arvind13
Professional
Ultimately tennis greatness is judged by results (with a caveat that the slams and masters and titles you win should be judged against the level of competition). so results adjusted to the level of competition and surface variety. but besides the level of competition and surface variety there is another caveat that challenges the results based way of judging greatness, which is star power. who was the bigger star? who got more sponsorships and endorsements? who is remembered more by the fans after they retire?
for example, results wise lendl achieved more than mcenroe, more consistent, more weeks at no 1, more titles, but mcenroe was undoubtedly the bigger star, is remembered more and is more relevant to tennis today as a commentator than lendl. shouldn't star power be factored into greatness?
for example, results wise lendl achieved more than mcenroe, more consistent, more weeks at no 1, more titles, but mcenroe was undoubtedly the bigger star, is remembered more and is more relevant to tennis today as a commentator than lendl. shouldn't star power be factored into greatness?