Greatness most impacted by one single other player

[El Dude]

Vika's loss to Serena got me thinking: which players in tennis history, men's or women's, had their career most impacted by one single other player? Whose greatness was dimmed and might have been considered much greater if that other player had never been?

The first name that comes to mind is Andy Roddick. If you take Roger Federer away, Andy might have won 4 or 5 Slams and been in the category of Vilas, Courier, and Ashe. Andy wasn't a truly great player - his game was too narrow in dimension - but in the otherwise weakish field of the first half of the 2000s, he probably would have won more, and maybe even one or two after Nadal and then Djokovic came on the scene.

Of course there's Roger and Rafa. Roger might have 22+ Slams by now if it weren't for Rafa.

Agassi and Sampras come to mind as well. Agassi would have probably won a few more.

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

In women's tennis it is difficult to say, but oddly enough Serena and Venus come to mind. How many times did Serena beat Venus in a Slam? Venus would have won at least a few more if it hadn't been for her younger sister.

What do you think?

(Cali's going to bring up Nalbandian and Federer, I presume!)

 

[BTURNER]

Vika's loss to Serena got me thinking: which players in tennis history, men's or women's, had their career most impacted by one single other player? Whose greatness was dimmed and might have been considered much greater if that other player had never been?

The first name that comes to mind is Andy Roddick. If you take Roger Federer away, Andy might have won 4 or 5 Slams and been in the category of Vilas, Courier, and Ashe. Andy wasn't a truly great player - his game was too narrow in dimension - but in the otherwise weakish field of the first half of the 2000s, he probably would have won more, and maybe even one or two after Nadal and then Djokovic came on the scene.

Of course there's Roger and Rafa. Roger might have 22+ Slams by now if it weren't for Rafa.

Agassi and Sampras come to mind as well. Agassi would have probably won a few more.

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

In women's tennis it is difficult to say, but oddly enough Serena and Venus come to mind. How many times did Serena beat Venus in a Slam? Venus would have won at least a few more if it hadn't been for her younger sister.

What do you think?

(Cali's going to bring up Nalbandian and Federer, I presume!)

Evert and Navratilova drove each other to far greater heights, and the distance between the two and anyone else on the tour got so great that only Mandlikova and Austin saw any sunlight over the canopy. The rest of the saplings just withered. Then again either one alone would surely have ended up with 20-24 majors but they would have been lesser players with more hardware.

Sometimes the impact is beyond the rivalry. Arthur Ashe literally wrote the 'book' on how to beat Connors without having to do it more than one notorious occasion. Yet players for the next decade used those tactics to frustrate Jimmy and induce more errors from those flat strokes. I think more than one player who upset Jimmy in the 80's, can thank a man with whom he never conversed.

 

[britbox]

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

I really believe the Borg-Mac thing is overblown. It might have been the straw that broke the camel's back but Borg was clearly burned out, dealing with personal issues and fed up. He wanted to play the tour on a reduced schedule and was refused. He was also refused a wild card to defend his French Open title.

He beat Mac in some huge money matches after he'd stopped playing the tour. Officially exhibitions, but the prize money was greater than winning a grand slam tournament, so they took them very seriously. Interestingly, Connors also had Borg's number in these events.

 

[Didi]

(Cali's going to bring up Nalbandian and Federer, I presume!)

I think that Nalbandian himself was Nalbandian's biggest enemy out there. Actually there were only a few occasions where Federer stopped Nalbandian and many more where David stopped himself in pathetic fashion. If you go through some of his Grand Slam losses in his prime (say 2003 - 2006), there are just no excuses for him to lose them the way he did. Cali spend countless years talking about how talented he is, yet I can't ever remember him actually even trying to explain all these losses:

2003 AO: lost to Schüttler with 1-6 and 0-6 in sets 3 and 4
2003 FO: lost to a French qualifier in the 2nd round
2003 US: lost to Roddick in SF after being up 2-0 sets and MPs in the 3rd
2004 FO: lost to Gaudio in SF in straights with a bagel in the 3rd
2004 US: lost to Youzhny in a 5 setter in the 2nd round
2005 FO: lost to Hanescu in a 5 setter in 4th round
2005 WI: lost to Johansson in straights in QF
2006 AO: lost to Baghdatis after being up 2-0 in sets
2006 WI: lost to Verdasco in straights
2006 US: lost to unseeded and out of form Safin

I left out the losses he had against Federer, Hewitt and other top players in that timespan for obvious reasons and I even left out the entire 2007 slam season which was a total disaster for him. So, being fair to him and taking all this into account, you still end up with almost a dozen occasions where he massively underachieved.

Of course not all the losses I listed above have been pathetic, but many were just inexcusable. And please note that in all of them he has been a top 10 seed at the very least, often top 5 around 2006. But yeah we are supposed to believe he's the most talented the game of tennis has ever seen. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federer is an obvious one (ironic, since he's the consensus GOAT), since without Nadal, he probably would have won two calendar slams in a row in 2006 and 2007. Think about that for a second. Obviously, he still had a pretty decent career regardless!

I was thinking about Nadal, and his 13 major, and realized how huge Novak's 2011 run might turn out to be, since he stopped Nadal from winning 3 majors during that span. I mean if Nadal were to win, say 2 of those 3 titles, he'd be at 15 now, and we'd be talking about him PROBABLY overtaking Federer (which at this point, I don't think will happen).

Hewitt, Roddick and others in Federer's generation were largely affected by Federer.

 

[shawnbm]

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

I really believe the Borg-Mac thing is overblown. It might have been the straw that broke the camel's back but Borg was clearly burned out, dealing with personal issues and fed up. He wanted to play the tour on a reduced schedule and was refused. He was also refused a wild card to defend his French Open title.

He beat Mac in some huge money matches after he'd stopped playing the tour. Officially exhibitions, but the prize money was greater than winning a grand slam tournament, so they took them very seriously. Interestingly, Connors also had Borg's number in these events.

So true, britbox. Anyone who thinks those three didn't take those big dollar events as seriously as a major is deluding themselves. By 1981, Connors had recovered from so many losses to the other two and his marriage, had beefed up his service, and came at them with a vengeance. He was a helluva player from 1981-1984. Won three slams and lost some epic battles in semis and finals to Borg and McEnroe--dominated Lendl though.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the itf were brain damaged mugs..telling borg he would have to go through the qualifying rounds in majors..what an insult.

talking of borg, Connors benifitted from borgs battles with the itf and his retirement..look who is suddenly in the Wimbledon final in 1982 and winning ?..its jimbo, no way is that happening if borg is still around on grass,

and I think borg would have won the uso in 1982 0r 83..he nearly won on clay in 1976 was 1-1 sets and blew set points in a 3rd set tb, and unfortunate injured thumb hampered him a lot in a strainght sets defeat vs Connors in 1978 uso final on hc, borg won masters and WTF on carpet/hc..lost to mac in 5sets 1980.

anyway if borg sticks around..Connors I think wins possibly 1 of the 3 late post borg majors he did win.

 

[Ricardo]

Vika's loss to Serena got me thinking: which players in tennis history, men's or women's, had their career most impacted by one single other player? Whose greatness was dimmed and might have been considered much greater if that other player had never been?

The first name that comes to mind is Andy Roddick. If you take Roger Federer away, Andy might have won 4 or 5 Slams and been in the category of Vilas, Courier, and Ashe. Andy wasn't a truly great player - his game was too narrow in dimension - but in the otherwise weakish field of the first half of the 2000s, he probably would have won more, and maybe even one or two after Nadal and then Djokovic came on the scene.

Of course there's Roger and Rafa. Roger might have 22+ Slams by now if it weren't for Rafa.

Agassi and Sampras come to mind as well. Agassi would have probably won a few more.

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

In women's tennis it is difficult to say, but oddly enough Serena and Venus come to mind. How many times did Serena beat Venus in a Slam? Venus would have won at least a few more if it hadn't been for her younger sister.

What do you think?

(Cali's going to bring up Nalbandian and Federer, I presume!)

the shallowness of most of the above is astounding. Takes a bit more time and experience to know the game, can't just crunch in a few numbers, read a few pages and expect to make expert-like conclusions. Am glad Brit has corrected you on one of these about Borg, and you could've research some info before boldly making a statement.

 

[RJD11]

Vika's loss to Serena got me thinking: which players in tennis history, men's or women's, had their career most impacted by one single other player? Whose greatness was dimmed and might have been considered much greater if that other player had never been?

The first name that comes to mind is Andy Roddick. If you take Roger Federer away, Andy might have won 4 or 5 Slams and been in the category of Vilas, Courier, and Ashe. Andy wasn't a truly great player - his game was too narrow in dimension - but in the otherwise weakish field of the first half of the 2000s, he probably would have won more, and maybe even one or two after Nadal and then Djokovic came on the scene.

Of course there's Roger and Rafa. Roger might have 22+ Slams by now if it weren't for Rafa.

Agassi and Sampras come to mind as well. Agassi would have probably won a few more.

Borg and McEnroe is intriguing. If Johnny Mac hadn't come along and supplanted Bjorn as the greatest in the world, would Bjorn have tired? Or would he have cruised for a few more years of dominance and ended with 15-20 Slams?

In women's tennis it is difficult to say, but oddly enough Serena and Venus come to mind. How many times did Serena beat Venus in a Slam? Venus would have won at least a few more if it hadn't been for her younger sister.

What do you think?

(Cali's going to bring up Nalbandian and Federer, I presume!)

I agree about Venus. During the Serena slam nobody was

beating Serena or Venus in slams. So that would put 5 more

slams to Vee's total. And I think she lost to Ree 3 or 4 more

times so she may have won a few more. Then she would

be in the GOAT conversation.


I also think Serena affected Dementieva's career. She may have

won a slam or 2 if not for Ree and escaped the stigma of being

the best player to never win a slam.