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

[the AntiPusher]

Here's a question: Who will have a better career, Arthur Fils or Jakob Mensik? Obviously there's no way to answer that yet, but it does seem that Mensik is about where Fils was a year or so ago - and he's actually 15 months younger.

Actually, Fils broke into the top 100 on May 29 of last year, a week before his 19th birthday, after winning his first (and only) title at Lyon. Mensik has already broken into the top 100, but has yet to win his first title, but doesn't turn 19 until September. So he's actually a bit ahead of Fils at the same age (Fils was his age in late 2022, which he finished at #251...so his rise only happened after the age Mensik is now).

Fils will be the better player.. confidence is everything!

 

[Moxie]

I hear your point, and we're probably not as far apart as a binary yes or no to the question "do SF/Fs matter or not," but more a matter of degree - I think they matter more than you do (as far as assessing greatness is concerned). But I am also sympathetic with the view that, in sports, a win is a win, and anything else is a loss, which is why I actually have two nerdy systems I play with - not just PEP, but also Title Shares (TS) which gives points only for titles, and is heavily weighted towards Slams. So it gives somewhat different results.

But tennis is a funny game. Yes, you can draw a line between winners and everyone else, but matches matter - especially SFs and Fs. Reaching and losing in the final of a Slam is an impressive feat; so much so that the ATP gives more points for it than any other result other than Slam wins and Tour Finals titles. Similarly, finishing the year #2 matters - it isn't #1 and everyone else. #2 could be very close to #1, just as a runner-up at a tournament played better than everyone else but one player, and might have just lost to that player by a hair. In some cases, the #2 player was actually better than the #1 player that year, but simply played less.

So I toggle back and forth between PEP and TS, to get different views on the same phenomena. PEP gives more credit to consistent results, while TS emphasizes titles, especially Slams. When comparing players and years, I tend to average them out, and find that splits the difference between the "two logics" nicely.


Yep, agreed.

View attachment 9419

OK, that aside, I rate Novak higher than Rafa because he was more consistent. They both won 4 USOs, but Novak was the runner-up six times vs. Rafa's one. Those 5 extra finals matter (imo), if only as the tie-breaker. Obviously Rafa is up there, I just think Novak gets a solid edge over him, and Connors a slight edge. Rafa would be 5th at the USO, imo, with Mac 6th.


Yes, I do give value for the finals. To me, 7-2 is better than 7-0 (all other things being equal). But consider also that Novak beat Roger at Wimbledon - three times. Sampras beat some excellent grass players at Wimbledon, but no one like Roger. As for Pete retiring at 31, well, you can't give him credit for not playing longer (this is Borg's problem, too).

That said, I do recognize that Pete's record at Wimbledon has its merits - winning 7 of 8 is something that Roger didn't even do (it took him his 10th try after his first to win his 7th). Novak "only" won 7 of 11 (not counting 2020). But again, while Novak never beat Roger at Wimbledon during his best years, and he lost to Roger in 2012 when he had reached his peak level and Roger had lost half a step, but he still did beat Roger when he was a great player - three times.

But all of this is nitpicking. I think Roger still gets the edge, and Novak and Pete fill out the top 3 in some form or fashion. Perhaps a more interesting question is who was better on grass, Rafa or Andy...

First, let me say the "side-eye" illustration made me laugh really hard.

Also, I do see that we're not far off, in terms of what going deep in a tournament means, even if you don't win it. That's where the rankings come from. I can also see why you use finalists as tie-breakers. Fair enough. But to your "Herd of GOATS" post, also above, this is why I agree with it so much: Aside from everything else the Big 3 have done, they had much longer careers than many of their predecessors. (A lot of factors, which have been discussed.) But so, they've definitely still gone deep, even with falling short in the final. It's one of the many things that makes comparisons across eras difficult. And why, at a certain point, you stop trying, and say you've got a "herd" of them.

I rewatched "Moneyball" the other night. (Love that movie!) When I read this post, I thought of it. Brad Pitt's Billy Bean was adamant that if you lose the last game of the season, you lost. Period. The Jonah Hill character tried to convince him that there was more to it than that. Leaving off "life lessons," I think we both see the nuance within. We agree that it's sports, and it's the W that matters most. It's the difference in the value of 2nd or 3rd best that we could natter over. Being a baseball stats guy, I bet you love that movie, too. I bring it up for the fun of it. I lean a bit Billy Bean, but I'm not intractable on the point.

 

[Moxie]

Here's a question: Who will have a better career, Arthur Fils or Jakob Mensik? Obviously there's no way to answer that yet, but it does seem that Mensik is about where Fils was a year or so ago - and he's actually 15 months younger.

Actually, Fils broke into the top 100 on May 29 of last year, a week before his 19th birthday, after winning his first (and only) title at Lyon. Mensik has already broken into the top 100, but has yet to win his first title, but doesn't turn 19 until September. So he's actually a bit ahead of Fils at the same age (Fils was his age in late 2022, which he finished at #251...so his rise only happened after the age Mensik is now).

I fear you will jinx them both. Isn't it a bit early? I agree with @the AntiPusher that Fils has a lot of upside and is a great athlete. I'd buy on him. I have no feel yet for Mensik. I'm buying on Fonseca and there are a few other young ones out there. But great-seeming teenagers can also go nowhere, in the Bigs. While Felix Auger-Aliassime and Denis Shapavolov are having OK careers, they're not fulfilling potential. And what about other teenagers we had our eyes on? Sebastian Korda is not where I hoped he'd be. Borna Coric? Anyone remember Bernard Tomic? The transition to the Show is not something every player manages well. Or a bit of flash, and then they find their high-watermark, which is just a decent career, at best.

 

[El Dude]

I fear you will jinx them both. Isn't it a bit early? I agree with @the AntiPusher that Fils has a lot of upside and is a great athlete. I'd buy on him. I have no feel yet for Mensik. I'm buying on Fonseca and there are a few other young ones out there. But great-seeming teenagers can also go nowhere, in the Bigs. While Felix Auger-Aliassime and Denis Shapavolov are having OK careers, they're not fulfilling potential. And what about other teenagers we had our eyes on? Sebastian Korda is not where I hoped he'd be. Borna Coric? Anyone remember Bernard Tomic? The transition to the Show is not something every player manages well. Or a bit of flash, and then they find their high-watermark, which is just a decent career, at best.

I don't think it is too early to speculate, at least on what I'm asking - and hopefully I didn't give the impression that I was expecting greatness from either. My question is only who will be better; that is, who has the most potential and best chance of actualizing it, not how good they'll become. I agree that it is too early to have any idea about that. But we can look at both, and speculate on who has more upside and the mentality to actualize it.

As we've talked about before, promising prospects are far more likely (like 99%+) to be Gasquet than Nadal, and of course Gasquet is no slouch, taking all players into account. And of course there's the Tomics and Shapovalovs of the world, who are a solid tier or two below Gasquet. Mensik and Fils should be happy if they have the career Gasquet have, although of course they hope for much more.

 

[shawnbm]

Connors won as many USO as Federer and Sampras--5

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I'm not sold on Fils. I've watched them all play, and I already believe that Fonseca and Mensik are better than Fils.

 

[El Dude]

First, let me say the "side-eye" illustration made me laugh really hard.

Also, I do see that we're not far off, in terms of what going deep in a tournament means, even if you don't win it. That's where the rankings come from. I can also see why you use finalists as tie-breakers. Fair enough. But to your "Herd of GOATS" post, also above, this is why I agree with it so much: Aside from everything else the Big 3 have done, they had much longer careers than many of their predecessors. (A lot of factors, which have been discussed.) But so, they've definitely still gone deep, even with falling short in the final. It's one of the many things that makes comparisons across eras difficult. And why, at a certain point, you stop trying, and say you've got a "herd" of them.

Regarding your remark about the longevity of the Big 3, I think that is what sets them apart from, say, McEnroe and Borg. In their time, Mac and Borg were similarly dominant - that is, in terms of how good they were relative to the field. But both were only great for eight years, and only super-dominant for a few. The Big Three have more or less doubled that, in both ranges (great/prime and super-dominant/peak). In other words, the Big 3 were/are as good as Mac and Borg, but for twice as long (or more), which makes them greater, imo.

I rewatched "Moneyball" the other night. (Love that movie!) When I read this post, I thought of it. Brad Pitt's Billy Bean was adamant that if you lose the last game of the season, you lost. Period. The Jonah Hill character tried to convince him that there was more to it than that. Leaving off "life lessons," I think we both see the nuance within. We agree that it's sports, and it's the W that matters most. It's the difference in the value of 2nd or 3rd best that we could natter over. Being a baseball stats guy, I bet you love that movie, too. I bring it up for the fun of it. I lean a bit Billy Bean, but I'm not intractable on the point.

I saw that shortly after it came out - definitely a good flick. As a baseball guy, and a stat-nerd, it was interesting to see that Jonah Hill's character was actually the driver behind the stats. Among baseball fans, Beane was known for innovating use of stats - but it was really him just listening to the nerd. But more than anything, Beane was good at finding hidden value, and optimizing it to field very good teams, despite having low payroll. He did this by looking at statistics like On-Base Percentage, and valuing it over Batting Average. People weren't really doing that until after his time, so he was able to find guys more easily. Harder to do today, because the cat is out of the bag.

Meaning, Beane success was at least partially due to finding a balance between his approach and that of the Jonah Hill guy; without Hill, he wouldn't have been as successful.

Anyhow, as I said I think both views have value, and that considering both is better than one or the other. Thus my use of two systems. As I've said, PEP gives points for "premier" event results - at an ATP 250, only a title, at an ATP 500, a title and finalist, etc, with corresponding point values roughly corresponding to ATP point ratios (though a bit more weighted for Slams). Title Shares only gives points for actual titles won, and are even more heavily weighted towards Slams. In that sense, I think TS would be preferred to many here, because it correlates more with the more prevalent view (e.g. Slams weighted more heavily than ATP point equivalents). Maybe I'll do a post on TS, as I don't think I've shared it before.

Another system I like using is something along the lines of "ATP Points %" - meaning, what percentage of ATP points did a player earn of the tournaments they entered - sort of like the tennis version of batting average and similar percentile statistics. I prefer this to Win%, because it weighs the tournament values. But it is a bit of a hassle to calculate, so I only have it for some players and seasons.