Are "Number of Grand Slams" a fair way to measure a player's greatness?

mike danny said:
None of them were alphas like Pete. No Big 3 level rivals
Click to expand...
Federer has a losing h2h to Thiem, Kafelnikov, Zverev, Rafter, etc.

Djokovic has a losing record to Safin, Roddick, Vesely, Kyrgios, Gonzales, etc.

Nadal has a losing h2h record against Davydenko, Coric, Corretja, Brown, etc.

Not to mention that Federer has a losing h2h to Djokovic and Nadal who are both alphas and Nadal has a losing h2h to Djokovic. Pete takes care of his business no matter who is on the other side of the net. You can’t control who you play, but you can control whether or not you beat them.
 
Dropshot777 said:
Federer has a losing h2h to Thiem, Kafelnikov, Zverev, Rafter, etc.

Djokovic has a losing record to Safin, Roddick, Vesely, Kyrgios, Gonzales, etc.

Nadal has a losing h2h record against Davydenko, Coric, Corretja, Brown, etc.

Not to mention that Federer has a losing h2h to Djokovic and Nadal who are both alphas and Nadal has a losing h2h to Djokovic. Pete takes care of his business no matter who is on the other side of the net. You can’t control who you play, but you can control whether or not you beat them.
Click to expand...
Sampras had a losing h2h v Kraijeck and Hewitt I think?
 
Slams are absolutely the first criterion. Other stats should only be used when slams are close - say within 20%.

The next crop of stats are time at #1 and YECs, then Masters tournaments. Subjectively, these can make up the gap for slams. For instance, Player A has 15 slams, 100 weeks at #1, and no YEC. Player B has 14 slams, 250 weeks at #1, and 4 YECs. It isn't clear that Player A is the greater player.

After that, if still reasonably close, come total trophies, H2H against main rivals, intangibles (CGS, Golden Masters, NCYGS, etc).
 
TripleATeam said:
Slams are absolutely the first criterion. Other stats should only be used when slams are close - say within 20%.

The next crop of stats are time at #1 and YECs, then Masters tournaments. Subjectively, these can make up the gap for slams. For instance, Player A has 15 slams, 100 weeks at #1, and no YEC. Player B has 14 slams, 250 weeks at #1, and 4 YECs. It isn't clear that Player A is the greater player.

After that, if still reasonably close, come total trophies, H2H against main rivals, intangibles (CGS, Golden Masters, NCYGS, etc).
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about YECs. Read the player books. It's an event to please the sponsors. Hence the round Robin format.
 
Dropshot777 said:
Federer has a losing h2h to Thiem, Kafelnikov, Zverev, Rafter, etc.

Djokovic has a losing record to Safin, Roddick, Vesely, Kyrgios, Gonzales, etc.

Nadal has a losing h2h record against Davydenko, Coric, Corretja, Brown, etc.

Not to mention that Federer has a losing h2h to Djokovic and Nadal who are both alphas and Nadal has a losing h2h to Djokovic. Pete takes care of his business no matter who is on the other side of the net. You can’t control who you play, but you can control whether or not you beat them.
Click to expand...
Pete never faced anyone like Nadal and Djokovic, let’s stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. Pete also had a losing record to Krajicek
 
messiahrobins said:
Interesting this. I don't agree Djokovic is GOAT of YEC, for me Federer definitely greater there.

What thoufb does interest me in your post is the blanketing of Hard courts as one surface. Technically that is true of course but I've played on DecoTurf (never Laykold outdoors) PlexiCushion and indoor hard courts and there is a huge difference between the three surfaces used albeit all 'hard courts'.

I don't mean here to get Into phones goat if hard courts btw, but what is interesting to me is how vastly different hard courts can be. Also the fact events use different balls also is a factor.
Click to expand...

Its clear cut for me, more titles equals better. So we can agree to disagree without any issues. I will always stay consistent, who wins the most is greater, we've had this discussion before, not sure what you feel we can get further from it, by rehashing out our already agreed stances. Nothing more to say, unless you think there is.

And why does it interest you that I am blanketing them, they are ALL hard court? I'm not subdividing them by the material make up, HCs are surfaces that have a true bounce. AO, USO, YEC are all classified as HC regardless of bounce, speed, material make up. There are three playing surfaces, three seasons. Clay, grass, and hard.

Djokovic has 14 slams and 7 YEC on HC. Again, you know my stance, the player who has the most has the strongest claim.
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
And why does it interest you that I am blanketing them, they are ALL hard court. I'm not subdividing them by the the material make up, HCs are surfaces that have a true bounce. AO, USO, YEC are all classified as HC regardless of bounce, speed, material make up.
Click to expand...
Medvedev disagrees
 
Incognito said:
That’s not what I meant :-D I mean Sampras won a masters in a best of 5 final, that title should be counted as two.


Could the big 3 have won as many majors if masters were best of 5 finals?
Click to expand...
That's a good question actually and a legit doubt. There were also many non-ATP Super 9/Masters tournaments with the BO5 finals (Basel, Stuttgart (clay), Barcelona, Vienna, Gstaad, etc, plus the YEC of course), so it could be more grueling if a player reaches the BO5 final and has to play another tournament the very next weak. On the other hand, Masters weren't mandatory.

Eliminating the BO5 finals was a big mistake imo, because the spectators were robbed of drama and the classics - Barcelona 2001 final between Ferrero and Moya is a good example of what we've lost.
 
He who has the most slams in the same era (or close enough eras) wins.

So Novak is one. Rafa is two. Fed is three for the Big Three.

Sampras over Agassi.

Borg over Mac and Conners.

Llendl over Becker and Edberg and Wilander.

It's that simple. At least to me.
 
Martin J said:
That's a good question actually and a legit doubt. There were also many non-ATP Super 9/Masters tournaments with the BO5 finals (Basel, Stuttgart (clay), Barcelona, Vienna, Gstaad, etc, plus the YEC of course), so it could be more grueling if a player reaches the BO5 final and has to play another tournament the very next weak. On the other hand, Masters weren't mandatory.

Eliminating the BO5 finals was a big mistake imo, because the spectators were robbed of drama and the classics - Barcelona 2001 final between Ferrero and Moya is a good example of what we've lost.
Click to expand...

Career 4~5 setters played as of 7/20/2025:

Nole 178
Fed 163
Lendl 160
Agassi 142
Pete 129
Rafa 125
Murray 125
Borg 108

And (many earlier matches weren’t even timed?):
Neptune

Thread 'Some tough competitors were born within a year'

​
Timed​
>2 hours​
>2.5 hours​
>3 hours​
>3.5 hours​
>4 hours​
>4.5 hours​
>5 hours​
Nole​
1240 (1035-205) 83.47%​
496 (386-110) 77.82%​
251 (194-57) 77.29%​
135 (104-31) 77.04%​
61 (45-16) 73.77%​
29 (21-8) 72.41%​
14 (10-4) 71.43%​
3 (3-0) 100.00%​
Fed​
1424...​
  • Like
 
It’s always the same old story of people trying to somehow make up some delusional scenario where Federer is still always number one no matter what.

The latest pathetic idea they’ve had is to use social media, but only the social media where he has more followers or the amount of money that he has.

You people are just going to have to get over it, and accept the facts. By the time Sinner and Alcaraz are finished it will only get worse for him.
 
Hitman said:
Djokovic has 14 HC slams, that is three more than the player in second place. And there is no arguably about AO, you have to add Federer and Agassi's AO titles together to equal Djokovic. 10 titles puts him well above anyone else. Overall, no one has a stronger case for HC GOAT than the guy who has the most HC slams.

If that isn't enough to make him HC GOAT, then Federer with one extra Wimbledon isn't enough to be over Sampras either.

YEC being best of five or not doesn't change the fact he has 7. I mean, best of three actually allows for more upsets to take place.
Click to expand...

Federer's 1 extra wimbledon (vultured in mid 30s) isnt enough to be over Sampras and neither are Novak's 14 HC slams enough,

Surfacewise, there is only 1 GOAT and that is Rafael Nadal on Clay.
 
messiahrobins said:
Interesting this. I don't agree Djokovic is GOAT of YEC, for me Federer definitely greater there.

What thoufb does interest me in your post is the blanketing of Hard courts as one surface. Technically that is true of course but I've played on DecoTurf (never Laykold outdoors) PlexiCushion and indoor hard courts and there is a huge difference between the three surfaces used albeit all 'hard courts'.

I don't mean here to get Into phones goat if hard courts btw, but what is interesting to me is how vastly different hard courts can be. Also the fact events use different balls also is a factor.
Click to expand...

The GOATs of YEC were Boris Becker and Pete Sampras, but yes Federer could also have case over them.

Djokovic has somehow managed 7 titles vs mugs in BOE format, the BO5 later stages matches should have remained.
 
McEnroe winning 155 titles, and number 1 in singles and doubles at the same time, is the GOAT. He played a lot of tennis, and won a lot, in a relatively short career.
 
No. We have the whole thread here about Swiatek who is actually the female ATG for many reasons. Slams are worthless. They are just empty symbols people refer to to elevate their preferred players above others.
 
jackson vile said:
It’s always the same old story of people trying to somehow make up some delusional scenario where Federer is still always number one no matter what.

The latest pathetic idea they’ve had is to use social media, but only the social media where he has more followers or the amount of money that he has.

You people are just going to have to get over it, and accept the facts. By the time Sinner and Alcaraz are finished it will only get worse for him.
Click to expand...
Yeah as a Federer fan, it is shocking how many excuses people come up with for this when all you have to do is be honest and say Federer was always going to be my goat and it is a biased opinion.
 
How you win also matters.

Djoker is inside his own little bubble where the only thing that matters is winning. It's no wonder he's no longer the top dog he's still playing just to win because that's all he has left. Federer when he knows he's no longer fit to play he still has his reputation to think of. Djoker once he retired will likely has a Serena like reputation which is not that great. Nadal will be considered a RG clay goat for decades even after he die and also has a reputation to uphold for the sake of his academy. Australia open will maybe mention Djoker once or twice after he retires. I think Djoker did try to pivot his business into the health and fitness but that market is already saturated even before he enters and there's a low barrier to entry so now he really has nothing outside of tennis.
 
No, there's no perfect way to measure a player. But as flawed as it is, the majors are the best way.

What would be an alternative way?
 
When a tennis legend is named, the first thing that comes up after the surname is the number of major titles won, which speaks volumes about the importance of this type of event in the sport.
8-B
 
yes and no

no - greatness is an objective concept. i have repeated quite a number of time, taking out djoker, fed and rafa, who is "greater"? if one say rafa is greated than fed because the former won more slams, you can see how ridiculous it is.

yes - djoker's records (except slam total) are unbreakable to me. if his supporters say he is the GOAT because of how many he has won, i would not debate why he is not.

nevertheless, there are many factors why djoker can achieve these records, not meaning he is a better player than fed because the former won more.
 
Razer said:
The GOATs of YEC were Boris Becker and Pete Sampras, but yes Federer could also have case over them.

Djokovic has somehow managed 7 titles vs mugs in BOE format, the BO5 later stages matches should have remained.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Easily have Federer Becker and Sampras over Djokovic at YEC.

Djokovic lost to almost 40 years old Federer at YEC last time they played. Again he only overtook Federer once he was not playing. I fail to understand why Djokovic fans celebrate his records, or some of the records like YEC and Slam records when he only got them when Federer and Nadal were off the tour despite having had the chance to actually level them if he had beaten them at the YEC and FO respectively. Genuinely baffles me.
 
mike danny said:
Sampras didn’t have the hardest era by any stretch. If anything he had the easiest era among the 10+ slam winners
Click to expand...
Becker. Edberg. Lendl. Courier. Agassi. Chang. Kafelnikov. Bruguera. Stich. Ivanisevic. Muster. Rafter. Hewitt. Roddick. Federer (end of career these last ones) .

Now compare that to Medvedev Tsitsipas Zverev Thiem Dimitrov Nishikori cilic berdych.
 
messiahrobins said:
Becker. Edberg. Lendl. Courier. Agassi. Chang. Kafelnikov. Bruguera. Stich. Ivanisevic. Muster. Rafter. Hewitt. Roddick. Federer (end of career these last ones) .

Now compare that to Medvedev Tsitsipas Zverev Thiem Dimitrov Nishikori cilic berdych.
Click to expand...

Mike Danny does not realize how hard an era of specialists can really be.

Boris Becker and John Mcenroe had it the hardest IMO followed by Sampras and Lendl.

John and Boris had ATGs 5-6 older to them, with them in peer group and 5 years younger too... terrible scenario ... and of course they played in the era of specialists.
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
Mike Danny does not understand how hard an era of specialists can really be.

Boris Becker and John Mcenroe had it the hardest IMO followed by Sampras and Lendl.

John and Boris had ATGs 5-6 older to them, with them in peer group and 5 years younger too... terrible scenario ... and of course they played in the era of specialists.
Click to expand...
Yes good post.
 
Era and level of competition also need to be included in measuring greatness more than the number played or won.
The Big 3 and Andy as a 4th, Wawrinka, Roddick, Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling was just exemplary depth.
Weak Era -> * Zverev, Thiem, Ruud and Tsitsipas are not in the same league.
 
Last edited:
This holds mostly true for the last thirty years or so with the laser focus on the slams. Not so sure about the giants of the past.
 
I'd put some value on Davis Cup record/contributions as well. Not necessarily titles because one can't control who their countrymates are, but until the most recent years it was hugely important for many players (because they would come out and say so, and also brought about many incredible matches). Not as important as slam totals or YE numbers, but a factor I think worthy of inclusion when evaluating greats.
 
Stats are fun, and there are plenty of stats to pick on what defines greatness for some. Then others look at peaks, comparison to all-around level at the time, or other competitiveness factors (the weak era crowd). And then, sportsmanship, tennis history, place in sports overall compared to just tennis (like Nadal's domination of clay).
 
Number of slams, adjusted for surface opportunity, is still the measuring stick.

There are two hardcourt slams for every one on grass, so hardcourt slams should be weighted 0.5x relative to other 2.

Rafa = 19 slems
Nole = 17 slems
Roger = 14.5 slems
PETE = 10.5 slems
 
messiahrobins said:
Totally agree. Easily have Federer Becker and Sampras over Djokovic at YEC.

Djokovic lost to almost 40 years old Federer at YEC last time they played. Again he only overtook Federer once he was not playing. I fail to understand why Djokovic fans celebrate his records, or some of the records like YEC and Slam records when he only got them when Federer and Nadal were off the tour despite having had the chance to actually level them if he had beaten them at the YEC and FO respectively. Genuinely baffles me.
Click to expand...
Well, Djokovic was younger, so he would continue when Federer and Nadal had quit!

Once Djokovic established himself, Federer won ONCE during the years '11-16. But when Djokovic was injured during '16-18, Federer conveniently picked his last three slams!

Did you know that Nadal was shut out of AO and WB since '11? (Except when Djokovic was expelled out of AO in '22!) Meanwhile Djokovic dominated AO & WB with 17 combined championships!
 
Dropshot777 said:
Federer has a losing h2h to Thiem, Kafelnikov, Zverev, Rafter, etc.

Djokovic has a losing record to Safin, Roddick, Vesely, Kyrgios, Gonzales, etc.

Nadal has a losing h2h record against Davydenko, Coric, Corretja, Brown, etc.

Not to mention that Federer has a losing h2h to Djokovic and Nadal who are both alphas and Nadal has a losing h2h to Djokovic. Pete takes care of his business no matter who is on the other side of the net. You can’t control who you play, but you can control whether or not you beat them.
Click to expand...

Krajicek disagrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr. Friscus
1999: The Year Agassi was 0-4 vs Sampras in Finals/Semifinals but had a better year than him
2
Replies
64
Views
2K
Mr. Friscus
Mr. Friscus
Down_the_line
1995 was a great year for surface dominance
Replies
17
Views
3K
GuyForget
GuyForget
M
Great Players Win Percentage at Grand Slams and All Other Tournaments
Replies
3
Views
947
BTURNER
B
M
Weakest Seasons with 2 Majors of the Open Era
Replies
14
Views
2K
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
Tchocky
Agassi Fun Facts from TTC
Replies
2
Views
2K
MaximRecoil
M
Back
Top