It became "a thing" after it occurred; about as lame a record as a "Career Grand Slam!" It became a thing when Agassi accomplished it back in the 90's! I was one of those people that couldn't stand Agassi from day 1! It was corruptable in my mind that this kid was taking the sport by storm & hadn't won $#!t! It would take him 5 more yrs. to stumble upon a Wimbledon crown in '92! If it was real skill, he's the greatest underachiever in the history (GUAT) of the game as he wasted so many years just being a personality on tour w/ the clothes, hair, sponsors, etc.! It's become almost a right of passage now w/ the Big 3 having 6 of them in their collective resumes; Novak (3)!
Are we talking about the same thing? I do think reaching #1 is a huge accomplishment, in some ways more impressive than winning a Slam - certainly harder to do. To win a Slam, you "only" have to go ballistic for a tournament, winning seven matches in a row. Sure, probably at least a couple matches against top players. But to reach number one, you have to have the best overall results for the past calendar year. That is crazy hard to do in any year, really.
Or look at it this way. Who are the five worst players to win Slams vs. reach number one? By GOAT points:
SLAMS: Brian Teacher 23, Mark Edmondson 24, Thomas Johansson 25, Gaston Gaudio 29, Pat Cash 39 = 140 GP
#1: Marcelo Rios 78, Patrick Rafter 90, Carlos Moya 93, Juan Carlos Ferrero 99, Marat Safin 102 = 462 GP
Meaning, the five "worst" number #1s have three times as many GOAT points, and every player among the five is better than the five worst Slam winners. In fact, if Marcelo Rios is the worst ATP #1, here is a list of Slam winners with fewer GP than his 78:
Brian Teacher 23, Mark Edmondson 24, Thomas Johansson 25, Gaston Gaudio 29, Pat Cash 39, Albert Costa 43, Andres Gimeno 45, Andres Gomez 56, Petr Korda 56, Johan Kriek 61, Jan Kodes 62, Sergi Bruguera 71, Marin Cilic 73, Richard Krajicek 74
That's 14 Slam winners with fewer GOAT points than the #1 with the lowest.
Are we talking about the same thing? I do think reaching #1 is a huge accomplishment, in some ways more impressive than winning a Slam - certainly harder to do. To win a Slam, you "only" have to go ballistic for a tournament, winning seven matches in a row. Sure, probably at least a couple matches against top players. But to reach number one, you have to have the best overall results for the past calendar year. That is crazy hard to do in any year, really.
Or look at it this way. Who are the five worst players to win Slams vs. reach number one? By GOAT points:
SLAMS: Brian Teacher 23, Mark Edmondson 24, Thomas Johansson 25, Gaston Gaudio 29, Pat Cash 39 = 140 GP
#1: Marcelo Rios 78, Patrick Rafter 90, Carlos Moya 93, Juan Carlos Ferrero 99, Marat Safin 102 = 462 GP
Meaning, the five "worst" number #1s have three times as many GOAT points, and every player among the five is better than the five worst Slam winners. In fact, if Marcelo Rios is the worst ATP #1, here is a list of Slam winners with fewer GP than his 78:
Brian Teacher 23, Mark Edmondson 24, Thomas Johansson 25, Gaston Gaudio 29, Pat Cash 39, Albert Costa 43, Andres Gimeno 45, Andres Gomez 56, Petr Korda 56, Johan Kriek 61, Jan Kodes 62, Sergi Bruguera 71, Marin Cilic 73, Richard Krajicek 74
That's 14 Slam winners with fewer GOAT points than the #1 with the lowest.
Off course getting to #1 is a huge accomplishment! I started faulting the system a while back when it appeared the more success you have, the harder it is to hold the #1 ranking following season! Look at 2015 when Novak won 3 Majors, 6 Masters, & the YEC! After such a grueling though successesful season, he dropped the #1 ranking to Murray even though he won 2 Majors, 4 Masters, & in the finals of the USO & YEC! Murray had 1 Major & stocked up on pts. winning a # of 500 level events to steal the #1 ranking on the last match of the season! I think the system needs to be tweaked, m/b give an extra 500 pts. for a Major or Masters!
Its not your fault - it is sort of a dumb stat, to be honest, that doesn't really mean anything. I mean, weeks at number one streaks do, but not first streak because it is really pretty circumstantial.
Great point about that being circumstantial. There are stats, and there are records, and they need to be distinguished. And there are also dumb stats. You're a baseball guy. Baseball love stats, to fill the air time. But they don't all matter. Same with tennis. There was a time when they would tell us how many years it had been since Rafa had not lost a match in April. That's just a stat. It just reinforced his dominance on clay, and it was fun, but it didn't mean anything.
Good for Sinner for holding the #1 this long, but no one is going to care about first run at #1. The ones that matter or most total weeks at #1, and most consecutive weeks at #1. IMO, Federer's consecutive weeks at #1 will be his hardest to break. That's about 4.5 years.
As to @Fiero425's notion that the Career Grand Slam is lame, I don't agree with that. You have 4 Majors, and to win all four is a big deal. Same as in golf.
it's a shame that there's no easy way to differentiate between different hardcourt surfaces, because I believe there's a hidden story. For example, it took years for Novak to finally beat Roger in Cincinnati because that was always the fastest hard court. I think that reveals how impactful the type of hard court is in player success. Slowing of the surfaces in general definitely had an impact on player success and obviously H2H.
I don't mind telling folks, and I believe I mentioned this in 2012 when I met Roger, that he himself dismissed court speed adjustments as affecting his success. He swiftly corrected that question (not from me), suggesting that obviously he was one of the prime beneficiaries of the era. While I don't disagree with him... in general... it definitely hurt him against his peers
Great point about that being circumstantial. There are stats, and there are records, and they need to be distinguished. And there are also dumb stats. You're a baseball guy. Baseball love stats, to fill the air time. But they don't all matter. Same with tennis. There was a time when they would tell us how many years it had been since Rafa had not lost a match in April. That's just a stat. It just reinforced his dominance on clay, and it was fun, but it didn't mean anything.
Good for Sinner for holding the #1 this long, but no one is going to care about first run at #1. The ones that matter or most total weeks at #1, and most consecutive weeks at #1. IMO, Federer's consecutive weeks at #1 will be his hardest to break. That's about 4.5 years.
As to @Fiero425's notion that the Career Grand Slam is lame, I don't agree with that. You have 4 Majors, and to win all four is a big deal. Same as in golf.
Yeah, Roger's 237 weeks might be his personal jewel that will "never" be broken, or at least is least likely to be - like Rafa's 14 titles at a single Slam. As of right now, Novak's 24 Slams is his personal jewel, though I think that's more likely to be broken than Roger's 237 or Rafa's 14.
Off course getting to #1 is a huge accomplishment! I started faulting the system a while back when it appeared the more success you have, the harder it is to hold the #1 ranking following season! Look at 2015 when Novak won 3 Majors, 6 Masters, & the YEC! After such a grueling though successesful season, he dropped the #1 ranking to Murray even though he won 2 Majors, 4 Masters, & in the finals of the USO & YEC! Murray had 1 Major & stocked up on pts. winning a # of 500 level events to steal the #1 ranking on the last match of the season! I think the system needs to be tweaked, m/b give an extra 500 pts. for a Major or Masters!
I think the ATP ranking system is pretty good, when all is said and done, though not perfect. But it is a hell of a lot better than it was before 1990. I mean, compare the seasons of #1 McEnroe, #2 Connors, and #3 Lendl in 1982....Both Connors and Lendl had significantly better years than Mac, but still finished behind him. I thought of doing a post about it, but not sure if anyone really wants to read through it, but I analyzed the data and it is really one of the worst ranking results in ATP history (the other bad ones are some of Connors' #1 seasons...by my systems, he really only deserved to be #1 two or three times, in 74, 76, and maybe 82...my systems like Ashe better in 75, Vilas in 77, and Lendl as #1 in 82, though I struggle with that due to Connors winning two Slams, even if Lendl's overall stats were better...I mean, he won 15 titles! And it wasn't weak...no Slams, but he did win both the Tour Finals and WCT--beating Mac both times--and some Masters equivalents).
My main issue with the ATP ranking system is that it still is too cumulative, so you can end up padding your point total with lesser results, and sometimes you get players with far lesser results ranking ahead of better players, just through quantity of lesser play. Meaning, it needs some way to balance total results and quality of results, which it doesn't do a great job of.
One "El Dude proprietary stat" I really like that I don't use too much because it is tedious to calculate is where you take ATP points earned and divide it by ATP points of events entered. So you get a percentage that is a good assessment of quality of play, but unlike match win% it is weighted strongly towards bigger tournaments.
So one way to see how it works is to compare Rafa and Roger in 2017. The rankings were like so:
1. Rafa 10645 of 20250 = 52.6 ATPP%
2. Roger 9605 of 13250 = 72.5 ATPP%
In other words, Rafa finished #1 by earning 1040 more points than Roger, but won 20% less of the points of the events he entered in.
It is very clear from the above, that Roger was the better player than Rafa that year, in terms of quality of play (and not even considering his 4-0 H2H that year vs. Rafa). I mean he won one more title than Rafa (a Masters), despite playing 6 fewer events. But Rafa just played 6 more events and wracked up more points.
Now you could argue that Roger shouldn't be awarded for something he didn't do. And he probably wouldn't have padded his titles if he had narrowed the event gap by playing clay season and, say, Paris. I mean, let's say he played RG, two of the three clay Masters, and Paris to bring him up to 16 events. We can hypothetically imagine a SF result at Roland Garros and maybe a F and QF at the clay Masters, and a SF result at Paris (he was fading a bit after Wimbledon, missing Cincy due to a back injury, otherwise I'd add that). That adds about 1800 ranking points and brings up to about 11400 and gives him the #1 by a good margin. And his ATTP% would still have been 10% better at 62.5. Meaning, if he had played pretty well at four big events without winning them--staying at his seven titles--he would have been #1, and still have a significantly higher quality level.
And please...this is not to bag on Rafa, who had a great 2017. In the annals of questionable #1s, this is barely questionable at all. But it does point out that the best player isn't always the #1 player. This holds even more so deeper down the rankings...I mean, compare #3 Ferrer to #4 Murray in 2013:
FERRER: 24 events, 2 titles (both ATP 250s); Slam results: F, SF, QF, QF; 71.4 W% (60-24)
MURRAY: 12 events, 4 titles (Wimb, 1 Masters, 2 ATP 250s); Slam results W, F, QF; 84.3 W% (43-8)
Obviously Andy was a MUCH better player - the gap between the two is a lot larger than Roger and Rafa in 2017 (or Novak and Andy in 2016). Both won two ATP 250s, but Andy also won a Grand Slam and a Masters. If you substract Andy's record from Ferrer's, you get a rather pedestrian 17-16 record.
For a bit more analysis, I use three personal stat systems to assess years: Premier Event Points (PEP), which is kind of like a simplified ATP ranking number, and Title Shares, which only looks at titles won, and then PEP% which takes percentage of PEP earned at events played - sort of like the ATP point percentage I mentioned above, but a bit simpler. For those two comparisons we get (putting in spoilers for those who want to look, otherwise the points already been made above!):
2017:
PEP: Rafa 45, Roger 42
Title Shares: Roger 43, Rafa 38
PEP%: Roger 71, Rafa 51
Total: Roger 156, Rafa 134
Rafa gets the edge on PEP, Roger on TS, but Roger blows Rafa out of the water in PEP% (though again, that could would have narrowed somewhat if Roger had played more tournaments, but he still would have led PEP% and would also likely have gone ahead in PEP).
Or we could imagine: Hypothetical 2017 (with Roger earning Roland Garros SF, clay masters F and QF, Paris SF)
PEP: Roger 48, Rafa 45
TS: Roger 43, Rafa 38
PEP%: Roger 64, Rafa 51
Total: Roger 155, Rafa 134
So the overall gap is similar. Even giving Roger earlier exits on clay, and he still is ahead by a good margin. The point being, Roger accomplished more in two-thirds of the events, and thus Rafa earned the #1 by "padding" not quality of play. Roger would have just had to play reasonably well in four more events (or very well in three, or great in one or two) to easily earn #1.
AGAIN...for Rafa defenders, this is not an attack. But the season is a good one for illustrating the limitations of ATP rankings.
This one is more clearcut: Murray was a MUCH better player, with much better results in half as many events played. As mentioned above, Ferrer was ranked one rank higher by playing 12 more events, going 17-16...and the gap in rankings in 10 ATP points!
It is very clear from the above, that Roger was the better player than Rafa that year, in terms of quality of play (and not even considering his 4-0 H2H that year vs. Rafa). I mean he won one more title than Rafa (a Masters), despite playing 6 fewer events. But Rafa just played 6 more events and wracked up more points.
hmmm... Roger didn't play the clay that year right?
This might shock you, given my affiliation, but.... I think Rafa had the better year. For me tennis is against the field. That's how you win titles. I recall us Fedfans were furious with Roger for going to Canada. If he'd kept a cool booty we all felt he would face Rafa at Flushing and win. Yes there's no question that Roger was dominating the H2H that year. But it's the ATP not the Roger vs Rafa party. (not that you're saying that). But clearly his old man body wasn't as strong as it used to be. I feel certain that if he'd dared to play on clay he probably wouldn't have sniffed the 2nd week of Wimbledon.. Fully justified to do it at that age, only the slams he felt he could win mattered. But I don't give him a pass for bailing out on part of the season when judging his year
it's a shame that there's no easy way to differentiate between different hardcourt surfaces, because I believe there's a hidden story. For example, it took years for Novak to finally beat Roger in Cincinnati because that was always the fastest hard court. I think that reveals how impactful the type of hard court is in player success. Slowing of the surfaces in general definitely had an impact on player success and obviously H2H.
I don't mind telling folks, and I believe I mentioned this in 2012 when I met Roger, that he himself dismissed court speed adjustments as affecting his success. He swiftly corrected that question (not from me), suggesting that obviously he was one of the prime beneficiaries of the era. While I don't disagree with him... in general... it definitely hurt him against his peers
hmmm... Roger didn't play the clay that year right?
This might shock you, given my affiliation, but.... I think Rafa had the better year. For me tennis is against the field. That's how you win titles. I recall us Fedfans were furious with Roger for going to Canada. If he'd kept a cool booty we all felt he would face Rafa at Flushing and win. Yes there's no question that Roger was dominating the H2H that year. But it's the ATP not the Roger vs Rafa party. (not that you're saying that). But clearly his old man body wasn't as strong as it used to be. I feel certain that if he'd dared to play on clay he probably wouldn't have sniffed the 2nd week of Wimbledon.. Fully justified to do it at that age, only the slams he felt he could win mattered. But I don't give him a pass for bailing out on part of the season when judging his year
Well, it is debatable. I'm not saying that Rafa didn't deserve #1, just that Roger was a better player on a per-match, per-tournament basis. In baseball terms, it is sort of like Roger hit .330 in 120 games, while Rafa hit .315 in 150 games...Rafa had more hits, but his percentages weren't as good.
Similarly, but more extreme, with Ferrer vs. Murray in 2013.
Well, it is debatable. I'm not saying that Rafa didn't deserve #1, just that Roger was a better player on a per-match, per-tournament basis. In baseball terms, it is sort of like Roger hit .330 in 120 games, while Rafa hit .315 in 150 games...Rafa had more hits, but his percentages weren't as good.
Similarly, but more extreme, with Ferrer vs. Murray in 2013.
I see what you're trying for, to weight the events they play. But that favors top players in the extreme. It makes it even harder for lower ranked players to move up.
As @Federberg says, it's not just the Roger and Rafa show. I believe that you weren't trying to diss Rafa. And I don't know if you were looking to find a way to improve Roger's 2017, but you certainly found one.
But think of all the other players. It's hard enough to move up playing challengers, for a few points here and there. Sure, it might benefit a few lower-ranked players when they do well at higher ranked events. But it would definitely benefit the top ranked players who mostly only play higher-points events, and also do well in them. Wouldn't it make it that much harder to get into the top 100, and probably the top 50? Or am I missing something?
Also, let's face it: a Ferrer v. Murray comparison is just odd.
lol! Thanks. I'll see if I have the time. I definitely think that not differentiating varying speed hard courts hides valuable information. I suspect Roger was the strongest player on faster courts, but the inexorable slowing of courts worked against him
I see what you're trying for, to weight the events they play. But that favors top players in the extreme. It makes it even harder for lower ranked players to move up.
As @Federberg says, it's not just the Roger and Rafa show. I believe that you weren't trying to diss Rafa. And I don't know if you were looking to find a way to improve Roger's 2017, but you certainly found one.
But think of all the other players. It's hard enough to move up playing challengers, for a few points here and there. Sure, it might benefit a few lower-ranked players when they do well at higher ranked events. But it would definitely benefit the top ranked players who mostly only play higher-points events, and also do well in them. Wouldn't it make it that much harder to get into the top 100, and probably the top 50? Or am I missing something?
Also, let's face it: a Ferrer v. Murray comparison is just odd.
Well, consider that an ATP 250 is worth 1/8th the points of a Slam. But there's no player in tennis history that would rather have 8 (or 9, 10...) ATP 250s vs. a Grand Slam title - or even two Masters.
So in a way, the "main tour" are the big titles, and the 500s and 250s supplementary. They are the "fill-in-the-gaps" tournaments and yes, ways that journeymen use to earn ranking points.
So I'm not as much trying to weight the events more than the ATP system already does, as find a way to represent the level of dominance a player has on tour in a way that aligns with historical perspectives and emphasizes the quality of their play more than the ATP system does. It is more a mind exercise than an attempt to overthrow the system.
And I wasn't trying to improve Roger in 2017 - his record stands for itself. I was more trying to find a way to depict how good he played in a way that the ATP ranks don't - and his performance that year is a good example of the limitations of the system. He won the exact same titles Rafa did, but added a Masters in two-thirds the number of events played. He won more in less. So in that sense, he was the better player, but the ATP rankings don't reflect that (i.e. he was #2, but the best "pound-for-point" player....see my batting average analogy).
I don't know what you mean by odd. I think the Murray vs. Ferrer comparison illustrates what I'm getting at even better.
Well, consider that an ATP 250 is worth 1/8th the points of a Slam. But there's no player in tennis history that would rather have 8 (or 9, 10...) ATP 250s vs. a Grand Slam title - or even two Masters.
So in a way, the "main tour" are the big titles, and the 500s and 250s supplementary. They are the "fill-in-the-gaps" tournaments and yes, ways that journeymen use to earn ranking points.
So I'm not as much trying to weight the events more than the ATP system already does, as find a way to represent the level of dominance a player has on tour in a way that aligns with historical perspectives and emphasizes the quality of their play more than the ATP system does. It is more a mind exercise than an attempt to overthrow the system.
And I wasn't trying to improve Roger in 2017 - his record stands for itself. I was more trying to find a way to depict how good he played in a way that the ATP ranks don't - and his performance that year is a good example of the limitations of the system. He won the exact same titles Rafa did, but added a Masters in two-thirds the number of events played. He won more in less. So in that sense, he was the better player, but the ATP rankings don't reflect that (i.e. he was #2, but the best "pound-for-point" player....see my batting average analogy).
I don't know what you mean by odd. I think the Murray vs. Ferrer comparison illustrates what I'm getting at even better.
I think the main factor was missing time in late 2016, which allowed him a bit of catch-up recovery time for a body that had seen a lot of tennis the previous 15+ years. That's why in the early season we saw such a high level from him. But it is debatable whether or not skipping clay helped him in the grass season. Maybe, maybe not. He diminished a bit later on.
Well, consider that an ATP 250 is worth 1/8th the points of a Slam. But there's no player in tennis history that would rather have 8 (or 9, 10...) ATP 250s vs. a Grand Slam title - or even two Masters.
So in a way, the "main tour" are the big titles, and the 500s and 250s supplementary. They are the "fill-in-the-gaps" tournaments and yes, ways that journeymen use to earn ranking points.
So I'm not as much trying to weight the events more than the ATP system already does, as find a way to represent the level of dominance a player has on tour in a way that aligns with historical perspectives and emphasizes the quality of their play more than the ATP system does. It is more a mind exercise than an attempt to overthrow the system.
And I wasn't trying to improve Roger in 2017 - his record stands for itself. I was more trying to find a way to depict how good he played in a way that the ATP ranks don't - and his performance that year is a good example of the limitations of the system. He won the exact same titles Rafa did, but added a Masters in two-thirds the number of events played. He won more in less. So in that sense, he was the better player, but the ATP rankings don't reflect that (i.e. he was #2, but the best "pound-for-point" player....see my batting average analogy).
I don't know what you mean by odd. I think the Murray vs. Ferrer comparison illustrates what I'm getting at even better.
OK, I thought you were kind of angling for the rankings system to be changed, and I was thinking that it favored higher ranked players. Meaning that it feels like it makes it harder for the players farther down to climb up, but I could absolutely be wrong. I see that you're going for a system that actually tells us who is a better player, and there have always been complaints if a player gets to #1 without a Major, for example. (More often, in the women's game, are the ones I remember...Wozniaki, Safina.) I can see now why you made the Ferrer v. Murray comparison. I'm afraid my eyes were glazing over a bit by then. I'm not great at stats, and you really are.
So, would you really like to see the point system changed? I do think that hoping to make it a better reflection of "who's better" is a dream, but a bit like chasing a unicorn.
There's a year I'd like to see you apply your formula to, because there was a great controversy around here over the YE#1. It was between Nadal and Djokovic. Rafa was the ATP YE#1, but Novak was awarded the ITF #1. Could be interesting, if you could be bothered.
I think the main factor was missing time in late 2016, which allowed him a bit of catch-up recovery time for a body that had seen a lot of tennis the previous 15+ years. That's why in the early season we saw such a high level from him. But it is debatable whether or not skipping clay helped him in the grass season. Maybe, maybe not. He diminished a bit later on.
Roger missed 7 months, not just "late 2016." And he came back with no tune-up to win the AO, his first Major in 4.5 years.
It's not really that debatable that skipping the clay season helped him win Wimbledon that year. He said himself that he was worried about his knees for the clay season. Late career, you have to trust the player, and their decisions.
I think the main factor was missing time in late 2016, which allowed him a bit of catch-up recovery time for a body that had seen a lot of tennis the previous 15+ years. That's why in the early season we saw such a high level from him. But it is debatable whether or not skipping clay helped him in the grass season. Maybe, maybe not. He diminished a bit later on.
he diminished specifically because he got injured in Canada. The likes of @DarthFed and I were raging that he even played there. Even before the tournament started we were fuming. Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Obviously his body recovered from his time off, but not playing on the clay was specifically because he was saving himself for Wimbledon. As evidenced by what happened in Canada it's pretty clear that the juice would not have been worth the squeeze if he played the clay swing. I can applaud him for being smart with his schedule, and admit that if he had tried to maintain a similar schedule to Rafa he would have suffered for it. That being the case it's hard to claim that he had a better season than Rafa. IF he had avoided Canada and ended up with 3 slams vs Rafa's 1 then the case would definitely be stronger that he had the "better" season. But that wasn't what happened. Frankly at that stage in his career most of us Fed fans didn't give a hoot about Roger being number 1. It was all about the slam chase
he diminished specifically because he got injured in Canada. The likes of @DarthFed and I were raging that he even played there. Even before the tournament started we were fuming. Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Obviously his body recovered from his time off, but not playing on the clay was specifically because he was saving himself for Wimbledon. As evidenced by what happened in Canada it's pretty clear that the juice would not have been worth the squeeze if he played the clay swing. I can applaud him for being smart with his schedule, and admit that if he had tried to maintain a similar schedule to Rafa he'd've suffered for it. That being the case it's hard to claim that he had a better season than Rafa. IF he had avoided Canada and ended up with 3 slams vs Rafa's 1 then the case would definitely be stronger that he had the "better" season. But that wasn't what happened. Frankly at that stage in his career most of us Fed fans didn't give a hoot about Roger being number 1. It was all about the slam chase
I couldn't tell you much about those yrs. for multiple reasons! Overall I recall Novak had burned himelf out finishing up his "Nole-Slam" & was eliminated early at Wimbledon! He was just going thru the motions from then on even though making the finals of the USO & YEC! The YE #1 came down to that final w/ Murray besmirching the aura & legacy of the Big 3 allowing The Brit to steal the #1 ranking for a few minutes going into 2017! Fedal Redux was almost embarrassing to watch IMO as the Lost Gens. I & II had to deal w/ 2 brok'n down old men ruling the ranks again w/o Novak to tame them until the Summer of 2018! That was Roger's last gasp at #1! I used to be such a fan, but fell off the wagon pumping him up as The GOAT w/ 2 players owning him H2H! As everyone knows, Nadal's neva been a fave of mines, but I'll give him #2 All Time if I must!
41 weeks, nearly a year in the era of the Big 3 is actually quite stupendous. I know we, including me, used to speculate about Murray vs Wawrinka. But as Stan himself said, such comparisons are actually embarrassing. Got to duff my hat to Sir Andy. I still wouldn't have him above either Borg or Sampras. That would be disrespectful to them. But at the very least we have to put him at least in the Becker - Edberg class
Though, I would rank these guys ahead of Marcelo Rios on an all-time list. They are close enough in points, that their slams are good enough to put them over the top. Bruguera won 2 slams. Besides, there's a clear gap from Bruguera and Jan Kodes, who won his slam because everyone boycotted Wimbledon that year.
