense of which young players might or might not be destined for greatness - that is, where their Elo rating goes in that crucial age 19-21ish developmental period (it is also why I'm more bearishing on FAA, who is now looking more and more like a future 2nd tier guy, at least according to Elo).

I've always thought that Nadal and Gasquet make a fascinating comparison, because they're only 2 weeks apart in age, they played each other in juniors, and much was expected of both. Gasquet has had a perfectly respectable career. 16 titles, $20+ million US in prize money. Ranked as high as #7. I do think there was a difference in talent, not just drive, but it wasn't immediately apparent when they were younger.

Did you see Borg vs. McEnroe? There aren't a lot of tennis films, but that's the only one that I think is actually very good. I mention it because it does a good job depicting both the pressure top players experience (a lot of it self-created), but also the "fire in the belly" that sets them apart from others.

I'll look for it!

Yes, all well said. Novak said that this differential was mostly mental, but I think he exaggerated a bit, underselling the real differences in talent. Or rather, it is a combination of mental and actual physical talent.

There might be a bit of modesty in there, about the talent, but I think there's a lot of truth in it, too. A lot of fans have been adamant about "talent," as if we know what that actually is. A certain Nalbandian fan comes to mind. Again, I know the Nadal origin story better, so I'll use this anecdote: Uncle Toni said, years ago, that they could choose to base their whole strategy on talent, or they could base it on hard work. Obviously, he had a very talented protege. But he said they chose to base it on hard work, because the talent isn't there, everyday. People always say that champions know how to win, even when not playing their best. Well, that's their mental strength, their commitment to winning, ambition, and yes, probably commitment to the hard work, and not just relying on their talents. There's a humility in that, if you will. If you can surrender to the notion that you might not be the best player on that day, but commit to the fight, you still might win.

This is what I feel is lacking in some of those Clown Princes lately. They believe in their talent, but they can't subsume their egos when they need to. Then they resort to blaming the lines, the umpire, the opponent, etc.

I don't think the only thing separating Nadal and Gasquet is mentality, but I do think what separated Ferrer and Gasquet is mostly mental. Meaning, I think Gasquet was every bit as talented as Ferrer - if not more so - but didn't have that strong mentality that Ferrer. And of course guys like Nalbandian and Safin will forever haunt their fans, because they truly did have the talent to be much greater than they were, but not the mentality.

Also a very good comparison. I'm basically ready to say that Ferrer was at least as talented as Gasquet, because I think, in the end the Frenchman has been overrated. And toughness is a talent. But no matter. Ferrer made everything of his talents, especially for his size deficit, and in the age of the Big 3/4. 27 Titles, $31+ million US in prize money. He made the FO final. What's the closest Gasquet got? 3x SFs. Ferrer was tough as nails. No one would ever accuse Gasquet of that.

Yep - the fire in the belly. Sinner seems to have it too, he's just more toned down about it (some are comparing him to Roger, in terms of his demeanor). I also question whether he's as talented, which is why I think he'll end up being third fiddle - but a very good third fiddle.

I'm trying to love Sinner, but I don't see him as up there with those guys. Yet. Though, as I said to you earlier, he's got room to grow, and I do like his head.

 

[Fiero425]

Yes, very true. There are pauses of consolidation (Sampras in 88-89, Rafa in 03-04), but even then, underneath the surfaces, there's development happening. More to the point, one difference between great players and everyone else is, as you said, the greats keep going up (winning). Those pauses are just that - pauses. And they generally don't last long. Lots of 18 year olds look like they could become great, a Gasquet or Berdych, but at some point their momentum slows and they start stalling out at various levels. You can see this in the pattern and trajectory of their rankings, and even moreso Elo.

For example, Rafa reached the 2000 Elo level a few months before his 19th birthday (to be exact, February 14 of 2005 - just before his first title of the year at Costa Do Sauipe, an ATP 250). For context, historically speaking 2000 Elo is about #30 level -- equivalent to Slam seeded. Gasquet reached 2000 Elo around his 19th birthday - so not far behind Rafa.

But at that point, the 2000 Elo level, Rafa went on to win six titles in less than four months, including an ATP 250, two ATP 500s (Acapulco and Barcelona), two Masters (Monte Carlo and Rome), and of course, his first Slam. I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing his 250-point Elo rise in 3-4 months is one of the fastest in Open Era history.

Meanwhile, Gasquet slowed and stalled and didn't get to 2100 Elo until he was around 25 years old -- six years later -- and never quite got to 2200, peaking at 2196 at age 29. Whereas Rafa went from 2000 Elo to Gasquet's peak in a matter of months - and before even his first Roland Garros win.

I go into that detail because it is an extreme comparison of what you're talking about, using Elo as a lens. It is also how we can get a sense of which young players might or might not be destined for greatness - that is, where their Elo rating goes in that crucial age 19-21ish developmental period (it is also why I'm more bearishing on FAA, who is now looking more and more like a future 2nd tier guy, at least according to Elo).


Did @Fiero425 ever try to go pro? I can't remember.

Did you see Borg vs. McEnroe? There aren't a lot of tennis films, but that's the only one that I think is actually very good. I mention it because it does a good job depicting both the pressure top players experience (a lot of it self-created), but also the "fire in the belly" that sets them apart from others.

Yes, all well said. Novak said that this differential was mostly mental, but I think he exaggerated a bit, underselling the real differences in talent. Or rather, it is a combination of mental and actual physical talent. I don't think the only thing separating Nadal and Gasquet is mentality, but I do think what separated Ferrer and Gasquet is mostly mental. Meaning, I think Gasquet was every bit as talented as Ferrer - if not more so - but didn't have that strong mentality that Ferrer. And of course guys like Nalbandian and Safin will forever haunt their fans, because they truly did have the talent to be much greater than they were, but not the mentality.

Yep - the fire in the belly. Sinner seems to have it too, he's just more toned down about it (some are comparing him to Roger, in terms of his demeanor). I also question whether he's as talented, which is why I think he'll end up being third fiddle - but a very good third fiddle.

I was part of Chicago Tennis way back when! I played, taught, & single-handed massively inflated the sales of tennis gear, rackets, & balls! Charity tennis tournaments occurred periodically I was invited to participate w/ our local celebs! We didn't have VCR's back then, I could only catch highlights on the news or The Papers! I never went "PRO" even though invited to The Challengers ranks & Linesman Assoc.! Undiagnosed sleep apnea kept me home! No one knew what it was back in the 70's! Most of my life I've subsisted on 3-5 hours of sleep unless a fever came on when ill! That knocked me out for days! TMI!

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes, very true. There are pauses of consolidation (Sampras in 88-89, Rafa in 03-04), but even then, underneath the surfaces, there's development happening. More to the point, one difference between great players and everyone else is, as you said, the greats keep going up (winning). Those pauses are just that - pauses. And they generally don't last long. Lots of 18 year olds look like they could become great, a Gasquet or Berdych, but at some point their momentum slows and they start stalling out at various levels. You can see this in the pattern and trajectory of their rankings, and even moreso Elo.

For example, Rafa reached the 2000 Elo level a few months before his 19th birthday (to be exact, February 14 of 2005 - just before his first title of the year at Costa Do Sauipe, an ATP 250). For context, historically speaking 2000 Elo is about #30 level -- equivalent to Slam seeded. Gasquet reached 2000 Elo around his 19th birthday - so not far behind Rafa.

But at that point, the 2000 Elo level, Rafa went on to win six titles in less than four months, including an ATP 250, two ATP 500s (Acapulco and Barcelona), two Masters (Monte Carlo and Rome), and of course, his first Slam. I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing his 250-point Elo rise in 3-4 months is one of the fastest in Open Era history.

Meanwhile, Gasquet slowed and stalled and didn't get to 2100 Elo until he was around 25 years old -- six years later -- and never quite got to 2200, peaking at 2196 at age 29. Whereas Rafa went from 2000 Elo to Gasquet's peak in a matter of months - and before even his first Roland Garros win.

I go into that detail because it is an extreme comparison of what you're talking about, using Elo as a lens. It is also how we can get a sense of which young players might or might not be destined for greatness - that is, where their Elo rating goes in that crucial age 19-21ish developmental period (it is also why I'm more bearishing on FAA, who is now looking more and more like a future 2nd tier guy, at least according to Elo).


Did @Fiero425 ever try to go pro? I can't remember.

Did you see Borg vs. McEnroe? There aren't a lot of tennis films, but that's the only one that I think is actually very good. I mention it because it does a good job depicting both the pressure top players experience (a lot of it self-created), but also the "fire in the belly" that sets them apart from others.

Yes, all well said. Novak said that this differential was mostly mental, but I think he exaggerated a bit, underselling the real differences in talent. Or rather, it is a combination of mental and actual physical talent. I don't think the only thing separating Nadal and Gasquet is mentality, but I do think what separated Ferrer and Gasquet is mostly mental. Meaning, I think Gasquet was every bit as talented as Ferrer - if not more so - but didn't have that strong mentality that Ferrer. And of course guys like Nalbandian and Safin will forever haunt their fans, because they truly did have the talent to be much greater than they were, but not the mentality.

Yep - the fire in the belly. Sinner seems to have it too, he's just more toned down about it (some are comparing him to Roger, in terms of his demeanor). I also question whether he's as talented, which is why I think he'll end up being third fiddle - but a very good third fiddle.

There's also the phenomenon of the prodigy who for whatever reason peaks at the Junior level, and never quite reaches anything resembling those heights once they become Pros. It must be disconcerting that players you routinely dominated as a Junior surpass you and leave you behind.

For every Federer or Edberg you have the tennis wunderkind who just doesn't mature or continue to improve exponentially. The Open era is scattered with carcasses of players cursed/labeled with being named the "next big thing" in mens tennis. That's why even if , say, the much maligned Donald Young had done "everything" right, he might have still ended up as he did.

Decades before was the ultimate Jr. and College player, Billy Martin, (Fiero, remember him??)

Not much different from phenoms in other sports, such as golf, football, baseball, basketball, who just can't graduate to adult greatness. There still is an "it" factor, debatable how much of it is in any player versus talent and sheer hard work.

 

[Kieran]

I was part of Chicago Tennis way back when! I played, taught, & single-handed massively inflated the sales of tennis gear, rackets, & balls! Charity tennis tournaments occurred periodically I was invited to participate w/ our local celebs! We didn't have VCR's back then, I could only catch highlights on the news or The Papers! I never went "PRO" even though invited to The Challengers ranks & Linesman Assoc.! Undiagnosed sleep apnea kept me home! No one knew what it was back in the 70's! Most of my life I've subsisted on 3-5 hours of sleep unless a fever came on when ill! That knocked me out for days! TMI!

I can imagine you were quite a player, brother. What style of play did you favour? In my mind I see a big serve and nifty net game…?

 

[El Dude]

There's also the phenomenon of the prodigy who for whatever reason peaks at the Junior level, and never quite reaches anything resembling those heights once they become Pros. It must be disconcerting that players you routinely dominated as a Junior surpass you and leave you behind.

For every Federer or Edberg you have the tennis wunderkind who just doesn't mature or continue to improve exponentially. The Open era is scattered with carcasses of players cursed/labeled with being named the "next big thing" in mens tennis. That's why even if , say, the much maligned Donald Young had done "everything" right, he might have still ended up as he did.

Decades before was the ultimate Jr. and College player, Billy Martin, (Fiero, remember him??)

Not much different from phenoms in other sports, such as golf, football, baseball, basketball, who just can't graduate to adult greatness. There still is an "it" factor, debatable how much of it is in any player versus talent and sheer hard work.

This resonates with other sports, as well. Think of all the Heismann Trophy winners who bomb as NFL quarterbacks...recently Brady Quinn. This is true especially in baseball, which probably has the wider gap between amateur (college/high school) and the major leagues, with all the levels of the minors. There are lots of very talented baseball prospects who flame out somewhere in the minors...either due to injury, or simply not being able to translate and hone raw talent into baseball skills. For instance, a lot of talented hitters don't learn to hit major league breaking pitches.

 

[El Dude]

Uncle Toni said, years ago, that they could choose to base their whole strategy on talent, or they could base it on hard work. Obviously, he had a very talented protege. But he said they chose to base it on hard work, because the talent isn't there, everyday. People always say that champions know how to win, even when not playing their best. Well, that's their mental strength, their commitment to winning, ambition, and yes, probably commitment to the hard work, and not just relying on their talents. There's a humility in that, if you will. If you can surrender to the notion that you might not be the best player on that day, but commit to the fight, you still might win.

Yes, well said, and great advice from Uncle Toni. Obviously it worked out well. But I think the basic principle holds: natural talent will only take you so far, but hard work allows you to keep pushing and adjusting.

This is what I feel is lacking in some of those Clown Princes lately. They believe in their talent, but they can't subsume their egos when they need to. Then they resort to blaming the lines, the umpire, the opponent, etc.

Yeah, I can see that....I wonder if it is a cultural factor, having to do with the time they grew up. I mean, we're mostly talking about guys born in the 90s...so late Millenials/early Zennials...kids that grew up with social media. I wonder if that has given them a sense of "premature stardom." There are relatively new avenues of getting accolades, and thus building oneself up artificially, that didn't exist in earlier eras.

Of course this wouldn't explain why there might be an extra fire in younger generations, the true Zennials like Alcaraz, Rune, and Sinner. Maybe social media and such is more integrated now, or it may be that something new is coming through them, sort of a "back to roots" vibe.

Also a very good comparison. I'm basically ready to say that Ferrer was at least as talented as Gasquet, because I think, in the end the Frenchman has been overrated. And toughness is a talent. But no matter. Ferrer made everything of his talents, especially for his size deficit, and in the age of the Big 3/4. 27 Titles, $31+ million US in prize money. He made the FO final. What's the closest Gasquet got? 3x SFs. Ferrer was tough as nails. No one would ever accuse Gasquet of that.

I'm trying to love Sinner, but I don't see him as up there with those guys. Yet. Though, as I said to you earlier, he's got room to grow, and I do like his head.

Right, but Ferrer/Gasquet are still relatively close in talent, while Ferrer had a significantly better career. As we both agree, I think, the main difference is Ferrer's mentality ("tough as nails"). He also had that dip mid-career: after reaching #5 in 2007, he fell to 12 and then 17 in 2009. By that point he was already 27, so it would have been reasonable to assume that he was on the downward arc. But he rallied, and became better than ever, peaking in his late 20s to early 30s.

I think that is the key difference: Ferrer adjusted and found a way to become even better, while Gasquet pretty much plateaued in his early 20s and never got significantly better. That relates to Uncle Toni's advice. This is not to bag on Gasquet, who has been a good player for a long time. All things told, he's 96th all-time in GOAT points and his peak Elo is 91st...so he's probably a top 100 Open Era player, but definitely not top 50 like Ferrer (who is 28th in GOAT points, 21st in peak Elo...so he is arguably top 30).

 

[Fiero425]

I can imagine you were quite a player, brother. What style of play did you favour? In my mind I see a big serve and nifty net game…?

That was the style of the day! Like Isner, I was all serve! I just attacked the net relentlessly! Was also adept at playing in very windy conditions!

 

[Jelenafan]

That was the style of the day! Like Isner, I was all serve! I just attacked the net relentlessly! Was also adept at playing in very windy conditions!

 

[Kieran]

That was the style of the day! Like Isner, I was all serve! I just attacked the net relentlessly! Was also adept at playing in very windy conditions!

Good net players often are. You get used to hustling and pushing for points. I played largely a baseline game (based terribly on Borg!) and windy conditions in Ireland were default setting (double fault setting too) but I’m tall and I had a great serve down the T, plus a good fierce one out wide in the advantage court, which is often difficult for a right hander like me. Sometimes I’d even surprise people by attacking the net but you know yourself - you need to know what you’re doing there. It’s more difficult to be a net rusher than a boring pusher from the baseline…

 

[Moxie]

Yes, well said, and great advice from Uncle Toni. Obviously it worked out well. But I think the basic principle holds: natural talent will only take you so far, but hard work allows you to keep pushing and adjusting.

Great point about the pushing and adjusting. Nadal has been slagged over the years for actually making obvious how hard what he does is. (I think "Bob the Builder" was a favorite of a now-defunct poster, and "peasant" used to get thrown around a lot.) I know that some people always loved how effortless Roger made his tennis look, which seems to appeal to the pearls-and-champagne way that tennis likes to see itself. (Or has done.) But for however much Roger was talented, and he was mightily talented, we know that that took some work, and, in his later years, the commitment to changes and working on them. Likewise, Novak, who changed his whole way of eating to get better. He stretches something like 4 hours a day, according to his wife. Sure, there has a been a GOAT race/Slam race, and they've pushed each other. But they're all worth bazillions. Ambition, commitment, hard work...and ego, for sure...are all involved.

Yeah, I can see that....I wonder if it is a cultural factor, having to do with the time they grew up. I mean, we're mostly talking about guys born in the 90s...so late Millenials/early Zennials...kids that grew up with social media. I wonder if that has given them a sense of "premature stardom." There are relatively new avenues of getting accolades, and thus building oneself up artificially, that didn't exist in earlier eras.

This is such an interesting observation. Almost an existential question. Roger, Rafa and Novak all came to prominence before social media totally blew up. While you can't say they were working in obscurity as they came up, relative to today's terms, they were.

Of course this wouldn't explain why there might be an extra fire in younger generations, the true Zennials like Alcaraz, Rune, and Sinner. Maybe social media and such is more integrated now, or it may be that something new is coming through them, sort of a "back to roots" vibe.

Or maybe there inured to it. Or maybe they have seen the perils, and coaches are more armed to put them off of believing their own publicity. Such an interesting question.

Right, but Ferrer/Gasquet are still relatively close in talent, while Ferrer had a significantly better career. As we both agree, I think, the main difference is Ferrer's mentality ("tough as nails"). He also had that dip mid-career: after reaching #5 in 2007, he fell to 12 and then 17 in 2009. By that point he was already 27, so it would have been reasonable to assume that he was on the downward arc. But he rallied, and became better than ever, peaking in his late 20s to early 30s.

I think that is the key difference: Ferrer adjusted and found a way to become even better, while Gasquet pretty much plateaued in his early 20s and never got significantly better. That relates to Uncle Toni's advice. This is not to bag on Gasquet, who has been a good player for a long time. All things told, he's 96th all-time in GOAT points and his peak Elo is 91st...so he's probably a top 100 Open Era player, but definitely not top 50 like Ferrer (who is 28th in GOAT points, 21st in peak Elo...so he is arguably top 30).

We do basically agree on Ferrer and Gasquet, and I think they make an interesting comparison, for your reasons above. If we're trying to draw a through line to tie this all together, Gasquet came up being told that he was massively talented, and Ferrer pretty much always realized he'd have to work really hard for it.

In an effort to get this back to topic, Ferrer is one of those who had a peak, then a second, even better one. I agree with you that Gasquet peaked early, plateaued, and never really got better.

 

[Moxie]

BTW, thanks to the Admins for the the housekeeping on this thread. We did get off-topic in the ATP general news.

 

[Moxie]

That was the style of the day! Like Isner, I was all serve! I just attacked the net relentlessly! Was also adept at playing in very windy conditions!

Did you use spin in the wind, or you were just more focused?

 

[El Dude]

Great point about the pushing and adjusting. Nadal has been slagged over the years for actually making obvious how hard what he does is. (I think "Bob the Builder" was a favorite of a now-defunct poster, and "peasant" used to get thrown around a lot.) I know that some people always loved how effortless Roger made his tennis look, which seems to appeal to the pearls-and-champagne way that tennis likes to see itself. (Or has done.) But for however much Roger was talented, and he was mightily talented, we know that that took some work, and, in his later years, the commitment to changes and working on them. Likewise, Novak, who changed his whole way of eating to get better. He stretches something like 4 hours a day, according to his wife. Sure, there has a been a GOAT race/Slam race, and they've pushed each other. But they're all worth bazillions. Ambition, commitment, hard work...and ego, for sure...are all involved.

I think that's what we saw with those three: a near-maximization of ALL factors: talent, hard work, competitive mentality, all of which not only saw them reach unsurpassed heights of dominance, but incredible longevity.

This is where I'll use Elo, which tells us that only five players in the Open era reached 2550 Elo: the Big Three, plus McEnroe and Borg (Laver's peak was 2509, hear that of Connors and Lendl, but I'm pretty sure that he reached 2550 in the pre-Open Era). The latter two played eons ago, but I think younger folks don't realize how dynamically good they were - pretty much as good as the Big Three, if we're talking peak form.

But where the Big Three surpassed Borg and McEnroe, is not in peak level but in longevity. They were as good as those two at their best, but with careers twice as long. In fact, all three pretty much have careers as good as Borg and McEnroe combined. All three won more Slams, Novak and Rafa had more big titles, Roger and Novak had more weeks at #1.

So as amazing as the Big Three were at their peaks, what is truly previously unseen--at least since Laver and, to a lesser degree, Rosewall--was the extension and duration of their prime years.

This is such an interesting observation. Almost an existential question. Roger, Rafa and Novak all came to prominence before social media totally blew up. While you can't say they were working in obscurity as they came up, relative to today's terms, they were.

Or maybe there inured to it. Or maybe they have seen the perils, and coaches are more armed to put them off of believing their own publicity. Such an interesting question.

Yeah, it is an open-ended inquiry. I think a lot about the long-term impacts of technology, and even though I love my laptop and am addicted to the "info-sphere" that it provides, I am also a bit of a luddite in my soul...or at least cherish the more organic aspects of human existence: the natural imagination over digital simulation, reading a book vs. reading text on a computer, etc.

As an example, one of my other hobbies is a love of fountain pens. I especially like vintage ones, and own almost 200 bottles of inks! I love everything about them: the colors and shades of different inks, and the pure pleasure of putting color on paper; and I love the fact that an 80-year old pen has so many unknown stories, people who dreamt up worlds on their nibs, or merely signed documents. The rollerball and ballpoint are "superior" (that is, more advanced) technologies, yet they lack the soul of a fountain pen, in all of its glorious messiness.

I relate this to tennis in saying that the newer is not always better (if we recognize that "better" might be qualitative and not merely quantitative), and there is the possibility of cultural decline - even in terms of athletics. I do think that tennis players tend to get better over time, especially in terms of physical skills and pure athleticism. But I wonder about the mental aspects - how our current cultural ethos and obsessions with "smart" technologies and social media is having a negative impact not just on tennis players, but culture as a whole. But there is probably no way to take this from a pure hypothesis to an actual supported theory.

We do basically agree on Ferrer and Gasquet, and I think they make an interesting comparison, for your reasons above. If we're trying to draw a through line to tie this all together, Gasquet came up being told that he was massively talented, and Ferrer pretty much always realized he'd have to work really hard for it.

In an effort to get this back to topic, Ferrer is one of those who had a peak, then a second, even better one. I agree with you that Gasquet peaked early, plateaued, and never really got better.

Ferrer is rather fascinating. From a stat perspective, he not only had the highest peak Elo (2348) among non-Slam winners, but of the 20 players with higher peak Elos, all but Roche won multiple Slams (Tony Roche was technically higher at 2355, but he won a Slam in 1966; Roche is a bit underrated and forgotten these days, but he was a really good player for over a decade, from 1964 into the late 70s...if you take his total career into account, he's a comparable player to someone like Ilie Nastase - a "lesser great").

If Ferrer had played in the late 90s and early 00s, he probably would have won multiple Slams and even reached #1 at his peak. It is weird to say that given his perennial status as the best of 2nd tier during the Big Four era, but the deeper numbers tell a pretty clear story.

What stands out to me about his statistical record is that he was 1-8 in big title finals. Those eight losses were to Novak once, Roger and Andy twice each, and Rafa three times. That's a rather tough road.

Of his 17 big title semifinal defeats, 13 of them were against Novak (5), Rafa (5), and Roger (3), with the other 4 being against Andy, Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Kyrgios.

In other words, of the 25 times that Ferrer lost in a big title SF or F, 19 of them were against the three greatest players of the Open Era, against whom he was 11-59 against (and 0-17 vs Federer!). A hard context to play in.

 

[Moxie]

I think that's what we saw with those three: a near-maximization of ALL factors: talent, hard work, competitive mentality, all of which not only saw them reach unsurpassed heights of dominance, but incredible longevity.

This is where I'll use Elo, which tells us that only five players in the Open era reached 2550 Elo: the Big Three, plus McEnroe and Borg (Laver's peak was 2509, hear that of Connors and Lendl, but I'm pretty sure that he reached 2550 in the pre-Open Era). The latter two played eons ago, but I think younger folks don't realize how dynamically good they were - pretty much as good as the Big Three, if we're talking peak form.

But where the Big Three surpassed Borg and McEnroe, is not in peak level but in longevity. They were as good as those two at their best, but with careers twice as long. In fact, all three pretty much have careers as good as Borg and McEnroe combined. All three won more Slams, Novak and Rafa had more big titles, Roger and Novak had more weeks at #1.

So as amazing as the Big Three were at their peaks, what is truly previously unseen--at least since Laver and, to a lesser degree, Rosewall--was the extension and duration of their prime years.

Very good stuff, including putting it in the context of relative Elo's with Borg/McEnroe, et al, and comparing relative longevities. While I think we all appreciate that we're living in extraordinary times in men's tennis, (albeit the waning of it,) it's hard to see when you in the midst of it. Some of what you say may have bearing on the below.

Yeah, it is an open-ended inquiry. I think a lot about the long-term impacts of technology, and even though I love my laptop and am addicted to the "info-sphere" that it provides, I am also a bit of a luddite in my soul...or at least cherish the more organic aspects of human existence: the natural imagination over digital simulation, reading a book vs. reading text on a computer, etc.

As an example, one of my other hobbies is a love of fountain pens. I especially like vintage ones, and own almost 200 bottles of inks! I love everything about them: the colors and shades of different inks, and the pure pleasure of putting color on paper; and I love the fact that an 80-year old pen has so many unknown stories, people who dreamt up worlds on their nibs, or merely signed documents. The rollerball and ballpoint are "superior" (that is, more advanced) technologies, yet they lack the soul of a fountain pen, in all of its glorious messiness.

I relate this to tennis in saying that the newer is not always better (if we recognize that "better" might be qualitative and not merely quantitative), and there is the possibility of cultural decline - even in terms of athletics. I do think that tennis players tend to get better over time, especially in terms of physical skills and pure athleticism. But I wonder about the mental aspects - how our current cultural ethos and obsessions with "smart" technologies and social media is having a negative impact not just on tennis players, but culture as a whole. But there is probably no way to take this from a pure hypothesis to an actual supported theory.

I also love a fountain pen! I won't distract the thread with this, but perhaps a thread for "The Pleasures of being a Luddite," down the road. I know we've got some great Luddites around here.

The general explanation for the Lost Gen was that they basically collectively gave up in the face of a peak/near peak Roger, Rafa and Novak. Only a bit overly facile. Next Gen looked like the they'd escaped that fate, but still the Big 3 refused to give ground. This is where the technology and social media starts to kick in. I agree with you that it won't be completely possible to weigh the affects of that on the recent generations of tennis players, or young people, in general, though many are trying. But, for young tennis players, it's two-pronged, I suppose. Or 3. There is pressure (or pleasure) just to follow it, which is a distraction. There is pressure to have presence on social media, which is time-consuming, as one establishes a "brand." Then there is the hype and the criticism that comes from the outside at you. Whereas there used to be a few tennis outlets in print and online to discuss tennis for tennis fans, now their every moves are tracked. They can be touted to the hilt for many, many more eyes to see, even before time. Or they can also be slagged of wildly for their arrogance on Twitter. (See: Tsitsipas, Stefanos.) It's too much hype, and too much pressure. And too much of a time suck, and enervating, IMO. Do I think Naomi Osaka would have imploded if she'd come up a decade+ earlier? I frankly don't. Do I wonder if the Williams Sisters had come up now, where the hatefulness wasn't just live-action at a tournament like Indian Wells, but coming at them all the time on social media, would they had lasted so long? I wonder.

Do remember that Borg was men's tennis's first "rock star." And he quit at 26. Subsequent stars were better-prepared. Hopefully, this young generation coming up is either so used to social media that it's just like water to them, or that their teams surround them better.

Ferrer is rather fascinating. From a stat perspective, he not only had the highest peak Elo (2348) among non-Slam winners, but of the 20 players with higher peak Elos, all but Roche won multiple Slams (Tony Roche was technically higher at 2355, but he won a Slam in 1966; Roche is a bit underrated and forgotten these days, but he was a really good player for over a decade, from 1964 into the late 70s...if you take his total career into account, he's a comparable player to someone like Ilie Nastase - a "lesser great").

If Ferrer had played in the late 90s and early 00s, he probably would have won multiple Slams and even reached #1 at his peak. It is weird to say that given his perennial status as the best of 2nd tier during the Big Four era, but the deeper numbers tell a pretty clear story.

What stands out to me about his statistical record is that he was 1-8 in big title finals. Those eight losses were to Novak once, Roger and Andy twice each, and Rafa three times. That's a rather tough road.

Of his 17 big title semifinal defeats, 13 of them were against Novak (5), Rafa (5), and Roger (3), with the other 4 being against Andy, Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Kyrgios.

In other words, of the 25 times that Ferrer lost in a big title SF or F, 19 of them were against the three greatest players of the Open Era, against whom he was 11-59 against (and 0-17 vs Federer!). A hard context to play in.

Good round-up of Ferrer's accomplishments. You know I always touted him in his day. He was wildly under appreciated in his day, IMO, by many around here. Again, the notion that working hard for it was somehow "unseemly." I think many now agree that, like Murray, it's too bad for them that they weren't born in another era. Surely, they would have seen more glory.

 

[Kieran]

I think that's what we saw with those three: a near-maximization of ALL factors: talent, hard work, competitive mentality, all of which not only saw them reach unsurpassed heights of dominance, but incredible longevity.

This is where I'll use Elo, which tells us that only five players in the Open era reached 2550 Elo: the Big Three, plus McEnroe and Borg (Laver's peak was 2509, hear that of Connors and Lendl, but I'm pretty sure that he reached 2550 in the pre-Open Era). The latter two played eons ago, but I think younger folks don't realize how dynamically good they were - pretty much as good as the Big Three, if we're talking peak form.

But where the Big Three surpassed Borg and McEnroe, is not in peak level but in longevity. They were as good as those two at their best, but with careers twice as long. In fact, all three pretty much have careers as good as Borg and McEnroe combined. All three won more Slams, Novak and Rafa had more big titles, Roger and Novak had more weeks at #1.

So as amazing as the Big Three were at their peaks, what is truly previously unseen--at least since Laver and, to a lesser degree, Rosewall--was the extension and duration of their prime years.


Yeah, it is an open-ended inquiry. I think a lot about the long-term impacts of technology, and even though I love my laptop and am addicted to the "info-sphere" that it provides, I am also a bit of a luddite in my soul...or at least cherish the more organic aspects of human existence: the natural imagination over digital simulation, reading a book vs. reading text on a computer, etc.

As an example, one of my other hobbies is a love of fountain pens. I especially like vintage ones, and own almost 200 bottles of inks! I love everything about them: the colors and shades of different inks, and the pure pleasure of putting color on paper; and I love the fact that an 80-year old pen has so many unknown stories, people who dreamt up worlds on their nibs, or merely signed documents. The rollerball and ballpoint are "superior" (that is, more advanced) technologies, yet they lack the soul of a fountain pen, in all of its glorious messiness.

I relate this to tennis in saying that the newer is not always better (if we recognize that "better" might be qualitative and not merely quantitative), and there is the possibility of cultural decline - even in terms of athletics. I do think that tennis players tend to get better over time, especially in terms of physical skills and pure athleticism. But I wonder about the mental aspects - how our current cultural ethos and obsessions with "smart" technologies and social media is having a negative impact not just on tennis players, but culture as a whole. But there is probably no way to take this from a pure hypothesis to an actual supported theory.


Ferrer is rather fascinating. From a stat perspective, he not only had the highest peak Elo (2348) among non-Slam winners, but of the 20 players with higher peak Elos, all but Roche won multiple Slams (Tony Roche was technically higher at 2355, but he won a Slam in 1966; Roche is a bit underrated and forgotten these days, but he was a really good player for over a decade, from 1964 into the late 70s...if you take his total career into account, he's a comparable player to someone like Ilie Nastase - a "lesser great").

If Ferrer had played in the late 90s and early 00s, he probably would have won multiple Slams and even reached #1 at his peak. It is weird to say that given his perennial status as the best of 2nd tier during the Big Four era, but the deeper numbers tell a pretty clear story.

What stands out to me about his statistical record is that he was 1-8 in big title finals. Those eight losses were to Novak once, Roger and Andy twice each, and Rafa three times. That's a rather tough road.

Of his 17 big title semifinal defeats, 13 of them were against Novak (5), Rafa (5), and Roger (3), with the other 4 being against Andy, Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Kyrgios.

In other words, of the 25 times that Ferrer lost in a big title SF or F, 19 of them were against the three greatest players of the Open Era, against whom he was 11-59 against (and 0-17 vs Federer!). A hard context to play in.

Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants. Borg picked the wrong giant - Laver - who was actually the real giant, so in that sense Bjorn also picked the correct giant. But had he picked the lesser giant-with-a-small-g Emerson, he’d have set a higher bar for Pete to chase, and history would be rewritten many times. Sometimes we don’t know what’s what until we’re told. The big 3 weren’t possible in the seventies, or if they were, they were Borg, Connors and McEnroe, pursuing random goals and skipping slams and trying to make sense of the history they were making. Bjorn had the better eye in that regard, but nobody saw Emerson lurking in the background. Such a teensy weensy bit of effort, and Emerson would have been history in the eighties, even more than he was in the 60’s. And Pete would be chasing Borg, most likely, and who knows how many slams Bjorn would have by then? How many would the imperious Sampras have?

So what then for the Big 3? Well, they suddenly found themselves in a hectic multi-dimensional race, one that’s concurrent as well as wiping out the past. And, versus the future too, presumably. In a way, I blame Pete for inventing this slams race, but he also can be thanked for that.

By the way, I have a fountain pen too, and some old sugar cane paper notebooks I write in now and then. My handwriting is gone to hell since keyboards, but it’s such a different pleasure and it also clears the brain and helps me write better things, when I write with the fountain pen. I take much more care over my words…

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, @Moxie and @Kieran - not much to add at this point, except to say that I'm not surprised that you appreciate fountain pens!

Quick question, though, about Borg: Did he actually care about Laver's 11 Slams (not to mention his other records, pro slam dominance, etc)? Presumably he didn't, because if he did he would have gone after Emerson's dubious "record."

Comment about Emerson: Among serious tennis fans, he's sometimes made fun of, or at least derided of due to his--as I said--dubious Slam record (winning 12 when the two best players, and most of the best, were playing pro). But...he was still a very good player. If you look at his Slams, most of them involved good opponents - they weren't like Kriek's two AOs. Now Emerson isn't a real "12-Slam winner" like we think of Borg and Sampras, and he was a lesser player than a lot of the guys who won 6-8 Slams. But he was still a great--or borderline great--player.

Jeff Salzmann, who has "secret Elo data" from before the Open Era that he hasn't shared yet, ranks him #55 all-time (including women), so maybe #25-30ish among men. Just ahead of Pancho Segura, Ilie Nastase, and Frank Sedgman, but behind John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, and Edberg. I don't have enough info to really comment on that, but it kind of makes sense to me.

Speaking of Vilas, he's another guy who was sneakily good, looking beyond Slam count. He was a bit like the Andy Murray of the 70s - a lesser great playing alongside some of the best of all time. The Andy comp only goes so far, because Vilas was particularly great on clay--his peak Elo on clay being 5th all-time, behind only Rafa, Borg, Novak, and Lendl. He was pretty good on carpet and grass, but not as good on hards. Meaning, his main obstacle was Borg, who he lost to in two Roland Garros finals (though he also lost some big ones to Connors). And he also lost that 1982 RG final to 17-year old Wilander, but he was past his peak by then. He'd have 5-6 Slams in a Bjornless world.

 

[Fiero425]

Good stuff, @Moxie and @Kieran - not much to add at this point, except to say that I'm not surprised that you appreciate fountain pens!

Quick question, though, about Borg: Did he actually care about Laver's 11 Slams (not to mention his other records, pro slam dominance, etc)? Presumably he didn't, because if he did he would have gone after Emerson's dubious "record."

Comment about Emerson: Among serious tennis fans, he's sometimes made fun of, or at least derided of due to his--as I said--dubious Slam record (winning 12 when the two best players, and most of the best, were playing pro). But...he was still a very good player. If you look at his Slams, most of them involved good opponents - they weren't like Kriek's two AOs. Now Emerson isn't a real "12-Slam winner" like we think of Borg and Sampras, and he was a lesser player than a lot of the guys who won 6-8 Slams. But he was still a great--or borderline great--player.

Jeff Salzmann, who has "secret Elo data" from before the Open Era that he hasn't shared yet, ranks him #55 all-time (including women), so maybe #25-30ish among men. Just ahead of Pancho Segura, Ilie Nastase, and Frank Sedgman, but behind John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, and Edberg. I don't have enough info to really comment on that, but it kind of makes sense to me.

Speaking of Vilas, he's another guy who was sneakily good, looking beyond Slam count. He was a bit like the Andy Murray of the 70s - a lesser great playing alongside some of the best of all time. The Andy comp only goes so far, because Vilas was particularly great on clay--his peak Elo on clay being 5th all-time, behind only Rafa, Borg, Novak, and Lendl. He was pretty good on carpet and grass, but not as good on hards. Meaning, his main obstacle was Borg, who he lost to in two Roland Garros finals (though he also lost some big ones to Connors). And he also lost that 1982 RG final to 17-year old Wilander, but he was past his peak by then. He'd have 5-6 Slams in a Bjornless world.

Back in the 70s I can tell in the new pro ranks starting in '68, they just didn't think of a major's count being important or they all would have played the FO & AO! Many top players like Connors, Borg, & McEnroe skipped AO until Lendl, Wilander, & Edberg started going "down under!" There was so much going on w/ WTT, lucrative exhibitions, & the fragmented independent tours! You had the majors run by the ITF, the USTA, WTT, & WCT events! The women were in the same predicament w/ the Virginia Slims tour, WTT, & invitational events to make money! Evert & Navratilova started going to AO as well in the 80's! Most players started going on participation runs winning majors & thinking more about history!