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

[PhiEaglesfan712]

So to revisit the old GOAT game, here is my latest view:

Tier 1A: The Big Three, with Novak the "top point" in the triangle, and Federer and Nadal basically equals as the bottom points.
Tier 1B: Past GOATs - Tilden, Gonzales, and Laver in chronological order. They aren't necessarily less "GOATish" as the Big Three, but played in very different contexts, too different to compare. But Laver gets the same "triangle tip" position as Novak.
Tier 2A: Inner Circle Greats - Borg, Mac, Lendl, Sampras, (Rosewall belongs here if you take his full career into account).
Tier 3: All-time Greats - Connors, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi.
Tier 4: Lesser or "Quasi-Greats" - Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase, Smith, Courier, Murray, maybe Kuerten and Hewitt, etc.
Tier 5: Near Greats (aka, Best of the Rest) - Kodes, Gerulaitis, Chang, Ivanisevic, Safin, Roddick, Del Potro, Wawrinka, Medvedev, maybe one or two others.

Right now, I would have Jannik Sinner in the Tier 4 group. If he wins Wimbledon, he jumps into the upper Tier 3, maybe even lower Tier 2.

And then there are the under-achievers and the anomalies. Of recent players, Stan Wawrinka is the hardest to rank because for three years he was able to reach a "GOAT-esque" level, but only at three Slams. Or we can look at David Nalbandian, who is arguably the greatest under-achiever in tennis history. He displayed flashes of brilliance and has one of the best bragging rights in tennis history: the only player to beat the Big Three in a single tournament. His level in that tournament, and at times in other tournaments, was as good as anything we've seen from the Big Three. But he didn't even come close to sustaining it, and was even more of an under-achiever than Marat Safin who at least managed two Slams. But if I could see one career do-over with better coaching and mentality, it would probably be Nalbandian, with Safin a close second. Both should have been, at least, Tier 3 players.

I disagree with Safin being a close second. He was a top player for about 4-5 years, from about late 2000 to early 2005, and as you mentioned, won 2 slams. He even made the Tennis HOF. There are a lot more talented players beside Nalbandian that didn't achieve anything close to what Safin did (see Xavier Malisse or Nick Kygrios). Could Safin have achieved more? Yes, but you could say the same about Lleyton Hewitt. Both players had frontloaded careers, which dropped off precipitously at 23/24. I'd say Safin is a player, along with Hewitt and Kuerten, that bridged the gap between the Sampras/Agassi era and the Big 3 era, than an underachiever. That word is reserved for players like Nalbandian and Malisse, who had the talent, but for whatever reason, never came close to scratching the surface of their potential.

 

[El Dude]

Right now, I would have Jannik Sinner in the Tier 4 group. If he wins Wimbledon, he jumps into the upper Tier 3, maybe even lower Tier 2.


I disagree with Safin being a close second. He was a top player for about 4-5 years, from about late 2000 to early 2005, and as you mentioned, won 2 slams. He even made the Tennis HOF. There are a lot more talented players beside Nalbandian that didn't achieve anything close to what Safin did (see Xavier Malisse or Nick Kygrios). Could Safin have achieved more? Yes, but you could say the same about Lleyton Hewitt. Both players had frontloaded careers, which dropped off precipitously at 23/24. I'd say Safin is a player, along with Hewitt and Kuerten, that bridged the gap between the Sampras/Agassi era and the Big 3 era, than an underachiever. That word is reserved for players like Nalbandian and Malisse, who had the talent, but for whatever reason, never came close to scratching the surface of their potential.

I hear you, especially considering what Safin did accomplish. But I think that's what makes him disappointing: He won two Slams and a handful of Masters despite his party antics and relative lack of focus. On one hand, he did have a better career than probably all but 30 or so players in the Open Era. On the other, it is hard not to imagine what he would have done if he had been more focused: I think he had all-time great talent. I don't think he would have been as good as the Big Three, but he could have been an Edberg/Becker type.

Oh, and here's a fun match-up that I would have liked to see: peak Safin vs. Rafael Nadal.

Nalbandian is in his own category in terms of disappointment. I was thinking about him because I re-watched clips from the 2007 Madrid Masters when he beat the Big Three. It was still a young Novak, but he was already #4 and an elite player and multiple Masters winner, and Rafa and Roger were in their prime years. The only other player who I've seen play at a "Big Three" level in the past 20 years is Stan Wawrinka, whose three Slam titles were all hard-fought. Maybe Murray in 2016 and Del Potro at times, but Nalbandian showed a level that, if harnessed, could have made him into something special.

But the caveat is that tennis, like all sports, is about more than just physical gifts and skills. I think that a player's greatness comes down to how three broad elements interact: Physical (size, fitness, health), Skills (developed talent, what you can do with a tennis racket, movement, etc), and Mentality (your approach to the game - as well as how hard you work on the other two). Nalbandian had a skill-set as good as anyone - maybe even Roger. Physically he varied, with his fitness level somewhat variable, but it is the mental part that was woefully lacking - which fed in his physicality. He was, in a sense, the "anti-Ferrer" - a much more talented player, but without Ferrer's dogged determination. Ferrer maxed out his talents, while Nalbandian only glimpsed them for a few tournaments.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

But within that, there are variations. Looking back, I find the mid-80s to early 90s to be particularly interesting. For one, you had overlapping eras of great players: the fading of Connors and McEnroe, peak Lendl and Wilander, Edberg and Becker, and then the early years of Agassi and Sampras. Consider, for instance, the year-end top 5 in 1990: Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras. Has there ever been a better top 5, top to bottom? There have been top 5s with four ATGs, but not all five positions, as far as I can tell.

I'd argue 2015, which had Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka, and Nadal. At the very least, it comes close.

 

[Fiero425]

I'd argue 2015, which had Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka, and Nadal. At the very least, it comes close.

Close, but no cigar! It's not just b/c my prime was back in that Golden Age of Tennis ('81-2000) when at any given tourn., they could have as many as a "dozen" or more Masters & Grand Slam event winners in their draws! That's sounds absolutely fantastic compared to this current era where The Big 3 owned it, w/ few exceptions! It's sorta like the 80's w/ the "Martina & Chris Show" for the ladies every week w/ few exceptions! That monotony didn't botther me! The contrasting styles, more apparant surface speeds & surfaces, & the sheer # of times they met, made it an event again & again! Just watched their 2 battles at Wimbledon in the '87 & 88 SF! It was compelling & very entertaining; chessboard tennis at it's best! Fedal had me yawning at times; esp. when Rafa was kickin' Roger's arse! As I said, Novak brought in another element that drew me back in! I'll continue to romanticize an era long past, while this social media society of today will only acknowledge current players & affairs as if the past doesn't count or mean anything!

 

[Moxie]

Close, but no cigar! It's not just b/c my prime was back in that Golden Age of Tennis ('81-2000) when at any given tourn., they could have as many as a "dozen" or more Masters & Grand Slam event winners in their draws! That's sounds absolutely fantastic compared to this current era where The Big 3 owned it, w/ few exceptions! It's sorta like the 80's w/ the "Martina & Chris Show" for the ladies every week w/ few exceptions! That monotony didn't botther me! The contrasting styles, more apparant surface speeds & surfaces, & the sheer # of times they met, made it an event again & again! Just watched their 2 battles at Wimbledon in the '87 & 88 SF! It was compelling & very entertaining; chessboard tennis at it's best! Fedal had me yawning at times; esp. when Rafa was kickin' Roger's arse! As I said, Novak brought in another element that drew me back in! I'll continue to romanticize an era long past, while this social media society of today will only acknowledge current players & affairs as if the past doesn't count or mean anything!

I will never understand how you could love the duopoly of Martina and Chris, (which I did, too,) and not enjoy Fedal. Just sayin' that it doesn't make sense. But to each his own. I do like a rivalry, and I think the sport does. You can't just have one person dominating, or that's seriously boring. When you have seriously great players competing against each other in finals, everyone tunes in. If you found Fedal boring, well, you will always be Fiero.

 

[Fiero425]

I will never understand how you could love the duopoly of Martina and Chris, (which I did, too,) and not enjoy Fedal. Just sayin' that it doesn't make sense. But to each his own. I do like a rivalry, and I think the sport does. You can't just have one person dominating, or that's seriously boring. When you have seriously great players competing against each other in finals, everyone tunes in. If you found Fedal boring, well, you will always be Fiero.

I think I've been consistent over the yrs. concerning this subject! The rivalries aren't equivalent IMO! The Tennis Intelligentsia elevated Fedal's to the top, but we saw an imbalance from very early on where Nadal owned Roger, lock, stock, & barrel! Roger's wins late in both their careers were very impressive! How'd Roger do it? It was just a change of rackets after all those yrs. of being embarassed? When it comes to Martina & Chris, there was an ebb & flow to their matches over 15 yrs.; Evert dominating early, Martina turning it around, then a balance near the end of their rivalry! They wound up w/ 80 contests; most in the SF & Final; MN 43-37 over Evert! Fedal played half of that w/ 40 matches; Roger w/ a good finishing kick of 5 straight wins, but was still behind in the rivalry w/ Nadal 16-24! Just trying t/b objective & like to challenge what's supposed to be perfunctory!

 

[El Dude]

I think I've been consistent over the yrs. concerning this subject! The rivalries aren't equivalent IMO! The Tennis Intelligentsia elevated Fedal's to the top, but we saw an imbalance from very early on where Nadal owned Roger, lock, stock, & barrel! Roger's wins late in both their careers were very impressive! How'd Roger do it? It was just a change of rackets after all those yrs. of being embarassed? When it comes to Martina & Chris, there was an ebb & flow to their matches over 15 yrs.; Evert dominating early, Martina turning it around, then a balance near the end of their rivalry! They wound up w/ 80 contests; most in the SF & Final; MN 43-37 over Evert! Fedal played half of that w/ 40 matches; Roger w/ a good finishing kick of 5 straight wins, but was still behind in the rivalry w/ Nadal 16-24! Just trying t/b objective & like to challenge what's supposed to be perfunctory!

FEDAL was evocative for a few reasons:

1. Roger was a breakout megastar, having one of the best years of the Open Era in 2004 - probably the best since McEnroe's career year in 1984 - and only the fourth 3-Slam season. He was the new thing, and dominating like no one before.
2. In March of 2004, after Roger was just starting to supernova having won two of the last three Slams and ascending to #1 just a month before, and at the beginning of his unprecedented 237-week reign, a 17-year old Spanish kid showed up and beat him. While Nadal looked like a future star, no one suspected that he would become Roger's main rival and equal. Roger probably put it best when he said, in paraphrase: "I thought this kid would be pretty good and definitely win a French Open, but I didn't think he'd win 14 of them."
3. Roger continued to dominate, having the best four-year run in Open Era, but despite that Nadal edged him out 8-5 during that span. It got worse for Roger from there and by the end of 2014, Rafa led 23-9.
4. But it didn't end there. Roger won 7 of their last 8 matches in 2015-19, including their very last match at the 2019 Wimbledon, losing only on clay at Roland Garros in 2019. In other words, their match-up ended in a storybook fashion: Rafa winning on clay, Roger on grass. A 23-9 head-to-head became a more reasonable 24-16: 2-14 on clay, 3-1 on grass, 11-9 on hards.
5. More generally, speaking, they presented strikingly different styles and personalities, in some ways displaying the range of tennis greatness: Roger's calm Swiss demeanor, his graceful style and unparalleled finesse and skills, and his mastery of faster courts; Rafa's quiet but fierce focus, his unequaled determination and brute force and his stratospheric level on clay.
6. Finally, their friendship. What started as a rivalry of two clashing styles become a great friendship.

Need I say fucking more?!

 

[Fiero425]

FEDAL was evocative for a few reasons:

1. Roger was a breakout megastar, having one of the best years of the Open Era in 2004 - probably the best since McEnroe's career year in 1984 - and only the fourth 3-Slam season. He was the new thing, and dominating like no one before.
2. In March of 2004, after Roger was just starting to supernova having won two of the last three Slams and ascending to #1 just a month before, and at the beginning of his unprecedented 237-week reign, a 17-year old Spanish kid showed up and beat him. While Nadal looked like a future star, no one suspected that he would become Roger's main rival and equal. Roger probably put it best when he said, in paraphrase: "I thought this kid would be pretty good and definitely win a French Open, but I didn't think he'd win 14 of them."
3. Roger continued to dominate, having the best four-year run in Open Era, but despite that Nadal edged him out 8-5 during that span. It got worse for Roger from there and by the end of 2014, Rafa led 23-9.
4. But it didn't end there. Roger won 7 of their last 8 matches in 2015-19, including their very last match at the 2019 Wimbledon, losing only on clay at Roland Garros in 2019. In other words, their match-up ended in a storybook fashion: Rafa winning on clay, Roger on grass. A 23-9 head-to-head became a more reasonable 24-16: 2-14 on clay, 3-1 on grass, 11-9 on hards.
5. More generally, speaking, they presented strikingly different styles and personalities, in some ways displaying the range of tennis greatness: Roger's calm Swiss demeanor, his graceful style and unparalleled finesse and skills, and his mastery of faster courts; Rafa's quiet but fierce focus, his unequaled determination and brute force and his stratospheric level on clay.
6. Finally, their friendship. What started as a rivalry of two clashing styles become a great friendship.

Need I say fucking more?!

I think we're trying to give a history lesson here! Funny, people speak of Fedal's"so called" friendship! IMO, it was more about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend!" They had to do something, m/b unite in trying to stop Novak from stealing their thunder! The Tennis Intelligentsia was raving about them as if tennis began and ended w/ them! Djokovic broke up their party & didn't like it; actually getting some digs in that offended Novak's father to this day! Roger had the best 3-Slam season in '04 up to then, & the best run of 4 seasons, but Novak did him just a little bit better in 2011, not only taking 3 majors, but added 5 Masters to his total! Then you look at a span of 5 yrs. twice, from 2011-2016, then 2017-2022, Nole was untouchable, acquiring his titles in a very balanced way! He had 2 "3-Slams" seasons ('11 & '15) in the 1st, then 2 more in the 2nd ('21 &'23 (1 match short of CYGS)), added a record 7th YEC to his resume, & acquired his "Nole-Slam" in '16; ('15 Wimbl.- '16 FO)! No one thought Roger's records w/b eclipsed, but they're all dropping like flies besides that 237 wks. at #1! Everything else is falling; esp. the ones concerning longevity as Novak's playing very well at 38 & keeping up w/ the kids!

 

[El Dude]

I think we're trying to give a history lesson here! Funny, people speak of Fedal's"so called" friendship! IMO, it was more about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend!" They had to do something, m/b unite in trying to stop Novak from stealing their thunder! The Tennis Intelligentsia was raving about them as if tennis began and ended w/ them! Djokovic broke up their party & didn't like it; actually getting some digs in that offended Novak's father to this day! Roger had the best 3-Slam season in '04 up to then, & the best run of 4 seasons, but Novak did him just a little bit better in 2011, not only taking 3 majors, but added 5 Masters to his total! Then you look at a span of 5 yrs. twice, from 2011-2016, then 2017-2022, Nole was untouchable, acquiring his titles in a very balanced way! He had 2 "3-Slams" seasons ('11 & '15) in the 1st, then 2 more in the 2nd ('21 &'23 (1 match short of CYGS)), added a record 7th YEC to his resume, & acquired his "Nole-Slam" in '16; ('15 Wimbl.- '16 FO)! No one thought Roger's records w/b eclipsed, but they're all dropping like flies besides that 237 wks. at #1! Everything else is falling; esp. the ones concerning longevity as Novak's playing very well at 38 & keeping up w/ the kids!

What Novak accomplished has nothing to do with the Fedal rivalry. He had his own rivalries with the other two. Meaning, one can enjoy the Fedal rivalry without referencing Novak in any way.

Anyhow, I actually did an in-depth study at one point, trying to rank the 50 best seasons of the Open Era. I didn't finish it, and hadn't quite settled on final criteria, but Roger's 2006 was better than Novak's 2011. Don't forget he also won the Tour Finals, all four Slam finals, and 12 titles overall to Novak's 10. But Novak did surpass him in 2015, which I rank as the best season of the Open Era - just ahead of Laver's 1969, Roger's 2006, and Mac's 1984. I would rank Novak's 2011 as the 5th best season, just a bit ahead of Roger's other top years.

 

[Fiero425]

What Novak accomplished has nothing to do with the Fedal rivalry. He had his own rivalries with the other two. Meaning, one can enjoy the Fedal rivalry without referencing Novak in any way.

Anyhow, I actually did an in-depth study at one point, trying to rank the 50 best seasons of the Open Era. I didn't finish it, and hadn't quite settled on final criteria, but Roger's 2006 was better than Novak's 2011. Don't forget he also won the Tour Finals, all four Slam finals, and 12 titles overall to Novak's 10. But Novak did surpass him in 2015, which I rank as the best season of the Open Era - just ahead of Laver's 1969, Roger's 2006, and Mac's 1984. I would rank Novak's 2011 as the 5th best season, just a bit ahead of Roger's other top years.

Well there was some affect on their rivalry! It was being undermined & pushed into 2nd or 3rd place behind Rafa / Novak & Novak / Federer!

 

[El Dude]

Well there was some affect on their rivalry! It was being undermined & pushed into 2nd or 3rd place behind Rafa / Novak & Novak / Federer!

There is no doubt that Novak made his mark and took the crown both Roger and Rafa (with Rafa and a bit of Roger claiming it back). But my point was that you can enjoy the Fedal rivalry without referencing Novak at all. All roads don't lead back to Novak, and the Fedal rivalry has its own story that Novak isn't part of. That's no slight on him, but it is sort of like saying:

"The Celtics and Lakers had a great rivalry in the 80s."
"Yeah, but Jordan and the Bulls! NYAH!"

 

[atttomole]

Close, but no cigar! It's not just b/c my prime was back in that Golden Age of Tennis ('81-2000) when at any given tourn., they could have as many as a "dozen" or more Masters & Grand Slam event winners in their draws! That's sounds absolutely fantastic compared to this current era where The Big 3 owned it, w/ few exceptions! It's sorta like the 80's w/ the "Martina & Chris Show" for the ladies every week w/ few exceptions! That monotony didn't botther me! The contrasting styles, more apparant surface speeds & surfaces, & the sheer # of times they met, made it an event again & again! Just watched their 2 battles at Wimbledon in the '87 & 88 SF! It was compelling & very entertaining; chessboard tennis at it's best! Fedal had me yawning at times; esp. when Rafa was kickin' Roger's arse! As I said, Novak brought in another element that drew me back in! I'll continue to romanticize an era long past, while this social media society of today will only acknowledge current players & affairs as if the past doesn't count or mean anything!

Roger is still tormenting you, even after his retirement.

 

[Fiero425]

Roger is still tormenting you, even after his retirement.

"Torment's" a lit'l strong; more disappointed! Fed did it all but to steal at least 1 of those matches from Rafa in Paris! Was that too much to ask for?

 

[atttomole]

"Torment's" a lit'l strong; more disappointed! Fed did it all but to steal at least 1 of those matches from Rafa in Paris! Was that too much to ask for?

Federer stealing match from Rafa. How did you he do it? What about your favourite Sampras?

 

[Fiero425]

Federer stealing match from Rafa. How did you he do it? What about your favourite Sampras?

Sampras was appreciated, but not my fave! As boring as people thought he was, w/ no personality, he ticked me off a couple time over the years for different reasons! Like Federer, he disappointed by not being more successful in Paris! We anointed him the GOAT just 20 yrs. ago and Pete never even played a FO final, much less win in RG! We were made part of history witnessing his success! It was short-lived as Roger overtook him in majors in just 8.5 yrs.! So we jumped on that bandwagon ignoring the fact Roger's closest rival was "kickin' his can" all over the tour; even on grass in '08!

 

[atttomole]

Sampras was appreciated, but not my fave! As boring as people thought he was, w/ no personality, he ticked me off a couple time over the years for different reasons! Like Federer, he disappointed by not being more successful in Paris! We anointed him the GOAT just 20 yrs. ago and Pete never even played a FO final, much less win in RG! We were made part of history witnessing his success! It was short-lived as Roger overtook him in majors in just 8.5 yrs.! So we jumped on that bandwagon ignoring the fact Roger's closest rival was "kickin' his can" all over the tour; even on grass in '08!

Your comparison of Federer with Sampras regarding the French Open is unfair, I think. Roger was way better on clay than Sampras.

 

[Fiero425]

Your comparison of Federer with Sampras regarding the French Open is unfair, I think. Roger was way better on clay than Sampras.

No doubt about it; terribly unfair to try making comparable the 2 eras as tech was severely upgraded, training enhanced, & the courts homogenized!

 

[El Dude]

No doubt about it; terribly unfair to try making comparable the 2 eras as tech was severely upgraded, training enhanced, & the courts homogenized!

Hards and grass were slowed down a bit, but I don't think clay was all that different. There's no way around the fact that Sampras was a weak clay player. Not bad in the context of the field, but relative to his grass/hard/carpet level.

Roger was a borderline great clay player. The two aren't even remotely close, and it isn't just tech or surface homogenization. In truth, if you time-travelled Roger back to peak in the 90s, or even just pre-Rafa, he probably would have won several French Opens.

 

[El Dude]

Peak Clay Elo (According to UTS):

Federer 2453 (8th best all time, between Muster and Nastase)
Sampras 2226 (75th best, between Nystrom and Arias)

But Elo is dumb! It doesn't support what I want to believe!

 

[atttomole]

No doubt about it; terribly unfair to try making comparable the 2 eras as tech was severely upgraded, training enhanced, & the courts homogenized!

It’s not even close, regardless of technology. Federer was a tennis phenomenon. Sampras was a great player!! There isn’t that much difference between the two eras.