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

[TheFifthSet]

And 4 and 3 matches is not a drastic difference regardless.

That’s right, it definitely isn’t. Neither H2H, nor the quality of the performances within those H2H’s, are terribly dissimilar.

The difference between Sampras and Agassi at the USO is significantly greater than that of Federer and Djokovic at RG - which is even as I recall?

The point is to speculate how each would do in the other player’s shoes. There doesn’t need to be a huge difference between Fed and Djoko at RG in order for that to be a relevant datapoint; ‘01/‘02 PETE going 0-2 in those matches is what matters more

I could say each man's clearly advantageous slam was equal to one another if Federer went 2-0 with Novak. However, the fact that he played one of the best matches of his life at RG under conditions that suited him in the match that he won, as well as Novak's bigger win over him the next year under normal conditions tells me that Novak was clearly the better player on the surface.

If that’s the route you’d like to go it bears mentioning that Agassi had to modify his serve in '93 Wimby yet still went 5 against an (admittedly, not entirely 100%) Sampras.

In any event, again, PETE still loses both RG matches, even with favourable ‘11 balls.

I disagree. A 10 year older Agassi pushed Federer hard in 2004 USO quarters,

So you pay mind to aberrant external conditions at RG ‘11 but not USO ‘04, where sweeping winds wiped away Federer’s edge in lateral movement and nerfed his serve (4 doubles in one game) against the greatest wind player of all time, in a match he nonetheless won?

I think people imbue more meaning into those two matches than is merited. In that same year, Federer comfortably beat Agassi on his best court.

and in 2005 a clearly injured Agassi made him play 4 in the finals. An Agassi of the same age would have won those matches.

I think the only way that result is assured is if we scoreboard-gaze very hard. Agassi was ahead for all of 3 seconds in both matches, and only went ahead in ‘05 after Fed briefly littered the sheet with several third-ball errors, before immediately getting it back with enterprising play.

I think Fed still absolutely does worse than PETE against Dre at the USO (which seems more germane to the discussion, I wasn’t aware it turned into a peak-for-peak convo) but more so due to the timing of each match….which, of course, also applies to ‘97-‘02 PETE against ‘07-‘12 Djoko.

Sampras with 1 match at Wimbledon and 5 at the Open can definitely go 6-5 against Djokovic.

2002 Sampras lost to Bastl.

In ‘97 he faded against Korda, ‘98 he was a bit knackered and lost to Rafter (not a terrible loss but he’d have his hands full against ‘08 Djokovic), ‘99 missed the tourney but if I were to grant him full health (huge gift for you there) then he beats ‘09 Djoko, ‘00 to ‘10 is a tough call but I’d marginally favour Sampras, ‘01 to ‘11 is for Djokovic, ‘02 to ‘12 is condition-dependent.

--

We'll have to agree to disagree. Pete's game would be significantly harder for Nadal than Federer's under 90s conditions. His far superior clutch would make things different too. As I mentioned before, Federer's game is going to be hurt less than Nadal's under 90s conditions, but Nadal is still going to hit great topspin forehands,

Well that’s not in question lol. But even in 2000’s conditions with surface convergence and poly (which favoured Nadal more than Fed) he still only won 2 of the 8 matches on actual fast (or low-bouncing, really slim pickings here which is another thing favouring Fed) courts.

I think Federer's serve loses a lot, and using the statistics against PETE is irrelevant as Pete wasn't having a great match that day, and wasn't really a great percentage returner anyways, and it was grass.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a substantial amount can be gleaned from one match, but 50% freebies was an incredibly rare figure for Fed. We have hundreds of matches charted and he hit that high mark maybe a couple of times [EDIT]. Which is to say, it would still be a huge weapon against Nadal, who wouldn’t have the luxury of assuming obstinately deep returning positions as he did in the 2000's (which also helps PETE, yes).

Federer did *not* win a major serving and volleying as his game. He won a major in which he serve and volleyed on approximately half of his points.

He won his first slam with S+V being a massive component of his game, on the new grass no less [EDIT], which is a point to the good in this comparison for Federer.

 

[messiahrobins]

When did you start watching tennis? Masters/year end events where big deals in 70's thru 90's. More or less the 5th slam. Not sure who said "Nobody cares"....they were big money, big coverage.

agree about 70s and 80s. They were massive then. Once they moved from NY they lost the allure big time.

 

[messiahrobins]

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

How is winning after Fedal are not on tour proof someone is better lol. Surely the winning to set records should take place while the maib rivals are playing?

 

[messiahrobins]

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)

= 10 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)

So nadal is defacto GOAT is your point?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

agree about 70s and 80s. They were massive then. Once they moved from NY they lost the allure big time.

In the 90s it was still big with the epic Becker vs Pete battles.

 

[messiahrobins]

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!

Facts dont care about feelings. You must be new to sport as clearly you think life is like a playstation game. In real life results dont follow the same pattern.

Medvedev routined Djokovic at the USO, that was not lucky lol. Nadal beat Medvedev a few months later on the same surface. Nadal would have beat Djokovic in at most 4 sets.

 

[zvelf]

How is winning after Fedal are not on tour proof someone is better lol. Surely the winning to set records should take place while the maib rivals are playing?

What are you smoking? Djokovic won a lot while both were on tour to the point that he leads the H2H against both. Djokovic played Nadal 60 times and Federer 50 times, far more than Nadal and Federer played any other player including each other.

Medvedev routined Djokovic at the USO, that was not lucky lol. Nadal beat Medvedev a few months later on the same surface. Nadal would have beat Djokovic in at most 4 sets.

Medvedev was lucky. He had the much much easier draw that USO. Djokovic went through a tough draw, played Zverev in a long 5-setter, and was gassed in the final. Also, A beats B, and B beats C does not mean A beats C. That logic reeks of desperation. Nadal had not taken a set off Djokovic in the previous 9 years on hard-court, and Djokovic destroyed Nadal in the 2019 AO final 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Djokovic would be a pretty heavy favorite going into the 2022 AO final against Nadal.

 

[Razer]

That might be the case anyway, since you said you would stop responding to me about 5 posts ago.

How can I let you off so easily when you are in such a disturbed state of mind and coming back every time for more instead of just silently going away ?

Nope, it's just one match, a tiny sample size in which given the vagaries of tennis levels on any given day, is not very meaningful. Djokovic winning 23 more matches than Nadal at the USO is a lot more meaningful. That's because the more you win is the obvious indicator of being the better player, contrary to your bewilderingly dumb claim that losing earlier in slams is better.

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.

Arguing that the lowest common denominator in knowledge should win out is ridiculous. It is moronic to say that people who know the least about tennis should get to determine what is better in tennis.

No, you have the comprehension problems. I was agreeing with you that play against the rest of the field counted. The rest of your argument though, I'm just trying to get you to see the light so that the board doesn't think you have damaged your mental faculties. That might be the case anyway, since you said you would stop responding to me about 5 posts ago.

The bolded has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read in this forum.

Aww, looks like I have got under your skin.

4 Different posts where you think I am dumb, idiotic, mental faculties damaged and yet you cling on to me like a chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my boots?

You seem too desperate to convince me that a guy who is 1-2 in Slam Finals vs his arch rival of the same age is actually better than him ? Maybe in Bizarro's land losers are better than winners but not here in the real world.

So I once again remind you that 2-1 seals Nadal above Novak because they have the same number of championships, nobody cares about how much matches wins they have or how many top 10 etc, that is nerd talk. Most of the public globally only look at titles and if they are tied then H2H because the public remembers the big wins and big defeats... not the losses to youzny etc...

Comprende?

So again, watch these pics and remember who is the winner and who is the loser at the Arthur Ashe Arena.

 

[zvelf]

How can I let you off so easily when you are in such a disturbed state of mind and coming back every time for more instead of just silently going away ?






Aww, looks like I have got under your skin.

4 Different posts where you think I am dumb, idiotic, mental faculties damaged and yet you cling on to me like a chewing gum stuck to the bottom of my boots?

You seem too desperate to convince me that a guy who is 1-2 in Slam Finals vs his arch rival of the same age is actually better than him ? Maybe in Bizarro's land losers are better than winners but not here in the real world.

So I once again remind you that 2-1 seals Nadal above Novak because they have the same number of championships, nobody cares about how much matches wins they have or how many top 10 etc, that is nerd talk. Most of the public globally only look at titles and if they are tied then H2H because the public remembers the big wins and big defeats... not the losses to youzny etc...

Comprende?

So again, watch these pics and remember who is the winner and who is the loser at the Arthur Ashe Arena.

I'm afraid I have to burst your bubble. I haven't got the least bit upset from your posts. I don't get upset over trivial stuff like this. My spouse calls me Mr. Spock because I rarely get emotional. What I have gotten is incredulous because these posts are indeed deeply stupid, again, like what I bolded above.

 

[Razer]

I'm afraid I have to burst your bubble. I haven't got the least bit upset from your posts. I don't get upset over trivial stuff like this. My spouse calls me Mr. Spock because I rarely get emotional. What I have gotten is incredulous because these posts are indeed deeply stupid, again, like what I bolded above.

Saying stupid for the 5th time only means arguing with stupid means the person is even more stupid, if Spock really was intelligent then he would know this.

Ahh no, you want to be spock but you are not even spock, and if you are spock then I am Khan Noonien Singh, I am more logical, stronger and better than Spock in every possible way.

Anyway, you are wasting your time because 90% of the tennis fans see 2-1 and remember Nadal beating Djokovic like a drum in 2010, then losing in 2011 and then taking revenge in 2013. Since they have 4 titles each, for vast majority globally Nadal is above Djokovic. 23 more wins or 28 more wins is all nerd talk.

10% is never winning vs the 90% crowd, you think it is stupid? Then so be it, stupidity will rule this earth because you do not deserve it after your hero is 1-2 down and needed Federer to choke to grab his title in 2011, otherwise he would have been slamless until 2015 and given how vulnerable he is in the big stages of the USO nobody would bet their life on this guy to win in New York

Nadal > Novak ... and Khan Noonien Singh > Spock

Case closed.

 

[The_Order]

So nadal is defacto GOAT is your point?

I always have and always will never believe in a concept of GOAT...

The numbers I listed showed what we all already know anyway.

Nadal is above and beyond on clay, so he had a stranglehold at RG.

He was also good enough to beat the most dominant grass player at his slam in 08.

He also beat the most dominant hc player in 2 hc slam finals and beat the other dominant hc player in another hc final.

Both Djok and Fed could not dethrone Nadal at his pet slam.

Make of that what you will ...

 

[paolo2143]

You seem to have comprehension problems? No worries, I will repeat what I said above slowly so that it registers to you. Krajicek never won 7 titles, unlike Nadal who won the same number as Novak in New York, so that example is not valid. Comprende ?? Nadal actually did beat the field as much as Novak did, thats why their title counts are same.

Novak is inferior player to Nadal in New York, Nadal should even be having 6 titles if Fed had converted the MP in 2011 and if he was fit in 2012.

Djokovic is a loser in new york... sorry bud, this is the truth... the man is a loser. Lost to Nadal, Fed, Murray, Stan, Nishikori and even to Medvedev in big matches... in no universe is he ahead of Nadal in new york with a losing h2h because they have the same number of titles

Having more wins is never a criteria to be greater, otherwise Federer with 102 wins in Australia would have been rated ahead of Djokovic in 2023 when Novak had just 94 wins there, today he has 104 wins in australia but according to the lame logic of getting more wins in a slam making one better Fed > Novak in Aus in 2023 should have held for you but it did not, title count, not match wons accumulated.

Nadal with his H2H has proven to be a more capable player in New York.

He really hasn't , as if he had proved to be more capable player he would have won more matches than Novak and reached more finals. He failed on both counts.

Of course they are too nor far apart at US open , but when we consider other outdoor hardcourt slam and th3 other outdoor hard court tournaments Novak is ahead by a country mile.

 

[Razer]

He really hasn't , as if he had proved to be more capable player he would have won more matches than Novak and reached more finals. He failed on both counts.

Of course they are too nor far apart at US open , but when we consider other outdoor hardcourt slam and th3 other outdoor hard court tournaments Novak is ahead by a country mile.

In windy conditions when your life is on the line and you need someone to play in the final to keep you alive.... you have to pick between peak Nadal and peak Djokovic, who would you pick ?

I would pick 2010 Nadal over someone like Djokovic who has been super inconsistent in the finals. Nadal has proven that he is better than Djokovic who is extremely vulnerable in new york's windy conditions.

Prime Sampras > Prime Federer > Prime Nadal > Prime Djokovic, that is the hierarchy.

 

[BTURNER]

Whatever is the high priority for the health of the tour today and its future, I expect the WTA, the ATP to incentivize top ranked attendance. And the players should respond to those incentives. So you cannot approach these issues outside the context of the challenges the sport faced historically when these players played.

 

[messiahrobins]

I always have and always will never believe in a concept of GOAT...

The numbers I listed showed what we all already know anyway.

Nadal is above and beyond on clay, so he had a stranglehold at RG.

He was also good enough to beat the most dominant grass player at his slam in 08.

He also beat the most dominant hc player in 2 hc slam finals and beat the other dominant hc player in another hc final.

Both Djok and Fed could not dethrone Nadal at his pet slam.

Make of that what you will ...

I have the Big 3 Era as
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

 

[messiahrobins]

What are you smoking? Djokovic won a lot while both were on tour to the point that he leads the H2H against both. Djokovic played Nadal 60 times and Federer 50 times, far more than Nadal and Federer played any other player including each other.


Medvedev was lucky. He had the much much easier draw that USO. Djokovic went through a tough draw, played Zverev in a long 5-setter, and was gassed in the final. Also, A beats B, and B beats C does not mean A beats C. That logic reeks of desperation. Nadal had not taken a set off Djokovic in the previous 9 years on hard-court, and Djokovic destroyed Nadal in the 2019 AO final 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Djokovic would be a pretty heavy favorite going into the 2022 AO final against Nadal.

How can a straight set hammering be lucky lol. Sinner had lost the last 5 matches with Alcaraz yet got the win at Wimbkedon. That's kinda how sport works. Past history counts for zilch.

Form is what matters. Nadal would have beat down on Djokovic at the AO in 2022 in 3 or 4 sets given he beat the at the time superior on hard court Medvedev. That's just facts as plain as day .

I don't personally equate Qatar as the same status as a slam or Beijing. Djokovic had more success v Nadal at the lesser events. Perhaps as he is the more naturally gofted player.

When the pressure was on at its highest Nadal tended to win their best of 5 set encounters. The mental toughness of Nadal was like granite

 

[jrepac]

agree about 70s and 80s. They were massive then. Once they moved from NY they lost the allure big time.

Yeah, when the moved the Masters and Slims out of NYC, somehow the year end event lost its luster. Then moving it around the globe, IMHO, did not help. But the tennis boom in the US ran out of steam so Germany was the next place to go...

 

[Hard Court]

Connors is at 109 titles but nobody in his sane mind will put connors above big 3 .
Slam competition is toughest and most slam winner is greatest. Other things like no 1 ranking weeks spent at no 1 . Etc are also a good indicator of player greatness but there is no answer for winning trophies.

For fun, let's say we substitute Djokovic for Connors Djokovic would have won had he played the exact same tournaments that Connors did in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s.
How many Grand slams would he have won? Probably a lot closer to 8 than 24.

 

[gamelovergold]

For fun, let's say we substitute Djokovic for Connors Djokovic would have won had he played the exact same tournaments that Connors did in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s.
How many Grand slams would he have won? Probably a lot closer to 8 than 24.

No disrespect to connors but competition novak faced is no lesser than connors.
Roger and rafa are serious competition .
We can argue all day that novak found life easier after 30 while it was difficult in connors time . But it is what it is .

 

[Hard Court]

Firs I want to say that Djokovic deserves to be ranked higher than Connors. However, it is much closer than many people think.


Djokovic certainly had serious competition with Federer and Nadal. No question about it. But there simply wasn't much depth. At times, Murray and Wawinka were at a high level. But after that, not so much. some other guys had talent, but were not mentally tough. They would roll over when they faced Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. for years, as a tournament progressed, we simply bided our time until the semifinals.
Take a look at the #5-#10 guys throughout Connors' career. Those guys did not roll over. Connors could not bide his time in 4th round matches. they weren't automatic wins. If djokoivc was a little off his game against those games, he would lose.

Djokovic would have had to deal with serve and volleyers. The truth, we have no idea how well he would have returned serve and hit passing shots against some great net players and many good ones. At the US Open, he might face a baseliner in the first round, then a net player, then another baeliner, then another net player, just to get to the quarterfinals.

As you alluded to, Djokovic had it rleativley easy in his 30s. The generation of players simplt never devleoped, for what ever reason. Then he didn't have to worry about, Federer, and then not Nadal. When Connors reach his 30s, the younger players kept coming throughout the years. Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg etc.
If Djokovic was in Connors's shoes, he would not have been winning Grand Slams as a senior citizen.

So, if he was in Connors' position:
At the Australian Open, he would have only played it twice. So instead of winning it 10 times, 2 at most. and remember it's on grass. But lets give him 2.

French Open - True he would not have had to deal with Nadal. But he would have to get by Borg. After Borg is gone, good chance that he wins it in 1982 and 1983. 2 French Opens.

Wimbledon -Remember, the old grass. Faster, low bounces, much harder to return. And there would be opponents constantly coming to the net. This is not just going to be winning baseline rallies like he is used to. He isn't going to win anything 7 Wimbledon titles. Lets be charitable and give him 3.

US Open - Was on grass, then clay for 3 years and then hard courts. Harcourt would have been his best surface. But again, he would be having tough middle round matches. 4 US Opens.

That is a total of 11 Grand Slams. Obviously very impressive and more than Connors. But is shows how inflated the numbers are with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. Obviously not their fault, they can only play the conditions that are around at the time they played.

But not playing as many Grand Slams, having deeper competition, dealing with serve and volleyers, the old Wimbledon grass, and of course have to deal with a younger generation that had great players all adds up.

 

[messiahrobins]

Yeah, when the moved the Masters and Slims out of NYC, somehow the year end event lost its luster. Then moving it around the globe, IMHO, did not help. But the tennis boom in the US ran out of steam so Germany was the next place to go...

Becker carried it during its time in the festhalle

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Have to say that is just nonsense.

Pete Sampras is 0-1 down to Krajicek at Wimbledon but has 7 titles to Kraicek's one, am i supposed to believe that Krajicek is better as he won that one match (he also leads their h2h by the way).

Also, going by your example then Novak has to be much better at Wimbledon than Roger as he leads h2h 3-1 and 3-0 in finals.

No one in their right mind would put Edberg ahead of Becker at Wimbledon as Becker won three titles to Edberg's two, Becker also reached 7 finals. However, again by using only their h2h at Wimbledon that is what would happen.

Novak as won way more matches at Us Open and reached far more finals so is ahead of Rafa overall even in New York. However, why are we even looking at Us Open in isolation, it is an outdoor hardcourt tournament and should be classed with Aussie open then we can see Novak leads 3-2 and 14 titles to 6.

Yep

Federer > Djokovic at Wimbledon
Djokovic > Nadal at the USO

H2H means ********, you play against the field, not against one player.

You can have a scenario of Player A beats Player B, Player B beats Player C and Player C beats Player A, wouldn't make sense to say that they are inferior and superior to a certain player at the same time.

 

[Ombelibable]

More slam wins was held as the golden standard by Federer fans to underplay his negative H2H vs Nadal and eventually Djokovic.

Now that he's been surpassed in slams by both, said fans look for nuances beyond slams.

 

[BTURNER]

To answer the OP question 'number of slams' is a lazy, incomplete, and often historically warped way to measure a player's greatness. It means someone did not want to do the necessary work to learn a full picture of the tour in which they played, and a full picture of their role in the tour.

 

[toth]

I vote for yes

 

[Hard Court]

To answer the OP question 'number of slams' is a lazy, incomplete, and often historically warped way to measure a player's greatness. It means someone did not want to do the necessary work to learn a full picture of the tour in which they played, and a full picture of their role in the tour.

Completely agree. Sometimes it seems that some people just think all the rest of the tournaments are exhibition matches. If nothing else, you would think it would make a difference to everyone whether a player was a runner up or lost in the first round of a tournament.

Just in terms of the Open Era, you have to count things like total titles, winning %, wins, rankings (and not just how many times they were #1). We need to be consistent, and not just cherry pick criteria to favor our favorites.

And of course, we have to come to terms with the reality that the time period when we first became a fan was not better than previous eras. Otherwise, we get situations where we rank guys like del Potro, Medvedev, Thiem and Zverev higher than say Arthur Ashe.

 

[BTURNER]

Completely agree. Sometimes it seems that some people just think all the rest of the tournaments are exhibition matches. If nothing else, you would think it would make a difference to everyone whether a player was a runner up or lost in the first round of a tournament.

Just in terms of the Open Era, you have to count things like total titles, winning %, wins, rankings (and not just how many times they were #1). We need to be consistent, and not just cherry pick criteria to favor our favorites.

And of course, we have to come to terms with the reality that the time period when we first became a fan was not better than previous eras. Otherwise, we get situations where we rank guys like del Potro, Medvedev, Thiem and Zverev higher than say Arthur Ashe.

I think its all about the Wikipedia tennis page. Those slam results are the ONLY data that are always recorded for virtually every player, of every era, in a familiar, easy to access, easy to read format. You don't even have be able to read the paragraphs! You count the little boxes with the 'W' or the 'F or whatever rd that interests you, and you are good to go!

If we want more nuanced discussions, we need to pressure Wiki, to provide more nutrient dense information on these players in easy to digest form, because nobody wants to leave that site, and do a deeper dive that Wiki can give. that slam chart has spoiled us.

 

[jrepac]

Firs I want to say that Djokovic deserves to be ranked higher than Connors. However, it is much closer than many people think.


Djokovic certainly had serious competition with Federer and Nadal. No question about it. But there simply wasn't much depth. At times, Murray and Wawinka were at a high level. But after that, not so much. some other guys had talent, but were not mentally tough. They would roll over when they faced Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. for years, as a tournament progressed, we simply bided our time until the semifinals.
Take a look at the #5-#10 guys throughout Connors' career. Those guys did not roll over. Connors could not bide his time in 4th round matches. they weren't automatic wins. If djokoivc was a little off his game against those games, he would lose.

Djokovic would have had to deal with serve and volleyers. The truth, we have no idea how well he would have returned serve and hit passing shots against some great net players and many good ones. At the US Open, he might face a baseliner in the first round, then a net player, then another baeliner, then another net player, just to get to the quarterfinals.

As you alluded to, Djokovic had it rleativley easy in his 30s. The generation of players simplt never devleoped, for what ever reason. Then he didn't have to worry about, Federer, and then not Nadal. When Connors reach his 30s, the younger players kept coming throughout the years. Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg etc.
If Djokovic was in Connors's shoes, he would not have been winning Grand Slams as a senior citizen.

So, if he was in Connors' position:
At the Australian Open, he would have only played it twice. So instead of winning it 10 times, 2 at most. and remember it's on grass. But lets give him 2.

French Open - True he would not have had to deal with Nadal. But he would have to get by Borg. After Borg is gone, good chance that he wins it in 1982 and 1983. 2 French Opens.

Wimbledon -Remember, the old grass. Faster, low bounces, much harder to return. And there would be opponents constantly coming to the net. This is not just going to be winning baseline rallies like he is used to. He isn't going to win anything 7 Wimbledon titles. Lets be charitable and give him 3.

US Open - Was on grass, then clay for 3 years and then hard courts. Harcourt would have been his best surface. But again, he would be having tough middle round matches. 4 US Opens.

That is a total of 11 Grand Slams. Obviously very impressive and more than Connors. But is shows how inflated the numbers are with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. Obviously not their fault, they can only play the conditions that are around at the time they played.

But not playing as many Grand Slams, having deeper competition, dealing with serve and volleyers, the old Wimbledon grass, and of course have to deal with a younger generation that had great players all adds up.

Interesting. Greater surface diversity and a deeper field likely would have cut into Novak's tally.

 

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Hoad was ranked world No. 1 for 1953 despite the fact that he did not win any major that year.

It was an unusual year, with Trabert ineligible to play the Australian or the French or at Wimbledon, although Trabert was ranked number two on the full season.

Hoad dominated the Australian segment of the year, defeating both Trabert and Rosewall (twice) en route to the Davis Cup final, where Hoad was again dominant.

Sometimes pure judgment has to take the place of tournaments won.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

Hoad was ranked world No. 1 for 1953 despite the fact that he did not win any major that year.

It was an unusual year, with Trabert ineligible to play the Australian or the French or at Wimbledon, although Trabert was ranked number two on the full season.

Hoad dominated the Australian segment of the year, defeating both Trabert and Rosewall (twice) en route to the Davis Cup final, where Hoad was again dominant.

Sometimes pure judgment has to take the place of tournaments won.

• 1953 amateur rankings (Tingay's newspaper rankings were also published in tennis encyclopedias. "For decades, before the advent of official computer rankings, Tingay’s annual “World Rankings” of the game’s top ten players were eagerly awaited by the entire tennis world" states the Tennis Hall of fame website.)
• Hoad ranked amateur No. 1 by:
  • The editors of Tennis de France.
  • Harry Hopman.
  • Noel Brown in World Tennis.
• Trabert ranked amateur No. 1 by:
  • Lance Tingay in September.
  • Ned Potter in World Tennis.
  • Bill Talbert in World Tennis.
  • Hal Burrows in World Tennis.
  • Grant Golden in November in World Tennis.
  • Ham Richardson in November in World Tennis.
  • Gardnar Mulloy in November in World Tennis.

 

[Dan Lobb]

• 1953 amateur rankings (Tingay's newspaper rankings were also published in tennis encyclopedias. "For decades, before the advent of official computer rankings, Tingay’s annual “World Rankings” of the game’s top ten players were eagerly awaited by the entire tennis world" states the Tennis Hall of fame website.)
• Hoad ranked amateur No. 1 by:
  • The editors of Tennis de France.
  • Harry Hopman.
  • Noel Brown in World Tennis.
• Trabert ranked amateur No. 1 by:
  • Lance Tingay in September.
  • Ned Potter in World Tennis.
  • Bill Talbert in World Tennis.
  • Hal Burrows in World Tennis.
  • Grant Golden in November in World Tennis.
  • Ham Richardson in November in World Tennis.
  • Gardnar Mulloy in November in World Tennis.

Tingay's ranking for 1953 was made in September, only a partial season ranking. The following season, Tingay stated that Hoad had "played so well during the [1953] Australian season that his status as best in the world was axiomatic." This was a clear correction of his earlier ranking.

The Tennis de France editors ranking was the only full season experts ranking apart from Potter. Hopman was clearly in support of his own player, and only Brown opted to change his choices in March 1954, the other U.S. team members sticking with their original choices. Seixas ranked himself No. 1. Trabert ranked himself No. 1. Hoad was not asked to submit a list, neither was Rosewall. This was a joke.

The list of World Tennis rankings was based on the team members of the U.S. Davis Cup team, who were canvassed by the magazine to provide their top ten, but the Australian Davis Cup team was not asked to provide a ranking list. World Tennis was an American publication. This team rankings list was obviously suspect on that score alone. You cannot simply look at numbers of rankings, you have to evalute the significance of the rankings.

Two members of the U.S. Davis Cup team, neither of whom played in the final, actually picked Hoad for No. 1, Noel Brown and Art Larson. That is unusual under the circumstances. Hopman and Talbert were supportive of their own players.

Art Larsen on P. 40 in the same issue of World Tennis stated “Lew Hoad is the greatest player in the game today. I consider him to be a better player than Sedgman. If he had played in the Indoors [1953 Wembley Arena?], he would have run through everyone. His serve is so big you can’t see it, he has a big volley and a crushing return of serve..."

Larsen gives Hoad a joint pro/am No. 1 ranking here. That somehow missed the Wiki rankings list.