Visual Representations of Top Players of the Open Era

[El Dude]

Long-time readers of this forum probably know that I enjoy creating pretty charts that depict the performance of tennis players over the years. It is one thing to look at formulas like GOAT Points and Elo, quite another to see a visual representation that depicts a player's performance.

Several years ago I did something similar to what I'll do in this thread, but this one is updated and cleaned up.

Format: Every player is depicted by a color, with four different shades. The darkest is Slam wins; the second darkest is big titles (Tour Finals, Alternate Tour Finals, Masters, Olympics), the lightest are minor titles (ATP 500/250), and gray equals QF, SF, and F results at Slams.

In terms of the cell size of each rectangle, they roughly correspond with current ATP points:

8: Slam title​

6: Tour Finals title​

5: Alt Tour Finals title, Slam Final​

4: Masters title​

3: Olympics Gold, Slam Semifinal​

2: ATP 500, Slam Quarterfinal​

1: ATP 250​

​

I started this project because I wanted to visually depict the relative dominance of the current Big Three to other eras - starting with Connors-Borg-McEnroe, but then spreading from there. I'll present these in a variety of ways, and am also open to requests. That is, if you want to see a certain group of players alongside each other, let me know and I'll copy and paste.

So far I've done the general consensus top 40ish men of the Open Era, with a few recent younglings to round things out. But to start, here is the top 20:

CHART A: TOP 20 MEN'S PLAYERS OF THE OPEN ERA

Now you might quibble with the players I selected to include (or exclude) - and my apologies to those who just missed the cut, including Stan Smith, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, and others. I think there's room for disagreement on the last two or three slots in the top 20; but the top 15-16 (regardless of order) would probably be agreed upon by almost everyone. I'll touch upon excluded guys and others - to round out a rough top 40 or 50.

While this chart is, by necessity, small enough to fit on a screen and thus might be different to really examine closely, we can glean some info from it:

1. The relative representational sizes of different players across careers. One of the things that stands out is that the Big Three literally dwarf everyone else - even Pete Sampras. If we were to extend back during the Pro/Amateur Era, Laver and Rosewall would look similar. It is also interesting to note that Sampras doesn't look that much more dominant than the trio of Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, with Connors a bit behind - with his career being more spread out, and thus not the same "dominance bulk" as those four. Then Agassi's interesting career, which really looks like two smaller careers, followed by Becker, Edberg, and Wilander, whose prime period was relatively short. Furthermore, this chart also shows how Andy Murray's career looks closer to those three than it does to the next group down.​
2. The array of different players across time, with that huge gap in the late 90s to early 2000s, when the careers of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were winding down, before the rise of the Big Three. The proverbial "Wild West" era. On the other hand, this also illustrates the clustering of all-time greats in the mid-80s to early 90s. You can also see how the first half decade of the Open Era was still dominated by top players from before (most notably Laver and Rosewall), as well as a group of lesser greats, before the new cohort (lead by Connors and Borg) really took over in 1974.​
3. The Big Three are similar. On first blush, it is hard to say one looks more dominant than the other, with the caveat that I'd probably give Novak the slight edge over Rafa and Roger, who are very close, simply with a different pattern of dominance.​
4. The Late Careers of the Big Three. Finally, I have mentioned this before, but in this chart you can clearly see one way the Big Three are different than all the other greats of the Open Era: All had a point in their 30s when it looked like--if they had followed typical career arcs--they would have wound down. For Roger it was 2013 or 2016, for Rafa 2015-16, for Novak 2018. Before those points, they'd still have more impressive careers than anyone else before them, but with less of a gap between them and the pack. It is the "extra padding" they added that put everyone else far in the rearview. We can also see that Murray didn't have the same bounce-back, with very little after his big 2016 season.​

Anyhow, I'll post further charts in upcoming days. I may even do a similar chart for the WTF, considering some of the debate around the female GOAT. And again, let me know if you want to see any comparisons, be they eras or different players across eras.

I'll also try to post the same chart, but with the "mid-line" extended to fit their whole career, from first to last match. Currently it only extends from their first to last Slam QF or title.

​

 

[tented]

I started this project because I wanted to visually depict the relative dominance of the current Big Three to other eras - starting with Connors-Borg-McEnroe, but then spreading from there. I'll present these in a variety of ways, and am also open to requests. That is, if you want to see a certain group of players alongside each other, let me know and I'll copy and paste.

I’ll write a longer response soon, but first, it would be interesting if you added Wawrinka, mainly because he won as many majors as Murray, plus I’ve heard some want to “demote” Murray because he hasn’t kept up with the Big Three. With two players with the same number of majors, in the same era, it would shed some light on Murray.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

The Olympics are worth as much as a slam (all the Big 4 have said it), or at the minimum like the ATP Finals. Sure the ranking points are not there but it’s because players can’t defend them the next year, also because it’s not an atp event. But keep on being a tard.

 

[Moxie]

The Olympics are worth as much as a slam (all the Big 4 have said it), or at the minimum like the ATP Finals. Sure the ranking points are not there but it’s because players can’t defend them the next year, also because it’s not an atp event. But keep on being a tard.

The Olympics are obviously a source of debate, in part because there was a long period in which tennis wasn't played at the Olympics. There was a time when they were awarded points, and Rafa is one who lost the (650, was it?), which didn't contribute to his losing the #1 ranking, but may have contributed to his taking more time to get it back. But that's not part of the chart, (meaning rankings.)

 

[Moxie]

The Big Three are similar. On first blush, it is hard to say one looks more dominant than the other, with the caveat that I'd probably give Novak the slight edge over Rafa and Roger, who are very close, simply with a different pattern of dominance.​

I'll nip into your point about the Big 3, as a start. Clearly, Roger is very heavy in dominance before Rafa came up, or made much of an impact, and likewise, Novak. Though, Rafa had a fair amount of impact during Roger's best years, based on the color chart. You also see Novak and Murray filling in a gap left by Roger and Rafa in 2015/2016. Roger and Novak have bigger blocks, with Rafa the more consistent throughout. Is this different from what we think we know? I don't think so. But why do you give the edge to Novak, however slight?

 

[El Dude]

I’ll write a longer response soon, but first, it would be interesting if you added Wawrinka, mainly because he won as many majors as Murray, plus I’ve heard some want to “demote” Murray because he hasn’t kept up with the Big Three. With two players with the same number of majors, in the same era, it would shed some light on Murray.

Yeah, I did do Stan and my next chart will include him and the next 20ish players that didn't make the cut. Stan vs. Andy is a great exercise in combatting "Slam absolutism." While it is probably true that Stanimal--at his best--was a more dangerous player than Andy ever was, Andy's overall career was significantly greater. Case in point: after those three Slams, Stan has 1 big title (a Masters) to Andy's 17 (a WTF, two Olympics, 14 Masters).

I've always like the comparison of Stan to Safin: guys who were as good as anyone at their best, but the problem is their best was a rare occasion. Andy was more like a better version of Michael Chang or even Stefan Edberg: consistently very, very good, but without the total "wow effect" of Stanimal or "Safinimal."

 

[El Dude]

I'll nip into your point about the Big 3, as a start. Clearly, Roger is very heavy in dominance before Rafa came up, or made much of an impact, and likewise, Novak. Though, Rafa had a fair amount of impact during Roger's best years, based on the color chart. You also see Novak and Murray filling in a gap left by Roger and Rafa in 2015/2016. Roger and Novak have bigger blocks, with Rafa the more consistent throughout. Is this different from what we think we know? I don't think so. But why do you give the edge to Novak, however slight?

From a historical and aesthetic perspective, I like how different Rafa and Roger look on this chart, which makes them hard to compare in a one-to-one manner. It is sort of like asking, who was the greater warrior, Legolas or Gimli? Legolas did it with greater elegance and flash, but Gimli was consistently effective and indomitable, especially with his feet on the earth (or in the clay...and thus, of course, you know who I'd equate the two with!).

As for Novak, I said that in reference to the overall shape of their respective forms on the chart: his looks slightly more dominant. But I've also been seeing Novak as the likely "first among equals" since 2016 or so, when it became clear to me that he would probably end with the best overall numbers. I think this is also borne out by the numbers: He equals or edges out Roger in most major stats, and Rafa's +1 Slam edge and Olympics Gold is more than countered by Novak's 5 WTFs and 164 more weeks at #1. His overall record is already superior to both--if only slightly so--and it seems likely (if not certain) that the gap will widen a bit more over the next few years.

Meaning, if it was just Roger and Rafa, we'd be able to quibble about the respective strengths of their careers: How much is +2 (or more) Slams, Olympics Gold, plus a few Masters worth compared to 5 World Tour Finals and +100 weeks at #1? The point being, you can't just do a one-to-one comparison with Roger and Rafa and see a clearly superior record, because the overall pattern of their careers are different (that is, unless Rafa has yet another surge and adds in enough so that his side of the see-saw is clearly weightier...but even then, he'll never have Roger's peak dominance or weeks at #1, so there will likely always be room to argue).

But with Novak...well, he encapsulates the best of both. The only thing Roger has on him is a more tightly packed peak dominance (which Novak counters with a more extended peak dominance) plus a few extra small titles (which Novak might surpass); the only thing Rafa has on him is +1 Slams and the Olympics Gold (which Novak counters with the 5 WTFs and 164 weeks at #1). But overall, Novak has the statistical edge over both.

But that's just numbers - that which can be quantified, which are always subject to context (which is why we can't, for instance, criticize Borg for "only" ever winning two Slams in a year, in an eras when many of the top players--including Borg--didn't play in Australia. Meaning, Borg's dominance in 1978-80ish wasn't that far off from Roger's dominance in 2004-07--just as McEnroe's 1984 season wasn't that far from Novak's 2015--and even comprehensive formulas like GOAT Points don't account for that).

And partially because of the shifting nature of context, and because so much of greatness is non-quantifiable, I hold to the view that the Big Three are co-GOATs. But in the gun-to-head scenario, well, I've already answered that. It might end up looking like a triangle, with Novak at the apex and Roger to the left, Rafa to the right. Or Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli ;-).

 

[tented]

Yeah, I did do Stan and my next chart will include him and the next 20ish players that didn't make the cut. Stan vs. Andy is a great exercise in combatting "Slam absolutism." While it is probably true that Stanimal--at his best--was a more dangerous player than Andy ever was, Andy's overall career was significantly greater. Case in point: after those three Slams, Stan has 1 big title (a Masters) to Andy's 17 (a WTF, two Olympics, 14 Masters).

Exactly. We’re on the same page here, including the idea that at their absolute peak, Stan was a greater threat to the Big Three than Andy. Wawrinka was unbeatable when playing his best. The FO final against Novak was the best demonstration of top-form Stan I ever saw.

I've always like the comparison of Stan to Safin: guys who were as good as anyone at their best, but the problem is their best was a rare occasion. Andy was more like a better version of Michael Chang or even Stefan Edberg: consistently very, very good, but without the total "wow effect" of Stanimal or "Safinimal."

The difference between Stan and Safin, though, is the former’s results dipped due to his body giving him so many problems, whereas the latter’s problems had more to do with his mentality, IMO.

 

[El Dude]

Exactly. We’re on the same page here, including the idea that at their absolute peak, Stan was a greater threat to the Big Three than Andy. Wawrinka was unbeatable when playing his best. The FO final against Novak was the best demonstration of top-form Stan I ever saw.



The difference between Stan and Safin, though, is the former’s results dipped due to his body giving him so many problems, whereas the latter’s problems had more to do with his mentality, IMO.

Yep. Safin also reached a high level at a very young age, winning his first Slam at age 20, whereas Wawrinka seemed stalled out as as top 20 guy until his late 20s. I remember reading or discussing why it took Stan so long to break through, but can't remember what it was.

Anyhow, here's Stan's record vs. the Big Four during his slam-winning years (2014-16):

3-4 vs. Novak
3-3 vs. Rafa
2-5 vs. Roger
1-2 vs. Andy

9-14 overall

 

[tented]

Yep. Safin also reached a high level at a very young age, winning his first Slam at age 20, whereas Wawrinka seemed stalled out as as top 20 guy until his late 20s. I remember reading or discussing why it took Stan so long to break through, but can't remember what it was.

Magnus Norman had a huge effect on him. That may have been at least part of what you read.

Anyhow, here's Stan's record vs. the Big Four during his slam-winning years (2014-16):

3-4 vs. Novak
3-3 vs. Rafa
2-5 vs. Roger
1-2 vs. Andy

9-14 overall

Yeah, Roger pretty much always had his number. Take him out, and Stan’s 7-9 against the other three — not a winning record, of course, but a decent one, which few (if any?) others in those years could claim.

 

[El Dude]

Magnus Norman had a huge effect on him. That may have been at least part of what you read.



Yeah, Roger pretty much always had his number. Take him out, and Stan’s 7-9 against the other three — not a winning record, of course, but a decent one, which few (if any?) others in those years could claim.

Or make it more specific: 6-7 vs Rafa and Novak. Of course that was a lesser version of Rafa, but still.

 

[Moxie]

Exactly. We’re on the same page here, including the idea that at their absolute peak, Stan was a greater threat to the Big Three than Andy. Wawrinka was unbeatable when playing his best. The FO final against Novak was the best demonstration of top-form Stan I ever saw.

Agreed on that, mostly, but it comes down to "absolute peak." Still, Stan has nothing like the h2h v. Big Three that Andy does. Big moments. More of a Nalbandian, or a Del Potro, in the category of messing things up for Big 3 at big moments, without having the consistent results against them. The Murray value-added was in consistently threatening, and actually reaching #1. Plus, the gold medals. And the raft of MS1000s.

The difference between Stan and Safin, though, is the former’s results dipped due to his body giving him so many problems, whereas the latter’s problems had more to do with his mentality, IMO.

Let's not kid ourselves...most of Safin's problems were in his head, not his knees or his shoulder/wrist, or he might have won more, in general. I thought the comparison odd, since Safin came up early, and was "the future of tennis." Stan was a late-bloomer, with a small window of success. If we're talking about players with a very high ceiling, in rarer moments, I guess you could compare them. Still, I would say that Safin was an early talent with much that was squandered. Wawrinka was a late-bloomer who had a very high upside, and found the sweet-spot in it, along with a very good coach. One similarity, I would say, is that Safin teamed up with a great coach who got him his second Major.

 

[El Dude]

Agreed on that, mostly, but it comes down to "absolute peak." Still, Stan has nothing like the h2h v. Big Three that Andy does. Big moments. More of a Nalbandian, or a Del Potro, in the category of messing things up for Big 3 at big moments, without having the consistent results against them. The Murray value-added was in consistently threatening, and actually reaching #1. Plus, the gold medals. And the raft of MS1000s.

Let's not kid ourselves...most of Safin's problems were in his head, not his knees or his shoulder/wrist, or he might have won more, in general. I thought the comparison odd, since Safin came up early, and was "the future of tennis." Stan was a late-bloomer, with a small window of success. If we're talking about players with a very high ceiling, in rarer moments, I guess you could compare them. Still, I would say that Safin was an early talent with much that was squandered. Wawrinka was a late-bloomer who had a very high upside, and found the sweet-spot in it, along with a very good coach. One similarity, I would say, is that Safin teamed up with a great coach who got him his second Major.

The similarity I see is not in the arc of their careers, but that both could reach a very high level, commensurate with the Big Three, but only for very short times. I mean, how many other players over the last 20 years can say the same? Maybe David Nalbandian?

 

[Moxie]

The similarity I see is not in the arc of their careers, but that both could reach a very high level, commensurate with the Big Three, but only for very short times. I mean, how many other players over the last 20 years can say the same? Maybe David Nalbandian?

Funny, I almost added Nalbandian, but decided to keep it to the two. But now that you say him...I'd say all 3 of those had mental/consistency issues. Another it occurs to me now to add is Del Potro. In his day, he spoiled big moments for all 3, at Majors, MS1000s, and the Olympics.

 

[tented]

Let's not kid ourselves...most of Safin's problems were in his head, not his knees or his shoulder/wrist, or he might have won more, in general. I thought the comparison odd, since Safin came up early, and was "the future of tennis." Stan was a late-bloomer, with a small window of success. If we're talking about players with a very high ceiling, in rarer moments, I guess you could compare them. Still, I would say that Safin was an early talent with much that was squandered. Wawrinka was a late-bloomer who had a very high upside, and found the sweet-spot in it, along with a very good coach. One similarity, I would say, is that Safin teamed up with a great coach who got him his second Major.

I’m not kidding myself: that’s why I wrote his problems were due to his mentality. Safin and Nalbandian (I hesitate even mentioning the name!) could have — almost certainly would have — had much better careers had they not been mentally sidetracked. They were their own worst enemies.

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I did do Stan and my next chart will include him and the next 20ish players that didn't make the cut. Stan vs. Andy is a great exercise in combatting "Slam absolutism." While it is probably true that Stanimal--at his best--was a more dangerous player than Andy ever was, Andy's overall career was significantly greater. Case in point: after those three Slams, Stan has 1 big title (a Masters) to Andy's 17 (a WTF, two Olympics, 14 Masters).

I've always like the comparison of Stan to Safin: guys who were as good as anyone at their best, but the problem is their best was a rare occasion. Andy was more like a better version of Michael Chang or even Stefan Edberg: consistently very, very good, but without the total "wow effect" of Stanimal or "Safinimal."

Another great underachiever! Stan had all the shots and a great 1-handed BH! His problem was definitely in his head! If you recall, when he finally won something, he pointed to his head as if he was telling his coach he was mentally there! Winning only one Masters is the most embarrassing since even the worst have 2 or 3! His biggest hurdle was obviously playing his countryman, Federer! There was such a mental block, it rivaled Gerulaitis' record against Connors & Borg! He had a little success vs Djokovic and stole 3 majors from him over the years!

 

[El Dude]

Alright, here's a few more charts.

Note: A couple changes
I cleared the charts up to make the players more distinct. I also extended the thick middle line for the entire span of a player's career, not just years that they won titles or reached the QF of a Slam. Note the dotted line signifies that a player only made one event appearance; for 2 or more, it is a thick line (I might go back and adjust this later). I also included the year at the beginning and end of the line.

In one case, Bjorn Borg's, I didn't extend the middle line all the way...as we all know, he made a "comeback" of sorts in the early 90s which didn't go too well. I suppose technically I should include it, especially considering he actually played in 8 tournaments in 1992.

Anyhow, on to the charts...

CHART B: 5+ SLAM WINNERS in the OPEN ERA
Note: I'm included players who won 5+ Slams in their entire career - not just the Open Era - mainly as a curiosity. I knew that Pancho Gonzales played for awhile and even won two Masters, and I also knew that Roy Emerson was around for a bit longer, although could barely hold his own against the expanded field. But Frank Sedgman? Interesting to see that he played pro matches until 1976, the year he turned 48 (!). Pancho Segura, too...he actually played until 1974, his last match at 52 years young! Anyhow, I only included such players in this chart - not in the next few (Segura would have qualified for the 2-4 Slam winners).

CHART C: 2-4 SLAM WINNERS OF THE OPEN ERA

CHART D: SINGLE SLAM WINNERS OF THE OPEN ERA

CHART E: SLAMLESS PLAYERS (2+ Big Titles and/or 15+ Titles)