The Legends Thread

[El Dude]

In the spirit of the Laver Cup, I thought I'd start that elusive "legends" thread. I'll start by posting two fun clips.

One, here's rather amazingly good footage of the 1969 US Open Final, when Laver defeated Tony Roche to win his second Grand Slam. To be honest, it isn't all that exciting - I watched the first few games, then skipped around. But it is still fun to see the brilliance of Laver on full displace.



The second video is the 1984 Roland Garros final. This is perhaps most famous as Ivan Lendl's first Slam title, but also McEnroe's big "match that got away." After being up two sets, Mac lost ground to the stubborn Lendl. This is a very fun match - or maybe it is because it is a highlights video. But I just love the way they played, back in the waning years of wood racquets. There is so much finesse and skill on display - and a lot of variation. Power isn't the norm, but it comes.



Anyhow, feel free to post anything you want. The One Rule to Rule Them All is...no Fedalkovic Wars. OK, a bit is OK - they are legends, after all. But there's another place for that. But post stats, videos, comments, anecdotes, fun stories about legends, era comparisons, etc etc.

 

[mrzz]

Just checked the first video (could not see it all, but some 15 minutes here and there), and it is a gem! It is a completely different game -- almost "cross-tennis", wtih all that mud, and the players not celebrating each and every point is music to my ears.

 

[El Dude]

Just checked the first video (could not see it all, but some 15 minutes here and there), and it is a gem! It is a completely different game -- almost "cross-tennis", wtih all that mud, and the players not celebrating each and every point is music to my ears.

Yeah, I kept on getting distracted by the grass tufts around where they were serving from. Brutal. Note also the size of Laver's arm. Dude was like a samurai - backhands and forehands, sharp as a katana. Even the openness of the court, with two courts on either side. So different.

 

[El Dude]

Stat time. In most years there are 4 Grand Slams, 1 Tour Finals, and 9 Masters, or 14 "big titles" total. In some years the Olympics makes it 15; in past decades, there were other tournaments--the Grand Slam Cup (1990-99), the WCT Finals (1971-89), and the Tennis Champions Classic (1970-71) that have altered the number a bit. But generally there are 14 or 15.

This got me wondering: How many times has a player won at least half of all big titles in a given year? I'll use big title equivalents as denoted by the Ultimate Tennis Statistics, and list them chronologically:

1984 (15): John McEnroe 9
1986 (14): Ivan Lendl 7
2004 (14): Roger Federer 7
2006 (14): Roger Federer 8
2011 (14): Novak Djokovic 8
2013 (14): Rafael Nadal 7
2015 (14): Novak Djokovic 10

Meaning, it has been done only seven times by five players (twice by Roger and Novak, each), and only 4 times has a player won the majority of big titles (Mac, Roger, Novak x2). Carlos Alcaraz could join the above list if he wins two of Shanghai, Paris, and the Tour Finals - a big ask.

Where's Laver, you ask? He won all four Slams in 1969, but just two Masters - so his 6 total big titles doesn't quite get him to half of 13 big titles that year.

 

[Jelenafan]

Stat time. In most years there are 4 Grand Slams, 1 Tour Finals, and 9 Masters, or 14 "big titles" total. In some years the Olympics makes it 15; in past decades, there were other tournaments--the Grand Slam Cup (1990-99), the WCT Finals (1971-89), and the Tennis Champions Classic (1970-71) that have altered the number a bit. But generally there are 14 or 15.

This got me wondering: How many times has a player won at least half of all big titles in a given year? I'll use big title equivalents as denoted by the Ultimate Tennis Statistics, and list them chronologically:

1984 (15): John McEnroe 9
1986 (14): Ivan Lendl 7
2004 (14): Roger Federer 7
2006 (14): Roger Federer 8
2011 (14): Novak Djokovic 8
2013 (14): Rafael Nadal 7
2015 (14): Novak Djokovic 10

Meaning, it has been done only seven times by five players (twice by Roger and Novak, each), and only 4 times has a player won the majority of big titles (Mac, Roger, Novak x2). Carlos Alcaraz could join the above list if he wins two of Shanghai, Paris, and the Tour Finals - a big ask.

Where's Laver, you ask? He won all four Slams in 1969, but just two Masters - so his 6 total big titles doesn't quite get him to half of 13 big titles that year.

Great stats, El Dude.

The “problem” in comparing different eras from the start of open tennis to say, the late ‘80s is that there was not one cohesive tour all that time. There were competing factions & tours & even boycotts of slams. ( see 1972 & 1973 Wimbledon) The WCT had a tour versus the Grand Prix circuit. The AO was sort of a joke in that outside of the Aussies, most top players skipped it & other tour events were more important. For example in their peak years Bortg & macEnroe did not even bother to show up down under.

World Team Tennis was a big deal IIRC from around 1973-1980, so a lot of the players skipped the French Open.

So the top players did nott play all 4 slams consistently. For years red clay dirt ballers would skip Wimbledon, even Agassi did that in the early part of his career. Grasscourters bypassed the French Open, etc. A major surface in the 70’s -90’s, indoor carpet has virtually disappeared.

Throw in the preponderance of Hardcourts these days when in the early days of the open era 3 out of the 4 Slams were on grass.

Laver probably never considered 10 tournaments as “big” during the early open years. In hindsight we look at some of these tourneys as important but back in the day the pros were just trying to earn a living. For example the US indoors tourney in Philadelphia was big, as was a grass court event as IIRc in Boston, they are both long gone. The oldest running continuous professional men’s tournament ended in the Bay Area a few years ago, having skipped around from SF ( the old Cow palace) to San Jose ( SAP arena)

The modern era of the ATP with the 4 Slams equally important, the mandatory Masters & the YE ATP champs really only emerged during the Pete Sampras era.

 

[mrzz]

Great post, @Jelenafan

 

[El Dude]

Great stats, El Dude.

The “problem” in comparing different eras from the start of open tennis to say, the late ‘80s is that there was not one cohesive tour all that time. There were competing factions & tours & even boycotts of slams. ( see 1972 & 1973 Wimbledon) The WCT had a tour versus the Grand Prix circuit. The AO was sort of a joke in that outside of the Aussies, most top players skipped it & other tour events were more important. For example in their peak years Bortg & macEnroe did not even bother to show up down under.

World Team Tennis was a big deal IIRC from around 1973-1980, so a lot of the players skipped the French Open.

So the top players did nott play all 4 slams consistently. For years red clay dirt ballers would skip Wimbledon, even Agassi did that in the early part of his career. Grasscourters bypassed the French Open, etc. A major surface in the 70’s -90’s, indoor carpet has virtually disappeared.

Throw in the preponderance of Hardcourts these days when in the early days of the open era 3 out of the 4 Slams were on grass.

Laver probably never considered 10 tournaments as “big” during the early open years. In hindsight we look at some of these tourneys as important but back in the day the pros were just trying to earn a living. For example the US indoors tourney in Philadelphia was big, as was a grass court event as IIRc in Boston, they are both long gone. The oldest running continuous professional men’s tournament ended in the Bay Area a few years ago, having skipped around from SF ( the old Cow palace) to San Jose ( SAP arena)

The modern era of the ATP with the 4 Slams equally important, the mandatory Masters & the YE ATP champs really only emerged during the Pete Sampras era.

Yes, absolutely - and a nice summary of some of the factors that make cross-era comparisons difficult. To some extent we can look at 1990 on as the "new Open Era," as the tour has been relatively consistence since then. Not perfectly so, but enough that I think you can compare 90s on pretty well, at least a lot better than, say, the 70s to now.

So I get that there were no true "big titles" before 1990, or at least no official Masters, but there were still some tournaments that were bigger than others. You can see the difference in money, but also depth of the field. Ultimate Tennis Statistics basically picked the nine non-Slam/TF/WCT tournaments that had the deepest fields - so they were the "biggest" of the rest. It is far from perfect, but at least it gives us something.

Another major difference is that I think top players were more prone to "vulture" smaller tournaments in the 70s. Jimmy Connors in 1974 won 15 titles, including three Slams, but after those only one other tournament (LA) was a "Masters equivalent." In other words, 11 of his 15 titles were equivalent either an ATP 500 or ATP 250. Guillermo Vilas in 1977 was even more extreme: 16 titles overall, two Slams, and 14 other titles were 250s/500s.

The Big Three barely "vultured." They all played half a dozen smaller tournaments a year (plus or minus), but they were mainly used as tune-ups for bigger tournaments, especially later on.

I think you could also make an argument that winning the Channel Slam in the 70s-80s was just as hard, if not harder, than winning three Slams is today. Fiero has talked about this quite a bit. But Borg's string of two-Slam years, 1978-80, is probably roughly equal to winning three Slams today.

All that said, one reason I find cross-era comparisons still meaningful--if flawed--is that tennis eras are on a continuum, not discretely separate. Rafael Nadal played Andre Agassi, who played Jimmy Connors, who played Pancho Gonzales. Those four players span the years 1947-2022 - or 76 years. We could even hook Bill Tilden on, as he played Pancho in 1952 as a 59 year old! (Pancho won 6-1, 6-2). That would give us 1915-22 in five players, or 108 years! The point being, the tour has changed, but the players have changed along with it. Pancho Gonzales beat Bill Tilden (born in 1893) and Jimmy Connors (born in 1952). Crazy to think about.

 

[Fiero425]

Great stats, El Dude.

The “problem” in comparing different eras from the start of open tennis to say, the late ‘80s is that there was not one cohesive tour all that time. There were competing factions & tours & even boycotts of slams. ( see 1972 & 1973 Wimbledon) The WCT had a tour versus the Grand Prix circuit. The AO was sort of a joke in that outside of the Aussies, most top players skipped it & other tour events were more important. For example in their peak years Bortg & macEnroe did not even bother to show up down under.

World Team Tennis was a big deal IIRC from around 1973-1980, so a lot of the players skipped the French Open.

So the top players did nott play all 4 slams consistently. For years red clay dirt ballers would skip Wimbledon, even Agassi did that in the early part of his career. Grasscourters bypassed the French Open, etc. A major surface in the 70’s -90’s, indoor carpet has virtually disappeared.

Throw in the preponderance of Hardcourts these days when in the early days of the open era 3 out of the 4 Slams were on grass.

Laver probably never considered 10 tournaments as “big” during the early open years. In hindsight we look at some of these tourneys as important but back in the day the pros were just trying to earn a living. For example the US indoors tourney in Philadelphia was big, as was a grass court event as IIRc in Boston, they are both long gone. The oldest running continuous professional men’s tournament ended in the Bay Area a few years ago, having skipped around from SF ( the old Cow Palace) to San Jose ( SAP arena)

The modern era of the ATP with the 4 Slams equally important, the mandatory Masters & the YE ATP champs really only emerged during the Pete Sampras era.

In Laver's era, in his mind, he's only missing one championship; The WCT Champ. held in Dallas every Spring! Like the YEC of the ATP tour, it was the culm. of pts. collected at WCT sactioned events around the world! Like the YE Masters event, tournaments could be on just about any surface; HC, Grass, clay, & Indoor Carpet! IIRC, Laver made 2 WCT Finals in '71 &'72, dropping both to Ken Rosewall! After that he was upset by Stan Smith, then dropped a 5 set epic SF to Borg in 1975! Laver took all the fight out of Bjorn! Arthur Ashe took advantage keeping him on the run w/ drop shots & lobs! I seem to remember a documentary entitled, "One More For The Rocket" w/ Laver's quest for that elusive title he never won! People won't ever realize he lost a number of yrs. playing as a Pro & unable to play 5+ yrs. of Majors between his 2 CYGS of '62 & '69! Pros were allowed to enter Majors by mid '68! The Grand Prix & WCT tours weren't alone w/ an Independent league out there too sponsored by Jimmy Connors' old Manager, Bill Riodan! Connors & Nastase the only players I can recall being part of it! In 1990 the New ATP Tour was created w/9 mandatory Masters events! In past eras, there truly weren't that many Major events, least of all 14 as we have now!

 

[El Dude]

In Laver's era, in his mind, he's only missing one championship; The WCT Champ. held in Dallas every Spring! Like the YEC of the ATP tour, it was the culm. of pts. collected at WCT sactioned events around the world! Like the YE Masters event, tournaments could be on just about any surface; HC, Grass, clay, & Indoor Carpet! IIRC, Laver made 2 WCT Finals in '71 &'72, dropping both to Ken Rosewall! After that he was upset by Stan Smith, then dropped a 5 set epic SF to Borg in 1975! Laver took all the fight out of Bjorn! Arthur Ashe took advantage keeping him on the run w/ drop shots & lobs! I seem to remember a documentary entitled, "One More For The Rocket" w/ Laver's quest for that elusive title he never won! People won't ever realize he lost a number of yrs. playing as a Pro & unable to play 5+ yrs. of Majors between his 2 CYGS of '62 & '69! Pros were allowed to enter Majors by mid '68! The Grand Prix & WCT tours weren't alone w/ an Independent league out there too sponsored by Jimmy Connors' old Manager, Bill Riodan! Connors & Nastase the only players I can recall being part of it! In 1990 the New ATP Tour was created w/9 mandatory Masters events! In past eras, there truly weren't that many Major events, least of all 14 as we have now!

Fiero, you hold the forum record for most exclamation marks, and by a huge margin. In this paragraph, you used 14. Impressive.

 

[El Dude]

From the General thread:

Open Era seasons of 10+ titles:

Rod Laver (3): 1968-70
Ilie Nastase (2): 1972-73
Jimmy Connors (4): 1973-74, 1976, 1978
Guillermo Vilas: 1977
Bjorn Borg (2): 1977, 1979
John McEnroe (3): 1979, 1981, 1984
Ivan Lendl (3): 1982, 1985, 1989
Pete Sampras: 1994
Thomas Muster: 1995
Roger Federer (3): 2004-06
Rafael Nadal (2): 2005, 2013
Novak Djokovic (2): 2011, 2015

If you count Laver's entire career, he did it NINE times.

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, you hold the forum record for most exclamation marks, and by a huge margin. In this paragraph, you used 14. Impressive.

Old news! Been a habit to use '!!!' over other delimeters 25 yrs. ago! Probably had something to do w/ a '.' key being stuck & relenting to the '!!'

 

[El Dude]

All-time Greats and some lesser greats the year they turned 36 (from the Rankings thread). I'm including my "PEP" score, for comparison sake. 10 PEP is basically top 10, 20 is roughly top 5, 30 is top 2-3, 40+ is historic and almost always #1.

As you can, according to PEP, there have been four age 36 seasons that stand out above the rest, Novak in 2023, Roger in 2017, Rosewall in 1970, and Rafa in 2022.

Novak's 2023 was rather amazing: Not only did he finish #1, but he led in titles, Win%, PEP, and of course reached all four Slam finals, winning three of them...and won the Tour Finals and two further Masters.

Roger's 2017 wasn't far behind and he also led in titles and Win%, but only played 12 events, skipping clay. Even a modest clay season would have put him close to Novak and a #1 ranking.

Nadal was probably the best overall player in 2022, but struggled with injury in the second half and lost #1 to Carlos Alcaraz, who was #1 be default: Rafa's injury and Novak being banned from Australia and not getting points for his Wimbledon title.

As for Rosewall in 1970, to some extent it was a quantity thing, but he was easily the second best player that year.

Laver, Ashe and Connors all were still good players at age 36, but clearly declined from their primes.

 

[El Dude]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been doing a deep-dive into WTA history to try to catch up a bit. I have a question I'd like to ask some questions as they arise, from folks who have been tennis longer than I have, so folks like @Fiero425, @britbox , @Moxie -- and anyone else (not sure everyone's ages).

For starters, I'm curious about WTA players who are considered under-achievers and/or careers that fell off abrupty and/or didn't fulfill initial promise. I know some of the obvious ones - the unique case of Monica Seles, of course, and Tracy Austin, who seemed like she might actually challenge "Evertilova" for a bit there before falling off. I think I read somewhere that Gabriel Sabatini--while having a great career--was initially more highly regarded than Steffi Graf.

But this question arose when I came across Iva Majoli, who looked like a breakout star in 1997 at age 20 (though probably not a great) then struggled with injuries and then fell out of the top 20 the following year and never recovered.

Who else to look at?

 

[britbox]

Andrea Jaegar - world number 2 at 16, retired at 19, 20.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Andrea Jaegar - world number 2 at 16, retired at 19, 20

Teen prodigy in early 1980's, at 16 yo highest ranking no 2
Retired at age 19 due to shoulder injury
Then joined the convent and became a nun

 

[Fiero425]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I've been doing a deep-dive into WTA history to try to catch up a bit. I have a question I'd like to ask some questions as they arise, from folks who have been tennis longer than I have, so folks like @Fiero425, @britbox , @Moxie -- and anyone else (not sure everyone's ages).

For starters, I'm curious about WTA players who are considered under-achievers and/or careers that fell off abrupty and/or didn't fulfill initial promise. I know some of the obvious ones - the unique case of Monica Seles, of course, and Tracy Austin, who seemed like she might actually challenge "Evertilova" for a bit there before falling off. I think I read somewhere that Gabriel Sabatini--while having a great career--was initially more highly regarded than Steffi Graf.

But this question arose when I came across Iva Majoli, who looked like a breakout star in 1997 at age 20 (though probably not a great) then struggled with injuries and then fell out of the top 20 the following year and never recovered.

Who else to look at?

Well, IMO the greatest female underachiever has to be Hana Mandlikova! She had more talent than ANY other woman; the female equivalent of Ilie Nastase or Marat Safin! She had every shot in the book, great court speed, could rip winners from anywhere on the court, & serve most players off the court when "in the zone!" Her problem was mental; just like many of today's top players who reach a major final or 3, get up to "match point" like an Azarenka, Zverev, or Tsitsipas, then find a way to let it get away from them! Hana was the only player who gave Martina "heartburn" during her lengthy run as #1! Like Wawrinka vs Novak, she didn't have many wins, but when she did it made a difference in the history of the game! She stopped one of Navratilova's winning streaks at 54 matches, upset her just 3 or 4 times in Majors, & extended her to 4 sets at the Virginia Slims championships in '86 when the final was BO5! Hana allowed Evert to "own" her though she had just a fraction the athleticism & skill!

 

[Jelenafan]

Well, IMO the greatest female underachiever has to be Hana Mandlikova! She had more talent than ANY other woman; the female equivalent of Ilie Nastase or Marat Safin! She had every shot in the book, great court speed, could rip winners from anywhere on the court, & serve most players off the court when "in the zone!" Her problem was mental; just like many of today's top players who reach a major final or 3, get up to "match point" like an Azarenka, Zverev, or Tsitsipas, then find a way to let it get away from them! Hana was the only player who gave Martina "heartburn" during her lengthy run as #1! Like Wawrinka vs Novak, she didn't have many wins, but when she did it made a difference in the history of the game! She stopped one of Navratilova's winning streaks at 54 matches, upset her just 3 or 4 times in Majors, & extended her to 4 sets at the Virginia Slims championships in '86 when the final was BO5! Hana allowed Evert to "own" her though she had just a fraction the athleticism & skill!

Amen to Hana.

Saw her once live ( at a Fed Cup match) bagel Martina N. ( at the time when Martina was at her peak) but in typical Hana fashion I think she lost the actual match. Incredibly fluid player with coiled power.

The next player is a bit controversial as a choice because she really did accomplish a lot ( 7 slams ? ) but I thought Evonne Goolagong could have accomplished so much more. Lacked a bit of hunger or mental resolve IMO, because she moved beautifully and had the most aesthetically pleasing BH I’ve ever seen in a WTA player.

Ditto I always thought Ana Ivanoic was an underachiever, won one slam & made two more finals but she could have accomplished so much more, had an efficient “big” game.

Ditto Virginia Wade.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Thanks El Dude, regarding female tennis players, wasted potential talent, lack of GS titles relative to talent, or ability to perform on the biggest stages, these tennis players I feel have frequently underachieved,

Dinara Safina,
Despite reaching world No 1 and appearing in 3 GS finals ( 2 French Open, one Australian Open) she never won a major title and is often noted for her inability to produce her best tennis in crucial, straight set finals. ( I was there live at the French Open in 2009, Kuznetsova defeated Safina in straight sets 64 62)

Elena Dementieva,
Possessed elite baseline game and speed but was severely hampered by a weak serve, which likely kept her from winning more than one Olympic Gold medal and 2 slam runner up finishes.

Jelena Jankovic,
Another former World No 1 who failed to win a GS, often criticized for lacking mental toughness and aggressive game needed to win the biggest titles

Agnieszka Radwanska,
Known for incredible tennis intelligence and shot making, she was a finalist at Wimbledon, but often outclassed in power by top tier opponents.

Gabriela Sabatini,
Despite winning the 1990 US Open, she was considered an underachiever compared to her potential rival Steffi Graf, often struggling with consistency and pressure during her career.

 

[El Dude]

Maybe not quite on the same scale as most of those mentioned, but two I discovered: Jelena Dokic and, believe it or not, Anna Kournikova. Dokic started really strong, reached a Slam SF at 17 and won two Masters equivalents at age 18 (2001), and reached #4 in 2002. But presumably family issues--especially a volatile father as her coach--derailed her career and she never evolved.

Kournikova is known as a sex symbol, but was actually a pretty good player. But she never quite managed to get over the hump, and never even won a title - despite reaching as high as #8 at 19 years old. She was done at 21 due to a back issue. It is crazy to think that she's only 44 now, despite retiring 23 years ago (2003).

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Maybe not quite on the same scale as most of those mentioned, but two I discovered: Jelena Dokic and, believe it or not, Anna Kournikova. Dokic started really strong, reached a Slam SF at 17 and won two Masters equivalents at age 18 (2001), and reached #4 in 2002. But presumably family issues--especially a volatile father as her coach--derailed her career and she never evolved.

Kournikova is known as a sex symbol, but was actually a pretty good player. But she never quite managed to get over the hump, and never even won a title - despite reaching as high as #8 at 19 years old. She was done at 21 due to a back issue. It is crazy to think that she's only 44 now, despite retiring 23 years ago (2003).

Jelena's Dockic father should have been put in jail and arrested on 'abusive mental charges' he was a total Maniac ' a taxi driver and milked all the money from Jelena she earnt over the years as a tennis professional.
Jelena suffered a nervous breakdown thanks to her dad and could not get out of bed for 2 years, he robbed her of her prime and sad to say she never recovered. Jelena finally recovered and works as an excellent tennis commentator for Channel 9 in Sydney, she would also make an excellent coach.

Kournikova never really buckled down with her talent, they do say Blondes have more Fun she has been in a long term relationship with singer Enrique Iglesias since 2001 and recently had their 4th child together.