Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[El Dude]

Here's a chart. It started out as an attempt to quantify just how good Rafa's been on clay relative to other clay players, but then became something larger. Basically, I started with my PEP (Premier Event Points) formula and divided it by "Potential PEP" (PPEP) - meaning, how much PEP a player could have earned. The column "height" represents that - a percentage of total possible PEP. The width represents the total number of PEP earned - meaning, players who played less on a given surface or had shorter careers have narrower columns. For instance, as you see, Novak and Roger on hards are the two widest columns because they earned more PEP on hard surfaces than any other player on a specific surface.

This chart illustrates roughly how dominant different great players were on different surfaces, starting with Rafa on clay (68.1 PPEP%) and ending with Roger on clay (24.2) and everything in-between. I may have missed one or two specialists, but they probably would end up towards the Roger-on-clay end of the spectrum, if they're on the chart at all (e.g. the great clay specialist Thomas Muster was at 18.8 on clay, so didn't make the chart). The columns are color-coded by player, so you can relatively easily find specific players by looking for the same color.

The chart, with some remarks to follow:

(I don't know why it says "Formula Bar" - I took several screenshots and couldn't get rid of it, so just ignore it).

OK, a few thoughts.

• Surface GOAT - This well-illustrates just how dominant Rafa has been on clay, with that huge gap between him and everyone else. Again, this means he won 68.1% of the total possible PEP points on clay. Quite astonishing, really.
• Lendl on Carpet? - I knew Lendl was a maestro on carpet, but this was a bit surprising to see him second. McEnroe actually had a higher carpet peak Elo, but Lendl looks better according to this metric. Borg on clay is right behind him, unsurprisingly.
• All-Surface Greats (ASGs) - Only a handful of players have every surface they played on represented: The Big Three, of course, with Novak being the most balanced (his worst surface is clay, and he's still 19th on this list) - not counting the few carpet matches all three played. Borg has three surfaces in the top 11 and he was still pretty good on his worst surface, hard courts, and still on the chart. Laver has all four surfaces represented, and would probably be more dominant on this chart if I had includes his pre-Open Era stats. Finally, Jimmy Connors - who is one of the most balanced players of the Open Era. His clay record is kind of forgotten, but he was really good on clay - about as good as Vilas and Federer.
• Just missed the "ASG" mark) - Lendl on grass (19.5) isn't that far off, McEnroe on clay (12.8) is well off, Rosewall on carpet (23.2) and hards (20.8) is close. John Newcombe is another balanced player who was good on all surfaces (18.2 or higher), but only shows up on one surface (grass at 30.7).
• Weak Surfaces for Greats - you don't see it on the chart because it ends with 24.2, but the worst surface performance by ATGs are: Sampras on clay (6.3), Edberg on clay (7.6), Ashe on clay (7.9), and Becker on clay (9.5). In other words, all clay and three of four playing in the 80s-90s. Next up would be McEnroe and Murray (12.8) both on clay.
• Comparing across surfaces - My favorite part of this chart is how you can compare across not only eras but surfaces. This chart tells us that Nadal and Connors were about as good on hard courts (though Nadal played a lot more), or that McEnroe was about as good on carpet--his best surface--as Sampras and Federer were on grass, their best surfaces. Or that Nadal was about as good on grass and hards as Andy Murray was on his best surface, grass. Or that Borg on clay, in his short career, was a bit better than Roger or Novak on any surface (though Borg gets the benefit of his numbers not being softened by decline).

Anyhow, just a fun metric that is another angle on looking at tennis greats and comparing across eras and surfaces.

 

[shawnbm]

Very COOL indeed El Dude--thanks!

 

[Nadalfan2013]

That first bar is taller than Mount Everest. Congratulations GOATdal!

 

[shawnbm]

Actually, Novak and then Roger have the best you group those 3 together in terms of services they all have played on. Sadly, carpet is no longer played on, which I used to enjoy immensely. Novak has more success than Roger on Clay both in terms of the height of his, and where it is on the chart. He is equal to Roger on grass more or less and is slightly had a Roger on her records, unbelievably so. What is impressive is Borg to me--incredible player him across 4 surfaces as you can see. Connors and McEnroe too! But how about Rod Laver! He stands out superbly as well!

 

[El Dude]

Actually, Novak and then Roger have the best you group those 3 together in terms of services they all have played on. Sadly, carpet is no longer played on, which I used to enjoy immensely. Novak has more success than Roger on Clay both in terms of the height of his, and where it is on the chart. He is equal to Roger on grass more or less and is slightly had a Roger on her records, unbelievably so. What is impressive is Borg to me--incredible player him across 4 surfaces as you can see. Connors and McEnroe too! But how about Rod Laver! He stands out superbly as well!

Mac was relatively weak on clay - with a 12.8 PPEP%. That's still solid, though. I don't have these stats for non-greats, but I'm guessing he was about as good on clay as some of the better clay-courters of the late 90s and early 00s. That's better than Becker, Edberg, and Sampras on clay, but doesn't figure into the chart and is significantly worse than Roger on clay (24.2%) or even Lendl on grass (19.5%). I don't have an exact number in mind, but I'd say 15-20% is where the elite begins, 30% is bordering into great, 40% is truly great, and 50% is GOAT-worthy.

That said, this stat somewhat depresses guys who won a lot of weak tournaments like Vilas and Muster, both of whom were dominant on low level clay tournaments, but not as much on higher level ones. Muster had the one clay Slam and a handful of Masters, but won most of his clay tournaments on 250/500 equivalents and didn't go deep at RG that frequently. Meaning, this stat is more heavily weighted towards big titles and going deep at Slams over accumulating a lot of lower level titles, so it doesn't privilege the "scavengers" that specialized in winning lower level titles. I hate to say it, but that was pretty much Thomas Muster and, to a lesser degree, Guillermo Vilas.

I always thought of Borg as a mediocre (relatively speaking) hard court player, but he was still really good (28.9%), just pedestrian compared to the other three surfaces (all 44% or higher).

Laver was very balanced, great on all surfaces - even those that he had to adapt to relatively late in his career (hards and carpet). And remember that those numbers don't include most of his peak. That said, it is hard to compare this stat to Pro Circuit players because the nature of the circuit was so different, with the head-to-head tours. Players like Pancho Gonzales would focus on the pro tours and have lower winning percentages, because so many of his matches were against other top players.

But yeah, Roger, Novak, and Sampras are really co-grass-GOATs, with Borg just a bit behind (though Borg's number don't include decline).

Part of Novak's greatness--and why I think he's the overall GOAT--is that he was so good on all three surfaces. His worst surface, clay, is still higher (36.8%) than all but two players, Nadal and Borg. I'm guessing that if we included Rosewall's full career, he'd be higher than Novak, though. He was very close (35.8%) in the Open Era but really peaked well before.

That first bar is taller than Mount Everest. Congratulations GOATdal!

Well he definitely is the surface GOAT, no doubt. We knew this, but I think the chart does a good job of putting it into visual form. Some might take issue with "surface GOAT" because it isn't the same as "overall GOAT," but I see it as high praise - it means that Rafa on clay is the best player of all time.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Any thoughts on this @El Dude, @Kieran @tented , @kskate2 @Moxie @MargaretMcAleer @Front242 . Sorry if I left someone out I'm on a plane and it's about to depart

Sampras, Laver & Borg are mere legends at this point

 

[El Dude]

Any thoughts on this @El Dude, @Kieran @tented , @kskate2 @Moxie @MargaretMcAleer @Front242 . Sorry if I left someone out I'm on a plane and it's about to depart

Sampras, Laver & Borg are mere legends at this point

My first thought is that I dislike how it seemingly emphasizes the Open Era, but then includes Emerson - whose best years were in the 60s. And if you're going to include Emerson, you've got to include Ken Rosewall, who was a significantly better player. And then, why not Pancho? I'd also include Laver with the Big Three. I think his overall dominance was similar, at least if you go back to the early 60s.

John Newcombe is also conspicuously absent. I think he at least deserves to be in the same range as Ashe, Courier, Nastase, etc. And lots of players were at least as good as some of the guys mentioned in the bottom two categories. Stan Smith and Vitas Gerulaitis, for instance, were better players than Marin Cilic.

Anyhow, as with all such lists, it is hard to assess it without knowing what the criteria are. It is one thing to rank, say, favorite books in categories - I am all for letting subjectivity take over, and not worrying about what is considered the greatest. But this just seems to be yet another list that comes down to, "Because I think so."

 

[Fiero425]

Any thoughts on this @El Dude, @Kieran @tented , @kskate2 @Moxie @MargaretMcAleer @Front242 . Sorry if I left someone out I'm on a plane and it's about to depart

Sampras, Laver & Borg are mere legends at this point

Agreed; Sampras, Laver, & Borg more legendary! I place players like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, & McEnroe a bit below even though there's an argument for each! Agassi had the 1st CGS since '69 Laver, Connors has the most tourn. won @ 109 events, Lendl played 8 str. USO Finals, & then there's McEnroe's run in '84! Emo was fortunate that Laver, Rosewall, Hoad & Gonazales were Pro's so he had the Amateur ranks to himself for a while getting to 12 majors & holding the record for decades waiting for Sampras! I question the elite class! Murray was owned by Fedalovic taking only 3 majors, Wawrinka never even got to #1, & Hewitt only made a mark due to Sampras falling by the wayside & barely made a blip on the ATP radar! Roddick may have been world class, but he was the perennial runner-up to Roger again & again! He really needed to finish off that Wimbledon effort in 2009! He blew it all w/ that one high BH volley miss in the 2nd set TB!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Agreed; Sampras, Laver, & Borg more legendary! I place players like Connors, Agassi, Lendl, & McEnroe a bit below even though there's an argument for each! Agassi had the 1st CGS since '69 Laver, Connors has the most tourn. won @ 109 events, Lendl played 8 str. USO Finals, & then there's McEnroe's run in '84! Emo was fortunate that Laver, Rosewall, Hoad & Gonazales were Pro's so he had the Amateur ranks to himself for a while getting to 12 majors & holding the record for decades waiting for Sampras! I question the elite class! Murray was owned by Fedalovic taking only 3 majors, Wawrinka never even got to #1, & Hewitt only made a mark due to Sampras falling by the wayside & barely made a blip on the ATP radar! Roddick may have been world class, but he was the perennial runner-up to Roger again & again! He really needed to finish off that Wimbledon effort in 2009! He blew it all w/ that one high BH volley miss in the 2nd set TB!

My apologies @Fiero425 I didn't mean exclude your input

 

[El Dude]

The Legend of Borg is so hard to assess, as we all know, because of his retirement (more or less) at age 25. His legacy is based on eight seasons--1973-81--three of which (78-80) he was the best player in the world, and in the other five he was 2nd or 3rd best.

So the two biggest problems are:

1. How to weigh peak vs career
2. What he would have done if he hadn't retired

(A third problem is how to compare players across eras, but because this is universal, it doesn't factor in as much with Borg specifically).

The second is impossible to know, with anything from a resurgence and return to at least co-dominance with McEnroe; to playing second fiddle to Mac before gradual decline and falling behind Lendl, Wilander, and eventually Becker and Edberg; to a quick collapse as he gets steamrolled by Mac and then Lendl, Wilander, etc. We'll just never know.

The first is a judgment call and I don't think there's any clear consensus. It makes it particularly problematic to compare him to guys like Connors and Lendl, both of who had high peaks that were at least close to Borg's, but much greater longevity. Stat systems that tend to favor career longevity, like GOAT Points, put Connors and Lendl not only ahead of Borg, but Sampras as well, which of course no one agrees with.

But we also have a kind of collective received wisdom that doesn't always hold up to deeper analysis. Lendl, in particular, tends to be underrated. His very best years (86-87) were about as good as Borg's best, with two more very close (85, 89), and his "non-peak prime" was longer. But he had the fatal flaw of not winning a Slam until he was 24, and with an 8-11 Slam final record that is a lot less sexy than Borg's 11-5, but this ignores the fact that his peak overlapped with the primes of more ATGs than anyone.

By my accounting, like Borg, Connors had three years (74, 76, 82) in which he was the best player in the world, but they were spread more widely - he didn't have the high peak that Borg did. But clearly quantity starts to play a part, and this becomes even more the case with Agassi - who really belongs more with guys like Becker and Edberg than he does with Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Borg. The main difference between Agassi and Becker/Edberg is longevity - his peak wasn't really any higher. He also only really had two great years (95, 99) that were comparable to Becker's and Edberg's best.

Peak matters a lot, though, and perhaps more than total career longevity - especially when we think of "greatness." It holds in the mind more, that is I think we remember heights of true dominance more than we do sustained excellence. I haven't come up with a stat system--which by their nature are quantitative--that accounts for this, at least not in a way that I'm fully satisfied with. There's one baseball stat called "JAWS" which takes the average of a full career and a player's best seven years, to determine Hall of Fame worthiness. In tennis this would probably be their best five years, because tennis careers are probably a bit shorter than baseball (on average...there are outliers). But again, not fully satisfied with doing this for tennis.

I've done some analysis comparing Borg's eight seasons to the equivalent of other players -- that is, from the year they first broke through to the "elite" (which I define by winning a big title) through eight seasons. Meaning, imagining if other greats retired at the equivalent time as Borg--after eight years of elite or better performance. The only players that are clearly better are Federer and Laver (his pro era career), with Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, and McEnroe being similar, Sampras and Connors a bit behind.

The bottom line is that Borg's place in history is unique, and we're likely never going to be able to fully assess his place in a satisfying way.

 

[Fiero425]

The Legend of Borg is so hard to assess, as we all know, because of his retirement (more or less) at age 25. His legacy is based on eight seasons--1973-81--three of which (78-80) he was the best player in the world, and in the other five he was 2nd or 3rd best.

So the two biggest problems are:

1. How to weigh peak vs career
2. What he would have done if he hadn't retired

(A third problem is how to compare players across eras, but because this is universal, it doesn't factor in as much with Borg specifically).

The second is impossible to know, with anything from a resurgence and return to at least co-dominance with McEnroe; to playing second fiddle to Mac before gradual decline and falling behind Lendl, Wilander, and eventually Becker and Edberg; to a quick collapse as he gets steamrolled by Mac and then Lendl, Wilander, etc. We'll just never know.

The first is a judgment call and I don't think there's any clear consensus. It makes it particularly problematic to compare him to guys like Connors and Lendl, both of who had high peaks that were at least close to Borg's, but much greater longevity. Stat systems that tend to favor career longevity, like GOAT Points, put Connors and Lendl not only ahead of Borg, but Sampras as well, which of course no one agrees with.

But we also have a kind of collective received wisdom that doesn't always hold up to deeper analysis. Lendl, in particular, tends to be underrated. His very best years (86-87) were about as good as Borg's best, with two more very close (85, 89), and his "non-peak prime" was longer. But he had the fatal flaw of not winning a Slam until he was 24, and with an 8-11 Slam final record that is a lot less sexy than Borg's 11-5, but this ignores the fact that his peak overlapped with the primes of more ATGs than anyone.

By my accounting, like Borg, Connors had three years (74, 76, 82) in which he was the best player in the world, but they were spread more widely - he didn't have the high peak that Borg did. But clearly quantity starts to play a part, and this becomes even more the case with Agassi - who really belongs more with guys like Becker and Edberg than he does with Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Borg. The main difference between Agassi and Becker/Edberg is longevity - his peak wasn't really any higher. He also only really had two great years (95, 99) that were comparable to Becker's and Edberg's best.

Peak matters a lot, though, and perhaps more than total career longevity - especially when we think of "greatness." It holds in the mind more, that is I think we remember heights of true dominance more than we do sustained excellence. I haven't come up with a stat system--which by their nature are quantitative--that accounts for this, at least not in a way that I'm fully satisfied with. There's one baseball stat called "JAWS" which takes the average of a full career and a player's best seven years, to determine Hall of Fame worthiness. In tennis this would probably be their best five years, because tennis careers are probably a bit shorter than baseball (on average...there are outliers). But again, not fully satisfied with doing this for tennis.

I've done some analysis comparing Borg's eight seasons to the equivalent of other players -- that is, from the year they first broke through to the "elite" (which I define by winning a big title) through eight seasons. Meaning, imagining if other greats retired at the equivalent time as Borg--after eight years of elite or better performance. The only players that are clearly better are Federer and Laver (his pro era career), with Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, and McEnroe being similar, Sampras and Connors a bit behind.

The bottom line is that Borg's place in history is unique, and we're likely never going to be able to fully assess his place in a satisfying way.

Borg truly has a unique position in the history of tennis! He came along shortly after The Open Era began in '73! Players like Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, & Nastase's careers beginning to slow down, wane, & end! He started early enough to get grass experience w/ 3 of the 4 majors on that surface! As a 15 yo, & the top 100 men boycotting Wimbledon in '73, Borg wound up a high seed; #6 w/ Connors at #5! He got all the way to the Qrtrs.! Little did we know he'd win 5 in a row starting in 3 short years making 6 str. finals! Taking 6 FO's in those 8 great years, he finished his career w/ 11 Majors & leading the men in the Pro Era until Sampras took over w/ 14! That's why he will forever be brought up; even 100 years from now! He's still an ICON even though I'm a little uncomfortable him leading in the Laver Cup! He's no leader of men! He read comic books while on tour & slept a lot during those years! - - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/11/fan-page-borgnavratilova-70s-90s.html -

 

[the AntiPusher]

The Legend of Borg is so hard to assess, as we all know, because of his retirement (more or less) at age 25. His legacy is based on eight seasons--1973-81--three of which (78-80) he was the best player in the world, and in the other five he was 2nd or 3rd best.

So the two biggest problems are:

1. How to weigh peak vs career
2. What he would have done if he hadn't retired

(A third problem is how to compare players across eras, but because this is universal, it doesn't factor in as much with Borg specifically).

The second is impossible to know, with anything from a resurgence and return to at least co-dominance with McEnroe; to playing second fiddle to Mac before gradual decline and falling behind Lendl, Wilander, and eventually Becker and Edberg; to a quick collapse as he gets steamrolled by Mac and then Lendl, Wilander, etc. We'll just never know.

The first is a judgment call and I don't think there's any clear consensus. It makes it particularly problematic to compare him to guys like Connors and Lendl, both of who had high peaks that were at least close to Borg's, but much greater longevity. Stat systems that tend to favor career longevity, like GOAT Points, put Connors and Lendl not only ahead of Borg, but Sampras as well, which of course no one agrees with.

But we also have a kind of collective received wisdom that doesn't always hold up to deeper analysis. Lendl, in particular, tends to be underrated. His very best years (86-87) were about as good as Borg's best, with two more very close (85, 89), and his "non-peak prime" was longer. But he had the fatal flaw of not winning a Slam until he was 24, and with an 8-11 Slam final record that is a lot less sexy than Borg's 11-5, but this ignores the fact that his peak overlapped with the primes of more ATGs than anyone.

By my accounting, like Borg, Connors had three years (74, 76, 82) in which he was the best player in the world, but they were spread more widely - he didn't have the high peak that Borg did. But clearly quantity starts to play a part, and this becomes even more the case with Agassi - who really belongs more with guys like Becker and Edberg than he does with Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Borg. The main difference between Agassi and Becker/Edberg is longevity - his peak wasn't really any higher. He also only really had two great years (95, 99) that were comparable to Becker's and Edberg's best.

Peak matters a lot, though, and perhaps more than total career longevity - especially when we think of "greatness." It holds in the mind more, that is I think we remember heights of true dominance more than we do sustained excellence. I haven't come up with a stat system--which by their nature are quantitative--that accounts for this, at least not in a way that I'm fully satisfied with. There's one baseball stat called "JAWS" which takes the average of a full career and a player's best seven years, to determine Hall of Fame worthiness. In tennis this would probably be their best five years, because tennis careers are probably a bit shorter than baseball (on average...there are outliers). But again, not fully satisfied with doing this for tennis.

I've done some analysis comparing Borg's eight seasons to the equivalent of other players -- that is, from the year they first broke through to the "elite" (which I define by winning a big title) through eight seasons. Meaning, imagining if other greats retired at the equivalent time as Borg--after eight years of elite or better performance. The only players that are clearly better are Federer and Laver (his pro era career), with Nadal, Djokovic, Lendl, and McEnroe being similar, Sampras and Connors a bit behind.

The bottom line is that Borg's place in history is unique, and we're likely never going to be able to fully assess his place in a satisfying way.

Excellent material El Dude. The one thing we probably knew for a certainty is Borg would have won at least 3-4 more RG which would have put him at the level of Sampras or above . I can't see either McEnroe, Connors or Lendl being able to defeat him. Wilander would have been a struggle but Borg would have been the Stronger player. The question is Bjorn's desire to compete at that level which is really why he left the game aided by the McEnroe factor. John has stated that a major loss in his career was Bjorn's early retirement

 

[El Dude]

Excellent material El Dude. The one thing we probably knew for a certainty is Borg would have won at least 3-4 more RG which would have put him at the level of Sampras or above . I can't see either McEnroe, Connors or Lendl being able to defeat him. Wilander would have been a struggle but Borg would have been the Stronger player. The question is Bjorn's desire to compete at that level which is really why he left the game aided by the McEnroe factor. John has stated that a major loss in his career was Bjorn's early retirement

I mean, probably...but again, it is impossible to say. Tennis players aren't robots, so while I agree he'd be the guy to beat at Roland Garros for at least a few years on paper, he would have still had to maintain focus and desire. So as with all such What If tales, imagining a Borg who kept playing is imagining a different man than he actually was (sort of like how I've said similar things about the Big Three, Rafa and Roger in particular).

One thing we can wonder about is how Borg and McEnroe might have played off each other. I mean, if Mac continued to dominate, perhaps with Borg still holding the edge on clay, Borg might have grown tired of it and retired a few years later. On the other hand, their competition could have extended both of their primes and even set them further apart from the rest of the tour - sort of like the Big Three did for each other. Who knows, maybe Connors doesn't get those three final Slams in 82-83. Or maybe Mac wins a lot more Slams than he did, because he keeps his focus to compete with Borg. And maybe their rivalry spills over into Australia, and guys like Kriek don't win Slams, or Noah is blocked and Wilander delayed. WTF knows...

But it is worth mentioning that Mac hit a wall well after Borg was gone, in 85-86. He had that layoff, drug issues and a rocky marriage, and was never the same. Not sure how Borg could have prevented that, except maybe keeping Mac focused...but still, that was half a decade after Borg was basically gone.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Regardless of whether Borg continued to play and/or McEnroe continued to stay focus, I think Wilander would have still joined that group. I mean, you don't win 7 slams by age 24 if you aren't a special player. So, either Wilander joins Borg and McEnroe as a Big 3 (like Nole to Roger and Rafa), or he eventually replaces McEnroe as Borg's biggest rival (like Graf did to Evert, in the second half of the 80s, to become Navratilova's biggest rival).

But man, what could have been if Borg, McEnroe, and Wilander all stayed motivated.

 

[shawnbm]

^ Wilander would be the first to admit that he would not have won in Paris in the years after Borg retired. They practiced together in 1982 (the first year Mats won it) and he conceded Borg wiped the floor with him and that he would not have beaten his senior rival if they had met. Borg by 1981 was the Nadal of his era on the red stuff. I believe he would have won plenty more at RG.

 

[El Dude]

Regardless of whether Borg continued to play and/or McEnroe continued to stay focus, I think Wilander would have still joined that group. I mean, you don't win 7 slams by age 24 if you aren't a special player. So, either Wilander joins Borg and McEnroe as a Big 3 (like Nole to Roger and Rafa), or he eventually replaces McEnroe as Borg's biggest rival (like Graf did to Evert, in the second half of the 80s, to become Navratilova's biggest rival).

But man, what could have been if Borg, McEnroe, and Wilander all stayed motivated.

I hear you, but your post is a case in point of how underrated Lendl is...he was not far behind the "Big Three" of Borg, Mac and Connors starting in 1980-81, and right there with the best by '82. He had the Slam bug on his shoulder until 84, but was cleaning up everywhere else. In 82 he won 15 titles (!), including the two tour finals and three Masters equivalents.

 

[El Dude]

^ Wilander would be the first to admit that he would not have won in Paris in the years after Borg retired. They practiced together in 1982 (the first year Mats won it) and he conceded Borg wiped the floor with him and that he would not have beaten his senior rival if they had met. Borg by 1981 was the Nadal of his era on the red stuff. I believe he would have won plenty more at RG.

Yeah, it would have delayed Wilander a bit - assuming Borg kept his level from 81 for a few years. At the least I don't think Mats beats him in 82, and not Noah in 83.

 

[El Dude]

Since we're on Borg and the "Golden Era" of Open Era tennis, here is a chart that depicts the relative strength of the top players, from the beginning of Connors' elite level to the end of Lendl's:

The above chart uses my "Premier Event Points" formula, but an alternate from that gives a bit extra weight to dominance factors like multiple Slams won. It goes in order, with the top player at the top in capital bold, and then down in order with all PEP values of 10 or higher (10 being equivalent of "a very good second tier year" - think Andrey Rublev the last few years).

It is also a fun span, because it has the very end of Laver-Rosewall and the beginning of Pistol Pete's rise. You can also see how similar Lendl's peak is to Borg's.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Thiem’s story makes me so sad. He was such a force before this injury. He was the only one of his player group who was someone the Big 3 didn’t want to see on their side of the draw. He was such a foil and dark horse in tournaments. My one solace is that he did win a slam before this happened.

 

[El Dude]

Thiem’s story makes me so sad. He was such a force before this injury. He was the only one of his player group who was someone the Big 3 didn’t want to see on their side of the draw. He was such a foil and dark horse in tournaments. My one solace is that he did win a slam before this happened.

It is a big solace, though, isn't it? I mean, think of all the guys who didn't win Slams. Thiem was probably better at his peak than guys like Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga (or Davydenko, Nalbandian, etc)--better players than Slam winners such as Gaudio and Johansson--but the gap isn't huge, and Thiem got the hardware to show his grandchildren.

Thiem burned pretty bright for a few years but then flickered out - not unlike players such as Stich and Rafter. With the ridiculous level and longevity of the Big Three, it is easy to forget that most players neither burn as brightly or for as long. There are so many "What if" tales out there...players whose potential is never fully reached, for a variety of reasons. To me the most palpable recent example is Juan Martin del Potro. Imagine dialing back to the end of 2009 and him getting a career do-over. I don't think he would have ever quite reached the level of the Big Three, but he could have been right there with Andy Murray, or perhaps had a Stanimal-esque peak run. Definitely think he could have whittled a few more Slams from the Big Three hegemony.