A couple factors of greatness (and the generations)

[Moxie]

Yeah, I think it's both. There was a fair amount of talent in Roger's generation, but also some head-cases.

Actually, if we compare GOAT points of Roger's and Rafa/Novak's generations, or all players born between 1979-88, we get the following order (bold = Roger's gen, 79-83):

1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Murray
5. Hewitt
6. Roddick
7. Ferrer
8. Del Potro
9. Wawrinka
10. Safin
11. Ferrero
12. Berdych
13. Davydenko
14. Cilic
15. Tsonga
16. Nalbandian
17. Coria
18. Isner
19. Monfils
20. Soderling
21. Gonzalez
22. Ljubicic
23. Gasquet
24. Robredo
25. Blake

The 84-88 group is more top-heavy, with three of the top four, but then Roger's gen has 8 of the next 13. We can quibble about GOAT points, but that's not the point I'm making. Roger's gen had a strong "middle," just no one that could be considered an ATG.

A couple of things jump out here. We know who the most talented head-cases were: Safin and Nalbandian. (And Coria, but he wasn't a threat to Roger.) Hewitt started out of the gates early, but eventually couldn't keep up. He was a Slam winner, and his hips did give out, but Roger was in control of the rivalry before that, anyway. Roger owned the Americans, Roddick and Blake, playing that one-dimensional, served-based game, seemingly alla Sampras, though nothing like it, by a long stretch. (Blake's one win against him was at the 2008 Olympics. Again, a big spoil from someone he had regularly beaten.) Most of the others shone occasionally brightly, but they were more in a Tomas Berdych-vein of threat. (Not discounting Ferrero's RG win. He's another one who capped Roger a few times early, then never again.) Ferrer stands out as the over-achiever of the group, in terms of your GOAT points. Which is why we admire him so much. But he was 0-17 v. Federer.

All-in-all, it shows it wasn't a poor field. It just seems to show, once again, that the best chances for competition for Roger, within his age-group, were the least-suited to the battle for it.

Of the non-bolded, (your 1979-1988 generation,) there are more Slam winners and finalists. Am I wrong? If we wanted to identify "head cases," based on talent, I'd propose Tsonga and Monfils. In terms for spoiling for the Big 3 at Majors, 7 out of 10 held up their end, at least once.

Your point to Kieran's question: was it the one(s) being so much better, or the competition being "chump change," you said a bit of both. I think that your ledger shows that it was, sort of, but that the generation that came just behind Roger WAS stronger. (Then the one/two after that was a bunch of 8 balls. LOL.)

 

[El Dude]

A couple of things jump out here. We know who the most talented head-cases were: Safin and Nalbandian. (And Coria, but he wasn't a threat to Roger.) Hewitt started out of the gates early, but eventually couldn't keep up. He was a Slam winner, and his hips did give out, but Roger was in control of the rivalry before that, anyway. Roger owned the Americans, Roddick and Blake, playing that one-dimensional, served-based game, seemingly alla Sampras, though nothing like it, by a long stretch. (Blake's one win against him was at the 2008 Olympics. Again, a big spoil from someone he had regularly beaten.) Most of the others shone occasionally brightly, but they were more in a Tomas Berdych-vein of threat. (Not discounting Ferrero's RG win. He's another one who capped Roger a few times early, then never again.) Ferrer stands out as the over-achiever of the group, in terms of your GOAT points. Which is why we admire him so much. But he was 0-17 v. Federer.

All-in-all, it shows it wasn't a poor field. It just seems to show, once again, that the best chances for competition for Roger, within his age-group, were the least-suited to the battle for it.

Of the non-bolded, (your 1979-1988 generation,) there are more Slam winners and finalists. Am I wrong? If we wanted to identify "head cases," based on talent, I'd propose Tsonga and Monfils. In terms for spoiling for the Big 3 at Majors, 7 out of 10 held up their end, at least once.

Your point to Kieran's question: was it the one(s) being so much better, or the competition being "chump change," you said a bit of both. I think that your ledger shows that it was, sort of, but that the generation that came just behind Roger WAS stronger. (Then the one/two after that was a bunch of 8 balls. LOL.)

Good thing I have some charts handy. Here are the Slam finalists in each generation, by Slams won:

1979-83: Federer 20, Safin 2, Hewitt 2, Roddick 1, Ferrero 1, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Nalbandian
1984-88: Nadal 22, Novak 21, Murray 3, Wawrinka 3, Cilic 1, Del Potro 1, Baghdatis, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga, Anderson

So for Roger's gen it is 5 + 3 (8 finalists), for Djokodal, 6 + 5 (11 finalists). Actually, look at the weird ranges here:

1969-73 (Sampras etc): 8 GS winners, 14 total finalists
1974-78 (Kuerten etc): 6 GS winners, 16 total finalists
1979-83 (Federer etc): 5 GS winners, 8 total finalists
1984-88 (Nadal/Djokovic etc): 6 GS winners, 11 total finalists
1989-93 (Lost Gen: 1 GS winner, 3 total finalists

The thing that stands out to me is that there have been far fewer Slam finalists over the last three generations above...30 total finalists in the first two, 22 in the last three. This is clearly because of the dominance of the Big Four, who gobbled up a ton of finals between them: not only are they way ahead in wins, but with 32, 31, 30 finals to their resumes, they're 1-3 and #4 (Lendl) is at 19. Even Andy Murray is tied for 9th most finals (11) in the Open Era. The big four have a total of 74 finals between them! (no distinct ones, mind you - total appearances).

Roger's longevity masks just how long ago his generation was at their peak. If the typical peak years are age 21-26ish, and we take the middle year of a generation (so, 1981 - Roger's birth-year)that means Roger's gen peaked from around 2002-07...15-20 years ago! Certainly by the end of that span, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, and others were done as elite players. Roddick was holding on in the lower half of the top 10 for a few more years, and Ferrer was about to have his late peak run.

Anyhow, those guys are almost completely gone. Roger was the last in the top 100 last year; in 2020, Lopez, Verdasco, and Kohlschreiber were still in the latter half. Verdasco (b. 1983) is still hanging on, sort of...he's at #124 right now. I was surprised to see he played in 11 events this year. Though he was born in 1983, I kind of see him as more part of Rafa's generation. Feliciano Lopez (b. 1981) is still hanging around, and also played 11 events - and went out in the first round of every single one (0-11!). Ouch. He finishes the year #407.

But yeah, Safin and Nalbandian. While I love Roger's dominance over his generation, from a tennis fan perspective, I sure would like to see a career do-over for both.

 

[Moxie]

Good thing I have some charts handy.

You are amazing!

Here are the Slam finalists in each generation, by Slams won:

1979-83: Federer 20, Safin 2, Hewitt 2, Roddick 1, Ferrero 1, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Nalbandian
1984-88: Nadal 22, Novak 21, Murray 3, Wawrinka 3, Cilic 1, Del Potro 1, Baghdatis, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga, Anderson

So for Roger's gen it is 5 + 3 (8 finalists), for Djokodal, 6 + 5 (11 finalists). Actually, look at the weird ranges here:

1969-73 (Sampras etc): 8 GS winners, 14 total finalists
1974-78 (Kuerten etc): 6 GS winners, 16 total finalists
1979-83 (Federer etc): 5 GS winners, 8 total finalists
1984-88 (Nadal/Djokovic etc): 6 GS winners, 11 total finalists
1989-93 (Lost Gen: 1 GS winner, 3 total finalists

The thing that stands out to me is that there have been far fewer Slam finalists over the last three generations above...30 total finalists in the first two, 22 in the last three. This is clearly because of the dominance of the Big Four, who gobbled up a ton of finals between them: not only are they way ahead in wins, but with 32, 31, 30 finals to their resumes, they're 1-3 and #4 (Lendl) is at 19. Even Andy Murray is tied for 9th most finals (11) in the Open Era. The big four have a total of 74 finals between them! (no distinct ones, mind you - total appearances).

But this tracks with what we know, right? The 90s into the early aughts, essentially the Sampras Era. (I'm not sure anyone ever gave Kuerten his own era.) But we know that late in that time, the basic was: win a major, get your time at #1. There was a LOT of turnover. This is the wild west that we often wonder if we're about to return to, is it not?

Federer's era DOES have the fewest different GS winners and finalists. The next era is clearly more competitive, and then the Lost Gen are the ones who make it weird. Other than that, the numbers aren't that wildly divergent, as you separate them.

Roger's longevity masks just how long ago his generation was at their peak. If the typical peak years are age 21-26ish, and we take the middle year of a generation (so, 1981 - Roger's birth-year)that means Roger's gen peaked from around 2002-07...15-20 years ago! Certainly by the end of that span, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, and others were done as elite players. Roddick was holding on in the lower half of the top 10 for a few more years, and Ferrer was about to have his late peak run.

Anyhow, those guys are almost completely gone. Roger was the last in the top 100 last year; in 2020, Lopez, Verdasco, and Kohlschreiber were still in the latter half. Verdasco (b. 1983) is still hanging on, sort of...he's at #124 right now. I was surprised to see he played in 11 events this year. Though he was born in 1983, I kind of see him as more part of Rafa's generation. Feliciano Lopez (b. 1981) is still hanging around, and also played 11 events - and went out in the first round of every single one (0-11!). Ouch. He finishes the year #407.

I don't think it's lost on most how long a few of Roger's generation held on, nor now long ago some of them retired...specifically because they are of Roger's era.

But yeah, Safin and Nalbandian. While I love Roger's dominance over his generation, from a tennis fan perspective, I sure would like to see a career do-over for both.

I think most would agree with that, particularly in terms of Safin. He had a lot of fans around here. He was pegged early as the future of men's tennis when he beat Pete at the USO final in 2000, when he played a nearly perfect match, at 20. He also played one of the greatest matches of all time to beat Federer in the AO SF 2005, then went on to win the title. (Side note: he never won another title after that AO.) In between was a lot of injury, but mostly just self-imposed UFEs. Nalbandian was harder to love, but he did have a lot of talent, and a high-ceiling, when he could be bothered to hit it. For the record, and for context: Safin had 15 careers titles, 2 of which were Majors; Nalbandian had 11, 2 of which were MS1000s.

 

[El Dude]

You are amazing!

Well, thanks, but it is mostly just nerdery. I like to make charts when I'm watching a show/movie...sort of as a counter-balance. I was making tennis charts watching the Handmaid's Tale, to soften the brutality (that's a hard show to watch).

But this tracks with what we know, right? The 90s into the early aughts, essentially the Sampras Era. (I'm not sure anyone ever gave Kuerten his own era.) But we know that late in that time, the basic was: win a major, get your time at #1. There was a LOT of turnover. This is the wild west that we often wonder if we're about to return to, is it not?

Yeah, I call it the "Wild West Generation" now - the players born 1974-78, with Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Moya, Rios, etc. I think Next Gen is of similar talent, which is less than the better generations, but a solid step or two above Lost Gen.

Federer's era DOES have the fewest different GS winners and finalists. The next era is clearly more competitive, and then the Lost Gen are the ones who make it weird. Other than that, the numbers aren't that wildly divergent, as you separate them.

What stands out most to me is how many more finalists and big title winners were in the earlier generations. The tour was less dominated by just a few. And this goes back well before. I mean, I know we know this - that the Big Three have been so dominant - but it is interesting to illustrate just how uniform the tour has been from about 2005-16. 2017 and on has been a slow breaking up of Big Three hegemony, but mostly other than Slams. At least we've seen a new Slam winner each of the last three years.

I don't think it's lost on most how long a few of Roger's generation held on, nor now long ago some of them retired...specifically because they are of Roger's era.

I think most would agree with that, particularly in terms of Safin. He had a lot of fans around here. He was pegged early as the future of men's tennis when he beat Pete at the USO final in 2000, when he played a nearly perfect match, at 20. He also played one of the greatest matches of all time to beat Federer in the AO SF 2005, then went on to win the title. (Side note: he never won another title after that AO.) In between was a lot of injury, but mostly just self-imposed UFEs. Nalbandian was harder to love, but he did have a lot of talent, and a high-ceiling, when he could be bothered to hit it. For the record, and for context: Safin had 15 careers titles, 2 of which were Majors; Nalbandian had 11, 2 of which were MS1000s.

Don't forget about Nalbandian's Tour Finals win. But that 2007 Madrid is the most epic, with his defeat of the Big Three in order. Novak wasn't quite prime yet, but still.

 

[Moxie]

I didn't forget about Nalbandian's WTF win, I was just going for brevity. But given the thinness of the Nalbandian resume, I surely could have included it. And his Wimbledon final. Part of my point, though, was how stark the title total is with so many top players, compared to the gaudiness of the hauls by the Big Three. I do rather expect a bit of a return to the Wild West, for the next while. But we'll see if just a few emerge to also mostly run the table.

 

[El Dude]

I didn't forget about Nalbandian's WTF win, I was just going for brevity. But given the thinness of the Nalbandian resume, I surely could have included it. And his Wimbledon final. Part of my point, though, was how stark the title total is with so many top players, compared to the gaudiness of the hauls by the Big Three. I do rather expect a bit of a return to the Wild West, for the next while. But we'll see if just a few emerge to also mostly run the table.

Yeah, I hear you. The Big Three are just nuts.

I still like to prop Andy up too, though: 3 Slams is one thing, but 20 big titles (12th in Open Era) and 46 overall titles (15th in Open era) - both more than Wilander and Edberg. Not to mention all the QF+ appearances at Slams.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I hear you. The Big Three are just nuts.

I still like to prop Andy up too, though: 3 Slams is one thing, but 20 big titles (12th in Open Era) and 46 overall titles (15th in Open era) - both more than Wilander and Edberg. Not to mention all the QF+ appearances at Slams.

I'm always happy to give Andy his props. So many haters out there. 46 titles is a LOT. Plus, going back to your OP, he DID wrestle the top spot from the Big 3, and held it for about 8 months. He became only the 4th man to be #1 in 13 years, I think. I know we've discussed this before, but he really sort of exists in his own category. None held his own place better in the era of the Big 3, won more big titles, beat them in more important moments, nor got to #1 (or even #2, I think,) when they had the stranglehold.