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

[Jonas78]

Mostly, but there are exceptions. A player can be very dominant but then not be able to play (Monica Seles comes to mind. Borg?).

 

[messiahrobins]

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!

Federer was over 30 by 2011. Your point is redundant. Nadal would have beat Djokovic at AO 2022 obviously given Medvedev was the best player on hard courts at the time anyway.

Dont think anyone is arguing Nadal was greater at W and AO than Djokovic so not sure what your point is. Nadal was King at FO and USO.

 

[timnz]

The only man who should be compensated for his success at the Masters is Andy Murray.
The great prestige of the Masters that adorned them during the Big 3 is gone, especially now that they have been extended to 2 weeks and anyone can win them.

Does Sampras' lack of Masters 1000 wins hurt him?

 

[Musterrific]

There's some room for nuance. For example, Bruguera may have 2 slams to Muster's 1, but Muster had a much better career and was clearly the better player overall.

 

[zvelf]

Like in Golf, when you talk about the greatest tennis players of an era or in history, the one metric pretty much used alone is the number of grand slams. 4 tournaments a year. So the die is cast. Players know there are times circled per year, and there is the pressure to perform at those times, and they will be judged by how they play in those 4 tournaments.

My question is... should it just be "# of grand slams"? There are 9 Masters series tournaments a year, an ATP Finals where most of the big names play round robin and then have a tourney.

Should there be an off-set?

For Example: Take 2 players... Pete Agassi and Andre Sampras. They have the EXACT same year 5 years in a row, and it goes like this:
- Pete wins 2 majors and 2 Masters Series tourney, and gets to the Semi-Final of the ATP Finals
- Andre wins 1 major, 5 Masters Series tournies, and wins the ATP Finals.

So after 5 years:
- Pete Agassi has 10 majors, Andre Sampras has 5
- Pete Agassi won 10 Masters tournies, Andre Sampras won 25
- Pete Agassi never won an ATP Final, Andrea Sampras won 5.

If you just go by majors, Pete Agassi>Andre Sampras because 10>5, but by ATP points Andre Sampras would be doing much better.

What do you guys think. I'm not saying it has to change, I'm acknowledging the norm and asking if it's how it ought to be.

Majors are a big consideration, but not the only consideration. I developed a system using 9 different criteria and you can see the results here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-tennis-players-of-the-open-era-ranked.692106/

The thread covers many years so you can see how rankings change over time by going through the entire thread.

 

[LuckyR]

Prize money is the best measure among tbose in the same era, as it is weighted (by definition) between rounds won and importance of tournament.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer was over 30 by 2011. Your point is redundant. Nadal would have beat Djokovic at AO 2022 obviously given Medvedev was the best player on hard courts at the time anyway.

Dont think anyone is arguing Nadal was greater at W and AO than Djokovic so not sure what your point is. Nadal was King at FO and USO.

There's no way in hell Nadal would beat Djokovic at AO '22! He was on 9-match and 19-set losing streak to Djokovic! Med was lucky at US '21, and was bashed by Djokovic time and again! Why was the best HC player win only one slam?

Your post is ridiculous!

 

[The_Order]

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.

Federer has a weak AO haul anyway...

His 2004 draw had 1 decent opponent (who choked btw) in Nalbandian.
His 2006 draw was weak (Davy was his best opponent and he's a perennial slam failure) (Baggy fell apart after 1.5 sets of play) Fed's form in the event was off too for the most part...
His 2007 draw was weak (Gonzo choked in the final as well)
His 2010 draw was weak (Murray a mental mess in the final)
His 2017 draw was def his most impressive win. Hard fought and well deserved tbf.
His 2018 draw was weak and his form wasn't even that good either...

I can run a fine comb through Djok's AO haul too, but with 10 titles, never lost a final, he is deservedly above Federer and anyone else at the event.

Agassi fwiw, had a couple of joke draws too... 2001 Rafter the only tough opponent (who was struggling physically after the 3rd set) and 2003 was a joke all the way through...

 

[ChrisJR3264]

You can't win Masters or Slams without winning smaller tournaments. It's a progression. I think won/loss percentage over a career is important.

The overall resume is important I agree.
How do you build your rating? Challengers. Then qualies then wins.

Wins = results.

Winning masters titles are impressive even in BO3. In grand slams - most of these guys are physically fit. But you have to sustain and recover from well physically and mentally for 2 weeks - 7 matches. Even for the best and most fit, that’s hard to do. Mentally, you have more time to recover losing the first set.

In BO3, you don’t. There’s no overcoming 0-2 deficits. Match over.

I think the overall body of work is important but grand slams weigh most then m1000.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

When we are talking HC GOAT, you combine ALL HC achievements.

This isn't a conversation about who is USO GOAT and who is AO GOAT. This is about who is the GOAT of the surface. You're trying to take the conversation in a different direction, come back to discussing surfaces as a whole.

Overall he has 14 slams on HC, this is something you cannot deny. There is not a single player who has more HC slams than him.

When the closest guy is still three slams short on the surface, its pretty much case closed as far as surface GOAT, or lets first discuss grass GOAT first.

I don't even need to go to YEC and masters, when Djokovic has three HC slams more than anyone else.

But even then, Djokovic is GOAT at YEC, its not his fault it went best of three, he didn't vote for it, so taking away the value is just cheap, and its doesn't change the fact he still historically has 7 titles there. Federer beating old man Agassi, Blake and Ferrer in best of five isn't that much more impressive. As if Djokovic couldn't have done the same either against his opponents.

2/3’s of the year are played on hard courts though. To have that many HC slams and overall titles is good.
And he is pretty good on the natural surfaces.
Nadal was just a god on clay.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras had a losing h2h v Kraijeck and Hewitt I think?

Krajicek, Hewitt, Stich, Roddick, Safin excluding opponents he only played once or twice (he has losing H2H against Fed as well for instance but only 0-1). This being said, the Krajicek one is the only legit one.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

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.

Lendl had it hardest imho. He had strong or even peak versions of Mac/Connors/Borg at the beginning, peak versions of Becker/Edberg/Mats later on and even young Agassi and Pete towards the end. In addition surface specialists and dangerous floaters like Vilas, Gomes, Cash, Ramirez, Mecir. Becker had similar opposition but he had weaker versions of Connors and Mac and Borg not at all. Then in the other hand he had to deal with Pete and Agassi way longer. Boris is a close second to me.

 

[The_Order]

As for the thread topic, I put a significant weight on the level of competition to win the slams...

There's no denying that the prime big 3 era is one of, if not the strongest era since open era started.

This is from mid 2007 - mid 2014. After that, the competition steadily grew weaker and weaker until we hit an embarrassing low with the cesspool era (2020-2023).

You had the big 3 in their prime and you had a support crew who imo are better than the 90's born gen...

Del Potro - beat Fedal to win his US title. On a given day a major threat at slam level. Big battles with Nadal, Djok and Fed at Wimbledon (I know Fed was Olympics but same venue). Beat Fedal at slam level multiple times.
Murray - considered a big 4 member who has the most consistent results at slam and masters level, just unfortunate that he had to deal with prime big 3 at slams. Still managed wins v all at slam level.
Tsonga - wins v all big 3 at slam level, including Djok at AO...
Berdych - multiple slam wins v Djok + Fed at slam level, including v Fed at Wimbledon.
Soderling - beat Nadal at RG, then beat Fed there the next year
Wawrinka - emerged later (2013+), but had thrilling matches with Djok at AO, won AO14...

All that sitting under prime big 3? What an era of tennis.

Take mid 2007 because RG07 was a strong draw that Nadal went through, all the way through to WIM14 because US14 sucked in terms of level and competition, AO15 wasn't great either and it steadily got worse as I mentioned...

Exclude 2010 because that season wasn't strong.

Nadal:

• AO - 1 (09)
• RG - 6 (07+08, 11->14)
• WIM - 1 (08)
• US - 1 (13)

= 9 slams (each run included at least 1 win over a big 3 member)

Best wins:
def Federer WIM08
def Federer AO09
def Verdasco AO09
def Djokovic RG13

Federer:

• AO - 0
• RG - 1 (09)
• WIM - 3 (07 + 09 + 12)
• US - 2 (07+08)

= 6 slams (4 of which included at least 1 win over a big 3 member. Also, WIM09 had a very tough opponent in Roddick who played really well)

Best wins:
def Nadal WIM07
def Djokovic RG11 (doesn't matter he didn't win the event, that win was one of his best no doubt)
def Roddick WIM09
def Del Potro RG09

Djokovic:

• AO - 4 (08, 11->13)
• RG - 0
• WIM - 2 (11 + 14)
• US - 1 (11)

= 7 slams (6 of which included at least 1 win over a big 3 member, the one that didn't had an equally tough opponent - Stan AO13)

Best wins:
def Nadal AO12
def Wawrinka AO13
def Federer WIM14
def Del Potro WIM13 (doesn't matter he didn't win the event, that match was a war and took everything out of Djok)

 

[Razer]

Lendl had it hardest imho. He had strong or even peak versions of Mac/Connors/Borg at the beginning, peak versions of Becker/Edberg/Mats later on and even young Agassi and Pete towards the end. In addition surface specialists and dangerous floaters like Vilas, Gomes, Cash, Ramirez, Mecir. Becker had similar opposition but he had weaker versions of Connors and Mac and Borg not at all. Then in the other hand he had to deal with Pete and Agassi way longer. Boris is a close second to me.

Lendl's fav surface was clay and Borg was out of the picture in the 80s, this really helped him, isn't it ?
Becker's fav surface was Grass and Sampras was in the picture along with some younger grass courters who emerged afterwards

So if we look at competition on their fav surface then Becker had it harder and on their bad surfaces well they both had hard competition. So that kinda nullifies it.

Lendl should have won wimbledon, if Cash can win wimbledon then why not Lendl? The obvious answer is he was not good enough. Plus even in New York he lost so many finals, is that a good thing? It is his failure if he is losing after reaching the final again and again.

I would say Becker had it hardest but you could argue for Lendl or Mcenroe too, someone like Mcenroe was trapped between the Wood-Graphite transition and he was done by age 25.

 

[JMR]

Lendl's fav surface was clay and Borg was out of the picture in the 80s, this really helped him, isn't it ?

Yes, but the guy who benefited most from Borg's premature departure was Connors. Borg had beaten Connors 10 times in a row! In 1981, he beat Connors at both Wimbledon and the USO. Then Borg quits, and in 1982 Connors wins both Wimbledon and the USO, and defends the USO title in 1983.

Lendl should have won wimbledon, if Cash can win wimbledon then why not Lendl? The obvious answer is he was not good enough. Plus even in New York he lost so many finals, is that a good thing? It is his failure if he is losing after reaching the final again and again.

It's not good to lose a final, but it's certainly good to make a final. Looking just at Lendl's wins, we can say he captured three U.S. Opens in a row. That's excellent. It's not the best ever achieved at that tournament, but it's clearly a big ATG building block. As for all the other U.S. Opens in which Lendl played, well, he lost at some point. We can't say for the five finals he lost that it would have been better for him to have lost in the SF, QF, or some earlier round than in the final.

 

[Biotic]

This is from mid 2007 - mid 2014. After that, the competition steadily grew weaker and weaker until we hit an embarrassing low with the cesspool era (2020-2023).

You had the big 3 in their prime

Nadal =/= Big 3

 

[Razer]

Yes, but the guy who benefited most from Borg's premature departure was Connors. Borg had beaten Connors 10 times in a row! In 1981, he beat Connors at both Wimbledon and the USO. Then Borg quits, and in 1982 Connors wins both Wimbledon and the USO, and defends the USO title in 1983.


It's not good to lose a final, but it's certainly good to make a final. Looking just at Lendl's wins, we can say he captured three U.S. Opens in a row. That's excellent. It's not the best ever achieved at that tournament, but it's clearly a big ATG building block. As for all the other U.S. Opens in which Lendl played, well, he lost at some point. We can't say for the five finals he lost that it would have been better for him to have lost in the SF, QF, or some earlier round than in the final.

Sounds good but no, losing final is worse than losing earlier because reaching a final in your 20s means you are young, in form, you are not supposed to lose it. This is not like Djokovic in his late 30s reaching SF/F to be gassed out, when you reach finals in your 20s and lose it then it is bigger black mark than losing early. Federer had he not even reached the french open final in 2008, maybe he could have won 2008 W final but he reached there, lost, his confidence was worse and he managed to lose W and thus gave Nadal some legitimacy on grass.... I would anyday say for truly great players losing early is better. The true alphas like Sampras more often than not converted their final appearances into wins in their prime. Djokovic lost in new york to Federer, Nadal, Murray, Stanimal and that dude from Japan (LOL), so that did harm his reputation in new york. Nadal's resume in New York is better even though he reached less finals there.

 

[Biotic]

Nadal's resume in New York is better even though he reached less finals there.

Riiiiight. Getting pasted early by Blake, Ferrer and Youzhny or not playing at all is much better.

 

[Holmes]

The only man who should be compensated for his success at the Masters is Andy Murray.
The great prestige of the Masters that adorned them during the Big 3 is gone, especially now that they have been extended to 2 weeks and anyone can win them.

Murray's performance against his fellow big 3 in the slams proved he isn't an ATG talent capable of beating the absolute best to win a slam, but rather best of 3 events that frankly did lose some of their prestige when they went from best of 5 to such. "Pete Agassi", "Andre Sampras" their real counterparts, and the real big 3 proved they could. There is a clear difference. His rival is Courier, not the big 3, Pete and 'Dre.

 

[Razer]

Riiiiight. Getting pasted early by Blake, Ferrer and Youzhny or not playing at all is much better.

Yes it is better.

Losing against Mugs and Winning against the best is more important than winning against mugs but losing against the best.

Djokovic himself lost Grand Slam Finals to Murray and Stan but he converted vs Federer and Nadal, now imagine if he had beaten Stan/Murray in those matches and lost some to Federer/Nadal instead ? His slam count would be same but Fedal's would be more.

So losing to mugs is ok but losing in big stage is not ok, Nadal has a 2>1 H2H over Novak in New York and I must say that does not reflect good on Novak.

 

[Holmes]

Federer was over 30 by 2011. Your point is redundant. Nadal would have beat Djokovic at AO 2022 obviously given Medvedev was the best player on hard courts at the time anyway.

Dont think anyone is arguing Nadal was greater at W and AO than Djokovic so not sure what your point is. Nadal was King at FO and USO.

His point is that Djokovic is better than Fedal, and all things considered, he's right.

 

[Holmes]

Or Pete played in an era where he was the only alpha

Because he eliminated other potentials before they got there. Anyways, not exactly making the best argument here for our man Federer. Up to 2009 Roddick was Federer's greatest slam rival at his greatest slams, and Federer got to coast to 12 slams before he faced another alpha who entered his prime. That's 12 majors without playing a matured alpha, and literally breaking the slam record by beating Roddick. That's 107% of Pete's slams won with Roddick as his greatest rival.

Surely you don't think Federer should have gotten to win all 20 majors in absence of a matured Djokodal?

 

[Biotic]

Yes it is better.

Losing against Mugs and Winning against the best is more important than winning against mugs but losing against the best.

Djokovic himself lost Grand Slam Finals to Murray and Stan but he converted vs Federer and Nadal, now imagine if he had beaten Stan/Murray in those matches and lost some to Federer/Nadal instead ? His slam count would be same but Fedal's would be more.

So losing to mugs is ok but losing in big stage is not ok, Nadal has a 2>1 H2H over Novak in New York and I must say that does not reflect good on Novak.

Well I must say your post does not reflect good on you.

And I'm sure Nadal would have 5 USOs and Federer 4 had Nadal won 2006 USO, but no he got smacked by Youzhny. And the same Murray in 2008 in the best form of his life. His 2-1 at the USO looks just as bad as Djoko's 2-1 at Wimbledon, but people just can't see or care about Nadal's resume past RG. No point arguing really.

 

[Razer]

Well I must say your post does not reflect good on you.

And I'm sure Nadal would have 5 USOs and Federer 4 had Nadal won 2006 USO, but no he got smacked by Youzhny. And the same Murray in 2008 in the best form of his life. His 2-1 at the USO looks just as bad as Djoko's 2-1 at Wimbledon, but people just can't see or care about Nadal's resume past RG. No point arguing really.

Nadal might have had 5 USOs if DJoko allowed Fed convert the MP in 2011. Djokovic would have 6 wimbledon if Tsonga allowed Federer to win in that QF match in 2011. So these are all IFs and BUTs, bottomline is a defeat is a defeat, better to lose when you are not in form than lose when you are in good form.

 

[JMR]

Sounds good but no, losing final is worse than losing earlier because reaching a final in your 20s means you are young, in form, you are not supposed to lose it. This is not like Djokovic in his late 30s reaching SF/F to be gassed out, when you reach finals in your 20s and lose it then it is bigger black mark than losing early.

I recall having discussions/arguments on this point decades ago. Tennis is really the only sport I can think of in which this blind spot exists among some fans. Elsewhere, everyone recognizes that a second-place finish is much better than, say, an eighth-place finish. E.g., golf. Many sports recognize "podium" finishes (top 3) as the next measure of accomplishment after victories. I watched the table tennis world championships not long ago. Hugo Calderano from Brazil was the men's runner-up -- a tremendous result for his country and for the entire western hemisphere. I can 100 percent guarantee you that no one, including Hugo himself, thinks he would or might have been better off losing in an earlier round. If he loses in the final, he's the world silver medalist. If he loses in the fourth round, he's just a fourth-round loser. But somehow in tennis, emotions can get in the way of logic. There also seem to be some strange, sour-grapes responses: "If my favorite player can't win the final, I don't want him/her to be in the damn final at all!" The result is a topsy-turvy valuation system in which the highly respectable result of losing in a slam final to a GOAT candidate or ATG is deemed inferior to the thoroughly mediocre result of losing in the fourth round to some journeyman.

Fortunately, objective measures of tennis performance, whether official (ATP ranking points) or unofficial (the multitude of private GOAT metrics) do tend to reward making a final appropriately.

 

[zvelf]

Sounds good but no, losing final is worse than losing earlier because reaching a final in your 20s means you are young, in form, you are not supposed to lose it. This is not like Djokovic in his late 30s reaching SF/F to be gassed out, when you reach finals in your 20s and lose it then it is bigger black mark than losing early. Federer had he not even reached the french open final in 2008, maybe he could have won 2008 W final but he reached there, lost, his confidence was worse and he managed to lose W and thus gave Nadal some legitimacy on grass.... I would anyday say for truly great players losing early is better. The true alphas like Sampras more often than not converted their final appearances into wins in their prime. Djokovic lost in new york to Federer, Nadal, Murray, Stanimal and that dude from Japan (LOL), so that did harm his reputation in new york. Nadal's resume in New York is better even though he reached less finals there.

You really are going to die on this rock, aren't you? This is just an idiotic take. There is a reason that runner-ups get a trophy too, more money, and more ranking points than those who lose earlier. No one prefers to lose earlier unless they have psychological problems.

 

[Biotic]

bottomline is a defeat is a defeat, better to lose when you are not in form than lose when you are in good form.

All those early round drubbings suggest that Nadal was in form way less frequently than Djoko at the USO, which gave him way less semis and finals. Very odd for someone who has a superior resume, unless being worse > being better and R4 > SF.

 

[Razer]

You really are going to die on this rock, aren't you? This is just an idiotic take. There is a reason that runner-ups get a trophy too, more money, and more ranking points than those who lose earlier. No one prefers to lose earlier unless they have psychological problems.

Runners Up Plate is not an award, it is a consolation prize given to the loser because how can you just give that big trophy to the champion and let the other guy just stand there?

Players play for the Trophy, not for the plate. You wont find anyone saying I want the Plate. The Plate is just a consolation prize for being there on that day. Only the Trophy matters... period !

Nadal > Djokovic in New York due to the 2>1 H2H and obviously a greater conversion rate in the finals.

I recall having discussions/arguments on this point decades ago. Tennis is really the only sport I can think of in which this blind spot exists among some fans. Elsewhere, everyone recognizes that a second-place finish is much better than, say, an eighth-place finish. E.g., golf. Many sports recognize "podium" finishes (top 3) as the next measure of accomplishment after victories. I watched the table tennis world championships not long ago. Hugo Calderano from Brazil was the men's runner-up -- a tremendous result for his country and for the entire western hemisphere. I can 100 percent guarantee you that no one, including Hugo himself, thinks he would or might have been better off losing in an earlier round. If he loses in the final, he's the world silver medalist. If he loses in the fourth round, he's just a fourth-round loser. But somehow in tennis, emotions can get in the way of logic. There also seem to be some strange, sour-grapes responses: "If my favorite player can't win the final, I don't want him/her to be in the damn final at all!" The result is a topsy-turvy valuation system in which the highly respectable result of losing in a slam final to a GOAT candidate or ATG is deemed inferior to the thoroughly mediocre result of losing in the fourth round to some journeyman.

Fortunately, objective measures of tennis performance, whether official (ATP ranking points) or unofficial (the multitude of private GOAT metrics) do tend to reward making a final appropriately.

How do we know that is a second place finish ? The losing finalist never played the other semi finalist who lost to the champion in the other semis ... then how do you even know he is second ?

Bottmline is only the champion has been unbeaten in the tournament among everybody he faced. In so many tournaments we saw the losing semi finalist (look at AO 2005 ... Federer was the losing semi finalist to Safin) being better than the losing finalist (hewitt), or 2013 French Open semis where Djokovic losing to Nadal was better than David Ferrer ... So no, the finalist who lost is not second. Only the champion matters in the end.

 

[Neptune]

All those early round drubbings suggest that Nadal was in form way less frequently than Djoko at the USO, which gave him way less semis and finals. Very odd for someone who has a superior resume, unless being worse > being better and R4 > SF.

Also, Rafa only had to face top-5 opponents a total of 7 times at the US Open—lol, just think about that.

Never underestimate the power of the establishment and Nike, whether in support of someone or against someone else.

 

[bluetrain4]

This horse has been beaten to death. Number of Slams may not be fair, but we'll never get agreement on broader metrics - other than a general understanding that some things matter to some degree beyond Slams. People have presented whole Ted Talks on the subject on Talk Tennis - and continue to discuss, debate, and fight about it. Someone rolls in and confidently says, "yeah Slams matter, but so do X and Y." Then the next person says, "sure, but X more than Y, and also some Z." Next person, "yeah, I agree generally, though I don't think X matters THAT much more than Y , and let's not forget that Z wasn't available to past generations - oh, and A also matters." Next person, "I think we can all agree Slams matter, but beyond Slams, you all have it wrong." And on and on and on.

 

[zvelf]

Runners Up Plate is not an award, it is a consolation prize given to the loser because how can you just give that big trophy to the champion and let the other guy just stand there?

Players play for the Trophy, not for the plate. You wont find anyone saying I want the Plate. The Plate is just a consolation prize for being there on that day. Only the Trophy matters... period !

Yeah, I bet all those Olympians just toss their silver and bronze medals after the event. NOT. The plate is an award, an award for second place, a second place that earns more money and ranking points, something any rational tennis player would prefer to losing early.

Nadal > Djokovic in New York due to the 2>1 H2H and obviously a greater conversion rate in the finals.

3 matches is simply too small a sample size to generalize from. On the other hand, Djokovic having 23 more wins at the USO and only 2 more losses with 5 more appearances in the final clearly shows Djokovic is better at the USO than Nadal.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Kafelnikov was from Federer’s early days, before Fed won a slam, and Rafter from when Fed was 17-18…might as well make a big deal about Sampras’s 1-2 against Van Rensburg…or better yet, the 1-3 against Haarhuis (all in his prime).

As for Zverev and Thiem, these matches were contested at an age where Pete, who went 27-17 in his final was season at 30/31, was long retired. Hewitt won their last four matches, all very comfortably.

 

[helterskelter]

Federer has a weak AO haul anyway...

His 2004 draw had 1 decent opponent (who choked btw) in Nalbandian.
His 2006 draw was weak (Davy was his best opponent and he's a perennial slam failure) (Baggy fell apart after 1.5 sets of play) Fed's form in the event was off too for the most part...
His 2007 draw was weak (Gonzo choked in the final as well)
His 2010 draw was weak (Murray a mental mess in the final)
His 2017 draw was def his most impressive win. Hard fought and well deserved tbf.
His 2018 draw was weak and his form wasn't even that good either...

I can run a fine comb through Djok's AO haul too, but with 10 titles, never lost a final, he is deservedly above Federer and anyone else at the event.

Agassi fwiw, had a couple of joke draws too... 2001 Rafter the only tough opponent (who was struggling physically after the 3rd set) and 2003 was a joke all the way through...

Long story short, Bull the AO goat, amirite?

 

[Dropshot777]

Kafelnikov was from Federer’s early days, before Fed won a slam, and Rafter from when Fed was 17-18…might as well make a big deal about Sampras’s 1-2 against Van Rensburg…or better yet, the 1-3 against Haarhuis (all in his prime).

As for Zverev and Thiem, these matches were contested at an age where Pete, who went 27-17 in his final was season at 30/31, was long retired. Hewitt won their last four matches, all very comfortably.

Yes but they didn’t have the same knowledge of physical fitness back then so Sampras declined faster than Federer.

 

[Razer]

Yeah, I bet all those Olympians just toss their silver and bronze medals after the event. NOT. The plate is an award, an award for second place, a second place that earns more money and ranking points, something any rational tennis player would prefer to losing early.


3 matches is simply too small a sample size to generalize from. On the other hand, Djokovic having 23 more wins at the USO and only 2 more losses with 5 more appearances in the final clearly shows Djokovic is better at the USO than Nadal.

Olympics is different, Tennis is different, no comparison between the 2.

In the Olympics the best of the best compete once in 4 years while these Slams are held 4 times an year, in an event that is 16X times in frequency if you cannot win it then definitely you are no better than the guy who lost in 3rd round or 4th round.

3 matches a lot because Nadal did performed great in 2010 and he got the blow in 2013 after Novak won in 2011, so he took revenge for his loss. H2Hs are extremely important in tennis, Becker-Edberg are like 25-10 and thats what puts Becker above Edberg when they are directly compared. Djokovic having 23 more wins is something which you and I know, but 99% of the public who follow tennis and are casual fans dont see all these numbers. They see 2>1 when both have 2 titles each.

 

[Razer]

At the AO .... Djokovic > Federer > Nadal
At the FO .... Nadal > Djoko > Federer
At the W ..... Federer > Djoko > Nadal
At the USO .... Federer > Nadal >/= Djoko.

At best you could argue Nadal and DJoko are tied at the USO but in no universe can a losing H2H and same titles make you better because you reached more finals to lose more....

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yes but they didn’t have the same knowledge of physical fitness back then so Sampras declined faster than Federer.

Reductionist explanation but beyond that, Federer was plenty past his best when he was contesting matches against the likes of Thiem and Zverev.

 

[Dropshot777]

Reductionist explanation but beyond that, Federer was plenty past his best when he was contesting matches against the likes of Thiem and Zverev.

Yes so I’m saying Federer losing to Zverev/Thiem was about the same age impact as Sampras losing to Federer/Hewitt

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yes so I’m saying Federer losing to Zverev/Thiem was about the same age impact as Sampras losing to Federer/Hewitt

You were making the case a few replies back that Pete’s H2H dominance was a point in his favour. I’m saying it’s not. If you wanna say their losing H2H’s against second-tier players were roughly equivalent in significance that’s fair, but it doesn’t really engage with @mikedanny’s original point, which is that Sampras didn’t have a Djokodal-level player to contend with:

None of them were alphas like Pete. No Big 3 level rivals

Even the Big 3 H2H’s don’t really say much given how much longer Fed played and the distribution of matches against Nadal. Case in point:

At the end of 2012 (the age he was when Sampras retired) his H2H against Djokovic was 16-13…hardly much worse than Pete’s 20-14 against Agassi, yes? If we agree then that’s one down.

Left is the H2H with Nadal, which was 10-18, but half of those matches were on a surface Sampras might’ve lost every match to him on, and he probably (read: almost certainly) doesn’t whitewash Ned on the quicker stuff.

 

[Holmes]

You were making the case a few replies back that Pete’s H2H dominance was a point in his favour. I’m saying it’s not. If you wanna say those H2H’s are roughly equivalent in significance that’s fair, but it doesn’t really engage with @mikedanny’s point, which is that Sampras didn’t have a Djokodal-level player to contend with. And that’s true.

Even the Big 3 H2H’s don’t really say much given how much longer Fed played and the distribution of matches against Nadal. Case in point:

At the end of 2012 (the age he was when Sampras retired) his H2H against Djokovic was 16-13…hardly much worse than Pete’s 20-14 against Agassi, yes? If we agree then that’s one down.

Left is the H2H with Nadal, which was 10-18, but half of those matches were on a surface Sampras might’ve lost every match to him on, and he probably doesn’t whitewash Ned on the quicker stuff.

He probably does. His gamestyle is the exact type Ned is allergic to. The consistent version of Dustin, Rosol, Kyrgios, Muller, Soderling, and friends. Suffocates Rafa with the serve, terrorizes him with the forehand and net game. Secures one break, or gets to the tiebreak and edges him out. Not good times for Rafa.

 

[Dropshot777]

You were making the case a few replies back that Pete’s H2H dominance was a point in his favour. I’m saying it’s not. If you wanna say those H2H’s are roughly equivalent in significance that’s fair, but it doesn’t really engage with @mikedanny’s point, which is that Sampras didn’t have a Djokodal-level player to contend with (and that’s true).

Even the Big 3 H2H’s don’t really say much given how much longer Fed played and the distribution of matches against Nadal. Case in point:

At the end of 2012 (the age he was when Sampras retired) his H2H against Djokovic was 16-13…hardly much worse than Pete’s 20-14 against Agassi, yes? If we agree then that’s one down.

Left is the H2H with Nadal, which was 10-18, but half of those matches were on a surface Sampras might’ve lost every match to him on, and he probably doesn’t whitewash Ned on the quicker

Yes but literally everyone from Sampras’s era started to decline way earlier because of less fitness knowledge and unlike Federer’s H2H with Djokovic, prime Sampras never played an Agassi who had a big age disadvantage and the same goes with Djokovic’s H2H with Federer

 

[TheFifthSet]

He probably does. His gamestyle is the exact type Ned is allergic to. The consistent version of Dustin, Rosol, Kyrgios, Muller, Soderling, and friends. Suffocates Rafa with the serve, terrorizes him with the forehand and net game. Secures one break, or gets to the tiebreak and edges him out. Not good times for Rafa.

That would merit a “fair enough” if you actually believed he’d go 14-0 against Nadal (only so much I can fault someone for their sincerely-held tennis opinions), but you don’t.

(Edited out some of the meanness, lol.)

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yes but literally everyone from Sampras’s era started to decline way earlier because of less fitness knowledge

Nah, again that’s very reductionist:

I think consistency at the top will follow from the conditions of the tour becoming more consistent. This is why I believe the 70’s-90’s players are a little underrated historically.

A snapshot of the tour in the 90's: all four majors played much differently, carpet was a big part of the season, GS tournies had only 16 seeds (and no retractable roofs + Super Saturday at the US Open). If one were to go out of their way to engineer conditions that would make the tour maximally difficult for any one style of play to master, would it look much different than that? Even the two MOST similar majors (AO and USO) were plenty different. Incidentally, it was Hewitt that endlessly moaned about the stickiness of Rebound Ace, and he wasn't alone there.

Ffw'd to today: carpet has been abolished, replaced by indoor HC (the presence of which has shrunk following Madrid getting moved to clay and replaced by an outdoor HC) and top players (understandably, from a commercial perspective) are constantly catered to. The blue clay experiment lasted all of one tournament and promptly switched back to the red stuff after Nadal and Djokovic threatened to boycott, the ex-tourney director of the Paris Masters admits the courts were slowed down to attract Federer, RA was replaced by the more sterile Plexi, and so on.

But all of this, heterodox as it is for someone on my side of the aisle to say, is still a little overblown. It wasn't JUST the variety of the tour that prevented someone like, say, Sampras from performing better on clay or slower HC. Would playing with poly give his serve a big boost today? Hell yes. But he'd also have challenges competing in a more physical tour given his thalassemia, he had difficulty sliding on clay, and the backhand would have to be re-tooled.


No, forget for a moment surfaces, balls and tournament directors. To me what hurts the 70's-90's guys more, from a longevity/consistency perspective, is just how often the meta changed following the two main inflection points of the last 40 years: the emergence of graphite, and the emergence of poly. Try imagining playing your entire life with woodies and then basically having to risk uprooting your swing mechanics on a dime to stay competitive. That led to some turnover at the top. McEnroe, while undoubtedly hurt by his personal goings-on, found himself getting consistently overpowered and unable to keep up by the time he reached his mid-to-late 20's. Was it on him to adapt? Ostensibly, yes, but that's a pretty big mountain to climb, no? Just as it would be if graphite were banned in the mid-2010's and Nadal's results consequently nosedived. Picture the uproar here lol.

Borg, while he quit the game early, also would've had to adapt, as his hybrid backhand was suboptimal even for the early power-baselining days.

Even Lendl, whose skillset suited graphite and was a model of consistency, ran into a wall in his late 20's and went through his own "late-20's McEnroe" phase of getting overpowered by the two early forerunners of the power S+V game: Becker and, to a lesser extent, Sampras. Becker being the first player of that mould really benefitted him on the come-up (hard to see him winning Wimby at 17 otherwise), but even he wasn't spared as Sampras eventually came along and did the same things, only much better. This extreme aggression, willed into existence by conditions which incentivized them, brought them glory on fast courts but appropriately did not work one iota on clay.

Then, as the paradigm was finally starting to stabilize in the mid-to-late-90's, poly comes in and throws a wrench into things, enabling a level of spin production and shot tolerance (particularly defensive shot tolerance) that was theretofore impossible and reducing the viability of almost every style of play except for strict offensive baselining. That hurt Sampras and the late-70's born players (I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the '75-'80 era is one of the more useless in tennis history), Hewitt and others.

This all might sound like the tennis equivalent of a just-so story (and I admit I am condensing the full story into bite-sized narratives, because frankly there aren't enough hours in a day) but they sum up why I think longevity was hard to come by from the late 70's to the early 2000's. Fans assume that today's age distributions are abnormal (and sure, at the VERY top they might be)...but the expectation that we had in the aughts for tennis players to start carrying canes in their late 20's is distinctly ahistorical. It's one of the driving forces for why many intelligent people assumed Fed and Nadal (spesh the latter) wouldn't hack it once they reached 30.

I do give Pete somewhat of a pass on his lower longevity…but the man also punted his worst surface after 24, never learned to slide effectively on clay, admitted to losing motivation and even admitted to being slow to embrace newer strings/racquets.

and unlike Federer’s H2H with Djokovic, prime Sampras never played an Agassi who had a big age disadvantage

Djokovic’s ‘07-‘12 is a better six-year run than any Agassi managed, so even if he was facing an age disadvantage for many of those matches the point remains the same: he was a better player. And 15 of those 29 matches occurred from ‘10-‘12 where he was either not at a (theoretical) deficit or was actually much closer to his peak than Federer.

 

[Dropshot777]

That’s fair if you actually believe he’d go 14-0 against Nadal (only so much I can blame a fool for), but you don’t.

I can vividly picture Pete going for a serve out wide against Djokovic on the deuce side. Djokovic hits his signature forehand return deep on the stretch, then Pete finishes it with an angled crosscourt bh volley winner. It seems like a pattern that would work well against the likes of Djokovic and to a slightly lesser degree, Nadal

 

[TheFifthSet]

I can vividly picture Pete going for a serve out wide against Djokovic on the deuce side. Djokovic hits his signature forehand return deep on the stretch, then Pete finishes it with an angled crosscourt bh volley winner. It seems like a pattern that would work well against the likes of Djokovic and to a slightly lesser degree, Nadal

Yes, he’d be giving Djokovic fits on quicker surfaces, just as Federer up to the end of ‘12 (to beat a dead horse: at the age Sampras retired) did: 4-2 at Wimby/USO, had match points in all 6. Sampras might have done even better, who knows, but he also would’ve been unlikely to peak Peak Djokovic at the FO.

The broader point remains: 16-13 against Djokovic and 10-18 against Nadal (with half of the matches being played on Pete’s worst surface) were showings that, I reckon, most fair-minded people think Pete would’ve been hard-pressed to better by much.

 

[Dropshot777]

Yes, he’d be giving Djokovic fits on quicker surfaces, just as Federer up to the end of ‘12 (the age Sampras retired) did: 4-2 at Wimby/USO, had match points in all 6. Sampras might have done even better, who knows, but he also would’ve been unlikely to peak Peak Djokovic at the FO.

The broader point remains: 16-13 against Djokovic and 10-18 against Nadal (with half of the matches being played on Pete’s worst surface) were showings that, I reckon, most fair-minded people thinks Pete would’ve hard-pressed to better by much.

I think that if Federer played in Sampras’s era with all the same equipment and the different court speed, let’s say they play 10 matches on each surface. Grass I think since it was extremely fast back then Sampras would probably have about a 7-3 lead. On clay probably like a 4-6 h2h, and on hc probably 7-3 for Sampras.

If Sampras played in Federer’s era, Federer would probably have about an 7-3 h2h on grass. On clay probably also about 8-2. On hc maybe 7-3 as well.

I think Federer would be the toughest opponent out of the big 3 for Sampras. I have not been saying that he is the GOAT or anything but that his dominance is criminally underrated. Their Wimbledon match is probably a fair match because neither were anywhere near to their prime and that is probably how a prime vs prime match would go. Against Djokovic I think Sampras would have a small matchup advantage but Nadal would not be a good matchup either.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I think that if Federer played in Sampras’s era with all the same equipment and the different court speed, let’s say they play 10 matches on each surface. Grass I think since it was extremely fast back then Sampras would probably have about a 7-3 lead. On clay probably like a 4-6 h2h, and on hc probably 7-3 for Sampras.

If Sampras played in Federer’s era, Federer would probably have about an 7-3 h2h on grass. On clay probably also about 8-2. On hc maybe 7-3 as well.

I think Federer would be the toughest opponent out of the big 3 for Sampras. I have not been saying that he is the GOAT or anything but that his dominance is criminally underrated. Their Wimbledon match is probably a fair match because neither were anywhere near to their prime and that is probably how a prime vs prime match would go. Against Djokovic I think Sampras would have a small matchup advantage but Nadal would not be a good matchup either.

Well we’re getting a bit off track here but yeah, these are all defensible opinions (I’d tighten the margins on quicker surfaces for the hypothetical “victor” in both eras, though, would say they’re both too great for the other to create that much daylight).

 

[Dropshot777]

Well we’re getting a bit off track here but yeah, these are all defensible opinions (I’d tighten the margins on quicker surfaces for the hypothetical “victor” in both eras, though, would say they’re both too great for the other to create that much daylight).

Yeah, I just really doubt that any non-serve and volleyer would consistently beat Sampras in his own era on grass.

 

[Holmes]

That would merit a “fair enough” if you actually believed he’d go 14-0 against Nadal (only so much I can fault someone for their sincerely-held tennis opinions), but you don’t.

(Edited out some of the meanness, lol.)

You make it sound as if Federer put up some sort of respectable showing against Nadal on clay. In their entire career, Federer beat him twice. Twice. At worse, Pete isn't going to be doing much worse than that, and he could potentially only lose 2 matches to Nadal on faster surfaces.

And I may be misunderstanding a point you made, but how is Federer's 13-16 against Djokovic hardly much worse than Pete's 20-14 against Andre? There is a significant difference.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You make it sound as if Federer put up some sort of respectable showing against Nadal on clay. In their entire career, Federer beat him twice. Twice. At worse, Pete isn't going to be doing much worse than that, and he could potentially only lose 2 matches to Nadal on faster surfaces.

Again, if you actually believed all of what you were saying (instead of the half-serious half-teeheeing stuff meant to both get a rise out of people and give you an out) there might be a discussion worth having.

In any event: no, I don’t “make it sound” nor even believe that Federer put up a particularly respectable showing against Nadal on clay. He underachieved, by a bit, and should’ve won 1 of the ‘06 Rome/MC and ‘08 Hamburg/MC matches.

But, I’m sorry to say, it’s not really relevant in the Sampras comparison. Pete would’ve been fortunate to win more than 1 of those 14 matches in Fed’s stead, and certainly wouldn’t have come close to going 14-0 on non-clay.