Federer's 10 defeated opponents

[krosero]

Until yesterday, by my own count, there were three men who had each defeated 9 different opponents in Slam finals -- Borg, Sampras and Federer.

Murray was Federer's 10th.

Some notables:

Tilden - 6 defeated opponents (Patterson, Johnston, Norton, Johnson, Hunter, Allison)

Rosewall - 7 (Rose, Seixas, Hoad, Laver, Roche, Ashe, Anderson)

Laver - 8 (Fraser, McKinley, Emerson, Mulligan, Roche, Gimeno, Rosewall, Newcombe)

Emerson - 6 (Laver, Fletcher, Darmon, Stolle, Ashe, Roche)

Newcombe - 7 (Bungert, Graebner, Rosewall, Smith, Parun, Kodes, Connors)

Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)

Connors - 5 (Dent, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl)

McEnroe - 5 (Gerulaitis, Borg, Lewis, Connors, Lendl)

Lendl - 5 (McEnroe, Pernfors, Mecir, Wilander, Edberg)

Wilander - 5 (Vilas, Lendl, Curren, Cash, Leconte)

Becker - 4 (Curren, Lendl, Edberg, Chang)

Edberg - 5 (Wilander, Cash, Becker, Courier, Sampras)

Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter)

Agassi - 8 (Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler)

Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray)

I had not noticed before, but Nadal has still only played two men in his Slam finals - Puerta and Federer.

 

[counter_puncher]

wow. interesting.

especially about nadal.

 

[downdaline]

That is pretty amazing. Lots of variety in those opponents.

Interesting point u made about nadal too. I guess his biggest blessing was that he was made to beat federer (beat him for 4 of his 5 slam titles). But this speaks LOADS about the exceptional talent of both of them, being able to meet each other so often in slam finals.

 

[hoodjem]

Tilden - 6 defeated opponents (Patterson, Johnston, Norton, Johnson, Hunter, Allison)
Rosewall - 7 (Rose, Seixas, Hoad, Laver, Roche, Ashe, Anderson)
Laver - 8 (Fraser, McKinley, Emerson, Mulligan, Roche, Gimeno, Rosewall, Newcombe)
Emerson - 6 (Laver, Fletcher, Darmon, Stolle, Ashe, Roche)
Newcombe - 7 (Bungert, Graebner, Rosewall, Smith, Parun, Kodes, Connors)
Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)
Connors - 5 (Dent, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl)
McEnroe - 5 (Gerulaitis, Borg, Lewis, Connors, Lendl)
Lendl - 5 (McEnroe, Pernfors, Mecir, Wilander, Edberg)
Wilander - 5 (Vilas, Lendl, Curren, Cash, Leconte)
Becker - 4 (Curren, Lendl, Edberg, Chang)
Edberg - 5 (Wilander, Cash, Becker, Courier, Sampras)
Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter)
Agassi - 8 (Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler)
Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray)

I feel that this list is most intriguing. Thanks to Krosero. What it suggests to me is that we go to the next step, that is go beyond debates about who is or was the GOAT, and go to this underlying question--who had the toughest competition of all time?

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Looking at those lists I would say Borg had the toughest collection of final opponents he beat of all those.

 

[hoodjem]

Tilden - 6 defeated opponents (Patterson, Johnston, Norton, Johnson, Hunter, Allison)
Rosewall - 7 (Rose, Seixas, Hoad, Laver, Roche, Ashe, Anderson)
Laver - 8 (Fraser, McKinley, Emerson, Mulligan, Roche, Gimeno, Rosewall, Newcombe)
Emerson - 6 (Laver, Fletcher, Darmon, Stolle, Ashe, Roche)
Newcombe - 7 (Bungert, Graebner, Rosewall, Smith, Parun, Kodes, Connors)
Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)
Connors - 5 (Dent, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl)
McEnroe - 5 (Gerulaitis, Borg, Lewis, Connors, Lendl)
Lendl - 5 (McEnroe, Pernfors, Mecir, Wilander, Edberg)
Wilander - 5 (Vilas, Lendl, Curren, Cash, Leconte)
Becker - 4 (Curren, Lendl, Edberg, Chang)
Edberg - 5 (Wilander, Cash, Becker, Courier, Sampras)
Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter)
Agassi - 8 (Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler)
Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray)

I think one way to approach this endeavor is to look at the list of opponents and see how many if any would be on your top 20 list.

I'll start by suggesting some weak fields of opponents:
Agassi - 8 (Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler) [only Sampras would make my top 20]

Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter) [only Agassi and and Becker might make my top 20]

Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray) [only Nadal and Agassi might make my top 20]

 

[hoodjem]

Strong fields:

Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)
Connors - 5 (Dent, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl)
Edberg - 5 (Wilander, Cash, Becker, Courier, Sampras)
Lendl - 5 (McEnroe, Pernfors, Mecir, Wilander, Edberg)
McEnroe - 5 (Gerulaitis, Borg, Lewis, Connors, Lendl)

 

[downdaline]

I definitely agree with Borg having the toughest slam opposition.

Check out the variety of opponents Sampras beat! Every kind, from the power baseliner Courier/Agassi to the retriever Chang, from s&v Rafter to clay-courter Moya, and from huge lefty serve Ivanisevic to huge righty serve Becker. Interesting.

 

[AAAA]

I think one way to approach this endeavor is to look at the list of opponents and see how many if any would be on your top 20 list.

I'll start by suggesting some weak fields of opponents:
Agassi - 8 (Ivanisevic, Stich, Sampras, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement, Schuttler) [only Sampras would make my top 20]

Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter) [only Agassi and and Becker might make my top 20]

Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray) [only Nadal and Agassi might make my top 20]

That's one way but not the right way as it doesn't actually show how tough the players were for a specific individual. And we are talking about individuals here.

We are talking about how tough these champions found it to beat the finalists they faced, not how tough the finalists were for the majority of players to beat. Crucial difference.

 

[anointedone]

Federer would also be a bit disadvantaged since by careers end Nadal, Murray, Djokovic could all look to be alot greater then they currently are.

 

[roundiesee]

The fact that Federer beat 10 different opponents, and Borg 9, all presumably with different styles and strengths, make these 2 outstanding champions stand out from the rest? Opinions? Thanks!

 

[Rorschach]

I feel that this list is most intriguing. Thanks to Krosero. What it suggests to me is that we go to the next step, that is go beyond debates about who is or was the GOAT, and go to this underlying question--who had the toughest competition of all time?

If I had to pick from the list...Borg's head collection is the most impressive

 

[hoodjem]

The fact that Federer beat 10 different opponents, and Borg 9, all presumably with different styles and strengths, make these 2 outstanding champions stand out from the rest? Opinions? Thanks!

I don't think the quantity of different opponents matters that much.

I think it is the quality.

 

[joeri888]

I had not noticed before, but Nadal has still only played two men in his Slam finals - Puerta and Federer

I noticed it before. Frankly, Rafa's always had to go through Federer to win a Slam. That's a pretty amazing statistic, and says a lot about Federer, but maybe also bout their head2head. Since 2005 Rafa's always been the one preventing a final. Cause Roger ONLY lost finals of Grandslams against Nadal, and always made sure he got there when Rafa did, except that 2005 final.

 

[hoodjem]

So how many more majors would Fed have, if Rafa had not been there?

 

[CyBorg]

So how many more majors would Fed have, if Rafa had not been there?

Where would Rafa be? Stuck in a well?

 

[NLBwell]

Fishing in Scotland!

 

[joe sch]

I don't think the quantity of different opponents matters that much.

I think it is the quality.

I beleive its both quality and quantity, thus having many multi-slam winners competing for slam titles makes an era more exciting and competitive. This is why I would claim that Sampras had much more difficult competition than Federer. Many more multislam winners with many more challenging styles to compete against, S/V, allcourt, and baseline specialist.

It would be interesting to compute a slam factor ... the number of combined slams that an slam champion has defeated when winning a championship.

How do you think the following comparision would add up:

Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)

vs

Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter)

vs

Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray)

Can someone do this math ?

 

[FiveO]

I beleive its both quality and quantity, thus having many multi-slam winners competing for slam titles makes an era more exciting and competitive. This is why I would claim that Sampras had much more difficult competition than Federer. Many more multislam winners with many more challenging styles to compete against, S/V, allcourt, and baseline specialist.

It would be interesting to compute a slam factor ... the number of combined slams that an slam champion has defeated when winning a championship.

How do you think the following comparision would add up:

Borg - 9 (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)

vs

Sampras - 9 (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter)

vs

Federer - 10 (Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray)

Can someone do this math ?

Borg:

Lendl- 8 Majors/11 Finals, 94 titles, 50 finals, career high #1 (0)
Connors- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 107 titles, 51 finals, career high #1 (5)
McEnroe-7 Majors/4 Finals, 77 titles, 44 finals, career high #1 (4)
Vilas- 4 Major titles/3 finals*, 62 tour titles/40 finals, career high #2
*2 Majors/1 final came at the AO with less than stellar draws. (2)
Nastase-2 Majors/2 finals, 57 tour titles, career high #1 in 1973 when he won his last major at RG; 10 years older than Borg. (0)
Orantes- 1 Major title/1 final, incl. in 33 titles/35 finals, career high #2 (1)
Vitas Gerulaitis = 1 major*, 2 finals, 25 titles, 29 finals, career high #3
Roscoe Tanner = 1 major*, 1 final, 16 wins, 25 finals, career high #4 (0)
Pecci- 1 Major final, incl. 10 tour titles/12 finals, career high #9

Borg's opponents garnered 32 Majors.

Sampras:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (6)
Courier- 4 Majors/2 Finals, 23 titles, 13 finals, career high #1 (4)
Becker- 6 Majors/4 Finals, 49 titles, 28 finals, career high #1 in 1991, won his last Major in 1996, 4 years older than Sampras. (2)
Michael Chang = 1 major 3 finals, 34 titles, 24 finals, career high #2 (1)
Carlos Moya = 1 Major/1 Final, 20/23, #1 (1)
Goran Ivanisevic = 1 major, 3 finals, 22 titles, 27 finals, career high #2
Todd Martin = 2 Major finals, 8 titles, 11 finals, career high #4
Cedric Pioline = 2 Major finals, 5 titles, 12 finals, career high #5

Sampras's opponents won 21 majors.


Federer:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (2)
Nadal- 4 Majors/2 Finals; 31 titles/8 finals, career high #1 (4)
Hewitt- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 16 titles/14 finals, career high #1 (2)
Safin- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 15 titles/11 finals, career high #1 (2)
Roddick- 1 Major/3 finals, 25 titles, 14 finals, career high #1 (1)
Djokovic 1 Major/1 Final, 10/5, career high #3 (1)
Philippoussis- 2 Major Finals; 11 titles/11 finals, career high #8
Gonzalez- 1 Major Final; 10 titles/11 finals, career high #5
Murray- 1 Major Final; 6 titles/5 finals, career high #4
Baghdatis- 1 Major Final; 2 titles/4 finals, career high #8


Federer's foes have amassed 18 Majors.



So Borg 32, Sampras 21, Federer 18.

But....I think there are some adjustments needed:

Neither Nastase nor Lendl won any Majors within Borg's playing career.
Nastase was a full 10 years Borg's elder.
Granted that Borg retired "early" but Lendl didn't win a Major until 1984, three years after Borg won his last.
Also Gerulaitis', Tanner's and two of Vilas' Majors came at the AO with markedly depleted draws.

I think counting the Majors won by opponents during Borg's, Sampras' and Federer's playing careers, discounting what were lesser events during Borg's career brings a truer comparison.

That would yield Borg 12, Sampras 14 and Federer 12.

Borg hard a shortened career and Federer and his opponents aren't done.

But I think those numbers, while very subjective, furnish a more accurate snapshot.

 

[Steve132]

Borg:

Lendl- 8 Majors/11 Finals, 94 titles, 50 finals, career high #1 (0)
Connors- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 107 titles, 51 finals, career high #1 (5)
McEnroe-7 Majors/4 Finals, 77 titles, 44 finals, career high #1 (4)
Vilas- 4 Major titles/3 finals*, 62 tour titles/40 finals, career high #2
*2 Majors/1 final came at the AO with less than stellar draws. (2)
Nastase-2 Majors/2 finals, 57 tour titles, career high #1 in 1973 when he won his last major at RG; 10 years older than Borg. (0)
Orantes- 1 Major title/1 final, incl. in 33 titles/35 finals, career high #2 (1)
Vitas Gerulaitis = 1 major*, 2 finals, 25 titles, 29 finals, career high #3
Roscoe Tanner = 1 major*, 1 final, 16 wins, 25 finals, career high #4 (0)
Pecci- 1 Major final, incl. 10 tour titles/12 finals, career high #9

Borg's opponents garnered 32 Majors.

Sampras:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (6)
Courier- 4 Majors/2 Finals, 23 titles, 13 finals, career high #1 (4)
Becker- 6 Majors/4 Finals, 49 titles, 28 finals, career high #1 in 1991, won his last Major in 1996, 4 years older than Sampras. (2)
Michael Chang = 1 major 3 finals, 34 titles, 24 finals, career high #2 (1)
Carlos Moya = 1 Major/1 Final, 20/23, #1 (1)
Goran Ivanisevic = 1 major, 3 finals, 22 titles, 27 finals, career high #2
Todd Martin = 2 Major finals, 8 titles, 11 finals, career high #4
Cedric Pioline = 2 Major finals, 5 titles, 12 finals, career high #5

Sampras's opponents won 21 majors.


Federer:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (2)
Nadal- 4 Majors/2 Finals; 31 titles/8 finals, career high #1 (4)
Hewitt- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 16 titles/14 finals, career high #1 (2)
Safin- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 15 titles/11 finals, career high #1 (2)
Roddick- 1 Major/3 finals, 25 titles, 14 finals, career high #1 (1)
Djokovic 1 Major/1 Final, 10/5, career high #3 (1)
Philippoussis- 2 Major Finals; 11 titles/11 finals, career high #8
Gonzalez- 1 Major Final; 10 titles/11 finals, career high #5
Murray- 1 Major Final; 6 titles/5 finals, career high #4
Baghdatis- 1 Major Final; 2 titles/4 finals, career high #8


Federer's foes have amassed 18 Majors.



So Borg 32, Sampras 21, Federer 18.

But....I think there are some adjustments needed:

Neither Nastase nor Lendl won any Majors within Borg's playing career.
Nastase was a full 10 years Borg's elder.
Granted that Borg retired "early" but Lendl didn't win a Major until 1984, three years after Borg won his last.
Also Gerulaitis', Tanner's and two of Vilas' Majors came at the AO with markedly depleted draws.

I think counting the Majors won by opponents during Borg's, Sampras' and Federer's playing careers, discounting what were lesser events during Borg's career brings a truer comparison.

That would yield Borg 12, Sampras 14 and Federer 12.

Borg hard a shortened career and Federer and his opponents aren't done.

But I think those numbers, while very subjective, furnish a more accurate snapshot.

One issue with this exercise is that, as you have observed, Federer and his opponents aren't done. All of Federer's opponents except for Agassi and Philippoussis are still active, and Nadal, Djokovic and Murray could easily win ten or more additional Slams between them.

The other issue is a bit more subtle. The main reason that Federer's opponents have won relatively few majors is that Federer himself has been so dominant over the past few years - far more so than either Borg or Sampras. From 2004 to 2007 he won 11 majors, a four year total unmatched by any other player - male or female, amateur or pro eras - in history. If one player monopolizes the majors in this way his Slam opponents necessarily win fewer major titles. The number of majors that a player's opponents win is not a very accurate measure of their quality, because this statistic is not independent of the player's performance.

 

[Benhur]

Borg:

Lendl- 8 Majors/11 Finals, 94 titles, 50 finals, career high #1 (0)
Connors- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 107 titles, 51 finals, career high #1 (5)
McEnroe-7 Majors/4 Finals, 77 titles, 44 finals, career high #1 (4)
Vilas- 4 Major titles/3 finals*, 62 tour titles/40 finals, career high #2
*2 Majors/1 final came at the AO with less than stellar draws. (2)
Nastase-2 Majors/2 finals, 57 tour titles, career high #1 in 1973 when he won his last major at RG; 10 years older than Borg. (0)
Orantes- 1 Major title/1 final, incl. in 33 titles/35 finals, career high #2 (1)
Vitas Gerulaitis = 1 major*, 2 finals, 25 titles, 29 finals, career high #3
Roscoe Tanner = 1 major*, 1 final, 16 wins, 25 finals, career high #4 (0)
Pecci- 1 Major final, incl. 10 tour titles/12 finals, career high #9

Borg's opponents garnered 32 Majors.

Sampras:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (6)
Courier- 4 Majors/2 Finals, 23 titles, 13 finals, career high #1 (4)
Becker- 6 Majors/4 Finals, 49 titles, 28 finals, career high #1 in 1991, won his last Major in 1996, 4 years older than Sampras. (2)
Michael Chang = 1 major 3 finals, 34 titles, 24 finals, career high #2 (1)
Carlos Moya = 1 Major/1 Final, 20/23, #1 (1)
Goran Ivanisevic = 1 major, 3 finals, 22 titles, 27 finals, career high #2
Todd Martin = 2 Major finals, 8 titles, 11 finals, career high #4
Cedric Pioline = 2 Major finals, 5 titles, 12 finals, career high #5

Sampras's opponents won 21 majors.


Federer:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (2)
Nadal- 4 Majors/2 Finals; 31 titles/8 finals, career high #1 (4)
Hewitt- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 16 titles/14 finals, career high #1 (2)
Safin- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 15 titles/11 finals, career high #1 (2)
Roddick- 1 Major/3 finals, 25 titles, 14 finals, career high #1 (1)
Djokovic 1 Major/1 Final, 10/5, career high #3 (1)
Philippoussis- 2 Major Finals; 11 titles/11 finals, career high #8
Gonzalez- 1 Major Final; 10 titles/11 finals, career high #5
Murray- 1 Major Final; 6 titles/5 finals, career high #4
Baghdatis- 1 Major Final; 2 titles/4 finals, career high #8


Federer's foes have amassed 18 Majors.



So Borg 32, Sampras 21, Federer 18.

But....I think there are some adjustments needed:

Neither Nastase nor Lendl won any Majors within Borg's playing career.
Nastase was a full 10 years Borg's elder.
Granted that Borg retired "early" but Lendl didn't win a Major until 1984, three years after Borg won his last.
Also Gerulaitis', Tanner's and two of Vilas' Majors came at the AO with markedly depleted draws.

I think counting the Majors won by opponents during Borg's, Sampras' and Federer's playing careers, discounting what were lesser events during Borg's career brings a truer comparison.

That would yield Borg 12, Sampras 14 and Federer 12.

Borg hard a shortened career and Federer and his opponents aren't done.

But I think those numbers, while very subjective, furnish a more accurate snapshot.

One important flaw with this exercise is that there is no attempt to distinguish how many times a player beats another, which creates enormous bias by simply counting the quantity of players. For example, beating Agassi 3 times (say) in a slam final is by itself a lot better than beating him once + beating another much lesser player also once. Yet the latter case would be considered better in this kind of analysis.

 

[FiveO]

One issue with this exercise is that, as you have observed, Federer and his opponents aren't done. All of Federer's opponents except for Agassi and Philippoussis are still active, and Nadal, Djokovic and Murray could easily win ten or more additional Slams between them.

The other issue is a bit more subtle. The main reason that Federer's opponents have won relatively few majors is that Federer himself has been so dominant over the past few years - far more so than either Borg or Sampras. From 2004 to 2007 he won 11 majors, a four year total unmatched by any other player - male or female, amateur or pro eras - in history. If one player monopolizes the majors in this way his Slam opponents necessarily win fewer major titles. The number of majors that a player's opponents win is not a very accurate measure of their quality, because this statistic is not independent of the player's performance.

Very true. A ton of variables:

-like the importance of tournaments, i.e. Borg won his 11 in eight years and never played the AO during the span (1974 to 1981) and skipped the 1977 RG in a dispute.

-Connors ban and subsequent boycott of the RG in his prime.

-McEnroe's swoon when Borg quit.

-Wilander reaching the mountaintop and not really liking the view.

-my observation/opinion that the majority and the best from the generation between the Sampras era and Federer who suffered an inordinate number of major to catastrophic injuries (i.e. Kuerten, Rios, Magnus Norman, Flipper, Tommy Haas, Nicolas Kiefer and to a lesser degree Tim Henman), combined with headcases like Rios (again), Moya and Ferrero being MIA for long periods after 2000 after making an initial impact at the end of the Sampras era. Compounded by the second most talented of Fed's generation, Safin, being such a disappointment and injuries/other headcases, Coria, Ancic, Dent, etc., I believe those absences created an unprecedented vacuum between those generations.

-I am an enormous fan of Fed, and he is in my succession of GOATs from era to era. I was and still hope to see another true Grand Slam from him. There is absolutely no question of Federer's talent and worthiness, but being objective and aware of the history, I have to ponder whether his domination would have been as complete without that vacuum?

The variables are infinite, conditions, importance of events, money, etc. which is why I believe there can never be a single GOAT. The best any player can do is dominate his era, and for the same reason the level of domination can't be used to say a player from one era was less than a player from another.

From guys I've seen it goes:

Rosewall > Laver > Borg > Sampras > Federer

From what I've read I'd put Tilden > Budge > Kramer > Gonzalez on the same line in front of them.

 

[FiveO]

One important flaw with this exercise is that there is no attempt to distinguish how many times a player beats another, which creates enormous bias by simply counting the quantity of players. For example, beating Agassi 3 times (say) in a slam final is by itself a lot better than beating him once + beating another much lesser player also once. Yet the latter case would be considered better in this kind of analysis.

The analysis is very limited and response to joe sch question in an earlier post in this thread:

It would be interesting to compute a slam factor ... the number of combined slams that an slam champion has defeated when winning a championship.....

Can someone do this math ?

It's only the math, very little analysis, like:

-who a player may have beaten before the final.
-how hot a lesser player was and who they took out to reach the final
-based on that lesser player's history, was he the guy seeds didn't want to meet?
-how many seeds were there 16/32
-who was missing

"the exercise" was never intended to be THE answer, just the raw math, and ONE answer.

5

 

[joe sch]

Very true. A ton of variables:

-like the importance of tournaments, i.e. Borg won his 11 in eight years and never played the AO during the span (1974 to 1981) and skipped the 1977 RG in a dispute.

-Connors ban and subsequent boycott of the RG in his prime.

-McEnroe's swoon when Borg quit.

-Wilander reaching the mountaintop and not really liking the view.

-my observation/opinion that the majority and the best from the generation between the Sampras era and Federer who suffered an inordinate number of major to catastrophic injuries (i.e. Kuerten, Rios, Magnus Norman, Flipper, Tommy Haas, Nicolas Kiefer and to a lesser degree Tim Henman), combined with headcases like Rios (again), Moya and Ferrero being MIA for long periods after 2000 after making an initial impact at the end of the Sampras era. Compounded by the second most talented of Fed's generation, Safin, being such a disappointment and injuries/other headcases, Coria, Ancic, Dent, etc., I believe those absences created an unprecedented vacuum between those generations.

-I am an enormous fan of Fed, and he is in my succession of GOATs from era to era. I was and still hope to see another true Grand Slam from him. There is absolutely no question of Federer's talent and worthiness, but being objective and aware of the history, I have to ponder whether his domination would have been as complete without that vacuum?

The variables are infinite, conditions, importance of events, money, etc. which is why I believe there can never be a single GOAT. The best any player can do is dominate his era, and for the same reason the level of domination can't be used to say a player from one era was less than a player from another.

From guys I've seen it goes:

Rosewall > Laver > Borg > Sampras > Federer

From what I've read I'd put Tilden > Budge > Kramer > Gonzalez on the same line in front of them.

FiveO, Thank you for doing that simple math !

Its just a start into comparing guys from different era's and another metric to consider for the GOAT determination.

I was hopeful that many would point out the weaknesses with that simple "slam factor" math and help improve the equation. So many excellent statisticians on this board. You have made many excellent points and I do pretty much agree with your GOAT contenders but I do not have the same ordering.

Best regards,
Joe

 

[Raphael]

What a great thread!

I have to give the edge to Laver.

Not only did he win 11 Grand Slams, but he defeated opponents in the finals who won a total of 33 Grand Slam singles titles. That doesn't even count the number of doubles titles. (anybody remember when the top men's players all played doubles?)

When you factor in the reality that having won THE Grand Slame in 1962 he was banned from Grand Slams for 6 years of his prime competitive form, then won THE Grand Slam again in 1969!

Now, if you want to talk quantity of opponents then he comes up short, but quality?

 

[jean pierre]

Borg:

Lendl- 8 Majors/11 Finals, 94 titles, 50 finals, career high #1 (0)
Connors- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 107 titles, 51 finals, career high #1 (5)
McEnroe-7 Majors/4 Finals, 77 titles, 44 finals, career high #1 (4)
Vilas- 4 Major titles/3 finals*, 62 tour titles/40 finals, career high #2
*2 Majors/1 final came at the AO with less than stellar draws. (2)
Nastase-2 Majors/2 finals, 57 tour titles, career high #1 in 1973 when he won his last major at RG; 10 years older than Borg. (0)
Orantes- 1 Major title/1 final, incl. in 33 titles/35 finals, career high #2 (1)
Vitas Gerulaitis = 1 major*, 2 finals, 25 titles, 29 finals, career high #3
Roscoe Tanner = 1 major*, 1 final, 16 wins, 25 finals, career high #4 (0)
Pecci- 1 Major final, incl. 10 tour titles/12 finals, career high #9

Borg's opponents garnered 32 Majors.

Sampras:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (6)
Courier- 4 Majors/2 Finals, 23 titles, 13 finals, career high #1 (4)
Becker- 6 Majors/4 Finals, 49 titles, 28 finals, career high #1 in 1991, won his last Major in 1996, 4 years older than Sampras. (2)
Michael Chang = 1 major 3 finals, 34 titles, 24 finals, career high #2 (1)
Carlos Moya = 1 Major/1 Final, 20/23, #1 (1)
Goran Ivanisevic = 1 major, 3 finals, 22 titles, 27 finals, career high #2
Todd Martin = 2 Major finals, 8 titles, 11 finals, career high #4
Cedric Pioline = 2 Major finals, 5 titles, 12 finals, career high #5

Sampras's opponents won 21 majors.


Federer:

Agassi- 8 Majors/7 Finals, 60 titles, 30 finals, career high #1 (2)
Nadal- 4 Majors/2 Finals; 31 titles/8 finals, career high #1 (4)
Hewitt- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 16 titles/14 finals, career high #1 (2)
Safin- 2 Majors/2 Finals; 15 titles/11 finals, career high #1 (2)
Roddick- 1 Major/3 finals, 25 titles, 14 finals, career high #1 (1)
Djokovic 1 Major/1 Final, 10/5, career high #3 (1)
Philippoussis- 2 Major Finals; 11 titles/11 finals, career high #8
Gonzalez- 1 Major Final; 10 titles/11 finals, career high #5
Murray- 1 Major Final; 6 titles/5 finals, career high #4
Baghdatis- 1 Major Final; 2 titles/4 finals, career high #8


Federer's foes have amassed 18 Majors.



So Borg 32, Sampras 21, Federer 18.

But....I think there are some adjustments needed:

Neither Nastase nor Lendl won any Majors within Borg's playing career.
Nastase was a full 10 years Borg's elder.
Granted that Borg retired "early" but Lendl didn't win a Major until 1984, three years after Borg won his last.
Also Gerulaitis', Tanner's and two of Vilas' Majors came at the AO with markedly depleted draws.

I think counting the Majors won by opponents during Borg's, Sampras' and Federer's playing careers, discounting what were lesser events during Borg's career brings a truer comparison.

That would yield Borg 12, Sampras 14 and Federer 12.

Borg hard a shortened career and Federer and his opponents aren't done.

But I think those numbers, while very subjective, furnish a more accurate snapshot.

For Vilas, it's 4 Majors, and 4 finals (and not 3) : French Open 1975, 1978, 1982, and Australian Open 1977.

 

[FiveO]

FiveO, Thank you for doing that simple math !

Its just a start into comparing guys from different era's and another metric to consider for the GOAT determination.

I was hopeful that many would point out the weaknesses with that simple "slam factor" math and help improve the equation. So many excellent statisticians on this board. You have made many excellent points and I do pretty much agree with your GOAT contenders but I do not have the same ordering.
Best regards,
Joe

For clarity, my order is merely chronological, one era following another.

For Vilas, it's 4 Majors, and 4 finals (and not 3) : French Open 1975, 1978, 1982, and Australian Open 1977.

You're correct, of course. My error.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Federer's foes have amassed 18 Majors.

not saying that your analisys is not worthy because it is a very interesting point. but wouldnt you say that for such comparison, the only total that is biased by the presence of a player of a previous generation is Federer's?

if you look at the data you presented, only Federer faced in a final of a slam a player from a previous generation and one with a total 8 slams under his belt. all the others rivals are mor or less from around the same age for both borg and sampras no? who would be to face Fed if not agassi? how many slams would that count lose?

 

[rolandg]

Anyone want to post who these players had to beat in the semi's? The semi's are often tougher matches than the finals, and in strong fields, the opponents are just as impressive.

 

[ClarkC]

From guys I've seen it goes:

Rosewall > Laver > Borg > Sampras > Federer

From what I've read I'd put Tilden > Budge > Kramer > Gonzalez on the same line in front of them.

Put Lew Hoad in between Gonzalez and Rosewall and you have a pretty complete, uninterrupted sequence there.

EDIT: also might have to put Roy Emerson after Laver.

 

[FiveO]

not saying that your analisys is not worthy because it is a very interesting point. but wouldnt you say that for such comparison, the only total that is biased by the presence of a player of a previous generation is Federer's?

if you look at the data you presented, only Federer faced in a final of a slam a player from a previous generation and one with a total 8 slams under his belt. all the others rivals are mor or less from around the same age for both borg and sampras no? who would be to face Fed if not agassi?

To explain, I concur with Vilas who stated that a given player's peak amounts to five or six years. With that in mind:

Borg born in 1956; opponents (Orantes, Vilas, Nastase, Connors, Pecci, Tanner, Gerulaitis, McEnroe, Lendl)

Nastase born in 1946 and played into the Open era from the Amateurs. His peers were former #1's like Stan Smith ('46) and John Newcombe ('44) along with Tony Roche ('45) and Arthur Ashe ('43). This group is arguably two tennis generations prior to Borg's, making Nastase at least one guy from another generation.

Orantes born in 1949 is a full generation + prior to Borg.

Tanner born in 1951, is a full five years older than Borg and playing Majors in 1969 when Borg was 12.

Connors and Vilas were both born in 1952. While Vilas start time on tour is a little vague Connors was playing Majors in 1970.

Again Borg was born in '56 and doesn't appear in a Major draw until '73.

I would view Gerulaitis and Pecci as peers having been born in 1954 and 1955 respectively.

McEnroe '59 and Lendl '60 enter a full tennis generation behind Connors and Vilas and Orantes spots JMc 10 years as Nastase spotted Borg.

Borg is harder to place being born almost directed 3 years after Connors and 3 years prior to McEnroe's generations which are clearly their own. I would be inclined to place Borg more in Connors era because the started winning majors the same year, but that is purely subjective.

However, IMO Borg played at least three opponents from the clearly prior generations in Orantes, Nastase and Tanner.

I also believe knowing who else was in draws matters. In 1974, the year both Connors, 5 years Borg's elder, and Borg himself won their first Majors, a guy named Rod Laver, born in 1938, and 36 years old, beat the Swedish Teen Angel, in the final of Houston, on clay. When Borg won his first RG he was seeded third behind the two previous champions there, Nastase, who was the defending champion and seeded #1 and Jan Kodes, who won the RG in 1970 and 1971, was seeded #2. Kodes like Nastase was born in 1946.

FYI Jan Kodes, also won the boycotted '73 Wimbledon title, with Nastase in the draw. He validated that title to a degree by having reached the '71 USO final and then reaching the USO Final again in '73.


Sampras's opponents (Agassi, Courier, Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, Becker, Chang, Moya, Rafter):

With Sampras born in 1971 I would submit that Becker ('67) is from one generation prior, especially in light of the fact that each won their teenage breakthrough Majors more than five years apart, 1985 and 1990. That's amplified by the fact that many, incorrectly opine that Becker was used up prior to Sampras's run at the top.

Also in that 1990 to the USO title, Sampras def. McEnroe and Lendl who were from two generations prior.

Sampras would also go on to def. Lendl in the SF of the '91 Singles Championships before beating Courier in the Final.

Sampras would also beat Lendl in the R16 of the '94 AO en route to that title.

Edberg born in '66, definitely denied Sampras another Major when he def. Pete in the Final of the '92 USO and probably denied Sampras a second when Stefan beat him again in the SF of the '93 AO. Had Sampras won that match he would have faced Courier who he already had a 5-1 h2h advantage over and would dominate for the remainder of their careers.

5

 

[FiveO]

Put Lew Hoad in between Gonzalez and Rosewall and you have a pretty complete, uninterrupted sequence there.

EDIT: also might have to put Roy Emerson after Laver.

Very difficult to leave off Hoad. I believe I mentioned him earlier in the same breath, overall talent-wise, as Laver and Federer. I am also aware that Gonzalez spoke of Hoad, as Sampras does of Agassi, that even when Pancho was at his best Hoad was the one peer who could beat him. Had he had the longevity he probably would have eked out his "twin": Rosewall.

Emmo for me, is like Lendl, another hard leave. I'm aware that Emmo was the top money winner at the advent of Open tennis, when the amateurs and pros merged. While an indicator, the situation was too convoluted, IMO. Though they played apart for much of their careers, I view Emmo as Laver's peer having won their first Majors as amateurs together in 1961, 2 and 1 respectively. Laver closed out Emmo at the Majors in '62, winning his amateur Slam. Emmo went on to win the remaining 10 of his 12 total Majors after Laver had left for the pros. Upon Laver's return to the Majors, he and Emmo played the same first seven Open Majors together; Laver won 5 of the 7, Emmo none, and Laver beat Emmo h2h at the '69 AO and USO's, with all the pressure on Laver, en route to his Open Grand Slam. In that comparison, for me, Emmo comes in second.

5

 

[Deleted member 21996]

To explain, .....


...remainder of their careers.
5

Ok. i agree with you there but i would still say that those tima gaps were mostly about 5 years so much of the players i believe(correct me if wrong) were in fact transitional (with exception of maybe orantes). when in fact in normal circumstances, Agassi should be way past his prime and pretty much into retirement when he was facing federer in finals. wouldn you say so? hence my idea that appart from agassi, the fed's finals peers would be pretty low in slam count.

im really asking here, not questioning!

 

[thalivest]

Ok. i agree with you there but i would still say that those tima gaps were mostly about 5 years so much of the players i believe(correct me if wrong) were in fact transitional (with exception of maybe orantes). when in fact in normal circumstances, Agassi should be way past his prime and pretty much into retirement when he was facing federer in finals. wouldn you say so? hence my idea that appart from agassi, the fed's finals peers would be pretty low in slam count.

Even though this is probably true, Djokovic and Murray and Nadal will all add alot further to the count in the future, so it more then balances out.

 

[Raphael]

Even though this is probably true, Djokovic and Murray and Nadal will all add alot further to the count in the future, so it more then balances out.

This remains to be seen! The talent is there, no question, but until they have had the kinds of results their potential would indicate they are capable of, we can't really assess how GOOD they are and more importantly, how good they will become.

 

[FiveO]

Ok. i agree with you there but i would still say that those tima gaps were mostly about 5 years so much of the players i believe(correct me if wrong) were in fact transitional (with exception of maybe orantes). when in fact in normal circumstances, Agassi should be way past his prime and pretty much into retirement when he was facing federer in finals. wouldn you say so? hence my idea that appart from agassi, the fed's finals peers would be pretty low in slam count.

im really asking here, not questioning!

Again a player's peak is 5-6 years. Look at the records of the greats. Remember the standing record for Year End #1's is 6.

With that in mind Agassi was in fact two generations ahead of Federer, as was Nastase when he met Borg in the '76 Wimbledon final.

The generation between Agassi and Federer, who are roughly separated by eleven years of age, the generation about 5 years younger than AA/older than Fed, was absent or so badly damaged by the time Fed's era asserted itself, as to almost be forgotten. Who's the last #1 between Sampras/his peers and Fed/his peers?

Kuerten is that guy. He and his generation are the MIAs I'm speaking of. Guys like Henman, Philippoussis on grass, those guys Rios and Kuerten on hards. Obviously Guga, Rios and Magnus Norman, Moya and JCF, etc. on clay.

This generation, suffered from more bad fortune than any other in memory.
Prior generations had their career limiting injuries i.e. Cash in Mc and Lendl's era, Krajicek and Stich in Sampras's, but almost the entire Kuerten era injured out or melted down.

Kuerten should have been a player at RG for the til recently. He had 3 RG's and won the Year End Championship in 2000, beating Norman, Kafelnikov, Sampras and Agassi in order, on hardcourts, to EARN the first Year End #1 for a Latin American player in 2000. Kuerten had won Indy in 2000 beating Safin in the Final. In 2001 he won the Cincinatti MS over Pat Rafter. He had reached the QF at the USO in 99 and 2001. He had the ability to play on hardcourts and threaten. If not the clear #1 of his generation he showed no signs of loosening his grip on the RG and impacting it for several more years. In fact he beat Federer in the 2003 RG in straights, and held a 2-1 h2h over Fed when he was forced to retire due to multiple hip injuries and surgeries that followed.

Magnus Norman had beaten Kuerten in the 2000 Rome MS final, before losing to Guga in that year's RG final. He also suffered a similar devastating hip injury, freakishly about the same time as Guga, which also ended his career.

Marcelo Rios was supposedly going to be better than all of his peers. After becoming the first Latin American to reach #1, and do so without having won a Major, (he won MS at Rome, Key Biscayne and Indian Wells and reached the AO final) in 1998 he withdrew from the Masters with a back injury. From there double abductor (groin/hip) surgery and he was done.

Marc Philippoussis in 1995 Flipper announced his presence by taking Sampras to four tough sets in the 3R of the USO Sampras would go on to win. In 1996 Flipper shocked Sampras and the world by straight setting Pete in the 3R of the AO. Pete returned the favor later in '96 at both Wimbledon and the USO in straights. In '98 Flipper reached the W QF where Pete again straight setted him. At the '98 USO Flipper reached the final where he fell to Rafter. At Wimbledon '99 Flipper faced Sampras again in the QF and the match looked like the changing of the guard with Marc leading a set and up a break, 2-1 in the second when he blew out his left knee, had surgery and didn't play again until October. Had a second surgery on the same knee in Dec. 2000 after reaching the QF of Wimbledon for the 3rd year in a row. March 2001, left knee surgery number 3. 2002 didn't play after the USO after reaggravating the same knee v. Schalken. 2003 beats Stepanek, #1 seed, Agassi and Grosjean en route to Final, where he loses to Fed in two tie-breaks and straight sets. 2004 loses R16 of Wimbledon to Henman in 4 sets.

Tim Henman was dubbed the heir apparent at Wimbledon until recurrent shoulder injuries. 1996 Right elbow surgery, Dec. 2002 shoulder surgery.

Moya and JCF like the above made impacts from the middle of the Sampras era and toward the end, but melted down. Though when looking at Guga, Rios and Norman, of their generation they may only have been the 4th and 5th best clay courters.

This generation, Kuerten's made impact in the latter half of the Sampras years. I believe that one to three of these guys were the best of that generation. They should have been the guys to have those Majors and making lingering pests out of themselves in the first part of the Federer era, not all just 1 or 2, and representing with their handfull of Majors. The best injured out completely, had missed so much time due to injury, or had game altering injury/surgery (Henman) that they were unable to fulfill their promise. That only left Agassi from two tennis generations before Fed to carry the torch and his hardware into competition.

Yes, it has happened to every generation. Tony Roche, John Alexander, Pat Cash, Richard Krajicek and Michael Stich to name a few.

I would not include Courier in this group he played and competed and rarely suffered bad losses in big spots. He took losses handed to him by Chang, Agassi and Sampras at a ton of Majors from '93 to '96. He simply got beat, and if you check those scores, not embarassed.

But in my opinion never in the numbers that it occurred to Kuerten's group, and never so many careers which were ended.

Sure Fed's unprecedented rate of Major wins skew the numbers of his competition. However, relative to the Connors, Borg, Becker, Chang, Sampras and Courier he got a relatively later start winning those championships. Secondly, and I think, more importantly, the Kuerten generation, mostly through no fault of their own, failed to hold up their end.

Would it have effected how thoroughly Fed dominated? We'll never no. He's one of the best if not THE best, but history has said there is alot to be said for experience in tennis. Agassi had it but spotted Fed 11 years. Kuerten's generation should have had similar experience even if not in those numbers, and would only be giving away 5 years or so to Fed.


5

 

[ClarkC]

How is it possible that Federer won the US Open in 2008, given that he is 5 years older than Nadal, 4 years older than Djokovic, and 6 years older than Andy Murray? Federer is like Methuselah!

I think the 5 year age gap constituting an entire tennis generation is being given too much weight. Becker won Wimbledon at 17 and certainly was competing with players who were in their grand slam primes who were "not in his generation." The prime of Jimmy Connors' career directly overlapped the prime of Borg's career, regardless of birth years. There are just too many exceptions.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

I find it interesting only Nadal had beaten federer is a GS final.

 

[tennisfever8181]

I had not noticed before, but Nadal has still only played two men in his Slam finals - Puerta and Federer.

Wow thats really surprising.. but now that you think about it doesn't seem that weird.

 

[Steve132]

How is it possible that Federer won the US Open in 2008, given that he is 5 years older than Nadal, 4 years older than Djokovic, and 6 years older than Andy Murray? Federer is like Methuselah!

I think the 5 year age gap constituting an entire tennis generation is being given too much weight. Becker won Wimbledon at 17 and certainly was competing with players who were in their grand slam primes who were "not in his generation." The prime of Jimmy Connors' career directly overlapped the prime of Borg's career, regardless of birth years. There are just too many exceptions.

Federer is almost six years older than Djokovic, who is a week younger than Murray.

Nevertheless, I think that your general point is correct. Players mature at different ages, and some enjoy far longer careers than do others. For example, Agassi and Courier were born within three months of each other in 1970. Courier was more or less finished as a top player after 1993, while Agassi played some of his best tennis after age 30.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Again a player's peak is 5-6 years. ....


....5 years or so to Fed.

5

thanks. your posts are very insightfull.

it also confirms my theory that there seem sto always exist a in between generation of transitional champions that are obfuscated by major acheivements of prior and posterior champions and that always seem to underachieve. like the Kuerten, Rios, Moya, Scud bunch, and previously, the Bruguera, Stich, Courrier... i dont have an explanation for this but it just seems to happen.

 

[rwn]

not saying that your analisys is not worthy because it is a very interesting point. but wouldnt you say that for such comparison, the only total that is biased by the presence of a player of a previous generation is Federer's?

if you look at the data you presented, only Federer faced in a final of a slam a player from a previous generation and one with a total 8 slams under his belt. all the others rivals are mor or less from around the same age for both borg and sampras no? who would be to face Fed if not agassi? how many slams would that count lose?

Becker won 4 of his slams in the 80s, and only 2 AO in the 90s so you could easily compare Becker with Agassi. Becker was past his peak when Sampras surfaced at the top.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Becker won 4 of his slams in the 80s, and only 2 AO in the 90s so you could easily compare Becker with Agassi. Becker was past his peak when Sampras surfaced at the top.

i believe it is not even close. while becker won is bigger trophies in the 80's in the "transition" from Borg to Sampras, Agassi went picking wins allover the nineties here and there and thru the 2000's. in normal conditions, agassi wouldnt be facing federe in slam finals by is 30's... wouldnt you agree?

 

[FiveO]

How is it possible that Federer won the US Open in 2008, given that he is 5 years older than Nadal, 4 years older than Djokovic, and 6 years older than Andy Murray? Federer is like Methuselah!

The simple answer is that Fed is very near his peak at the back end as Nadal and Djoker are just entering theirs.

I think the 5 year age gap constituting an entire tennis generation is being given too much weight. Becker won Wimbledon at 17 and certainly was competing with players who were in their grand slam primes who were "not in his generation." The prime of Jimmy Connors' career directly overlapped the prime of Borg's career, regardless of birth years. There are just too many exceptions.

Was Becker in his prime in 1985? Wilander in 1982? Sampras in 1990? Was Borg really in his prime in 1974?

Was Connors the dominant player when he won his last three majors? Or Sampras or Agassi for that matter when they won their last Majors? IMO No.

I also disagree that Connors/Borg overlapped "directly". Was there AN overlap? Sure. McEnroe and Lendl overlapped directly.

Connors clearly began his peak years a year after joining Riordan's tour in 1973. At 22 he won the 3 majors and a ridiculous amount of tour events.
Borg won his first RG the same year Connors won the three others but that was far from Borg's peak. From '73-'76 Borg split with Ashe 7-7, losing 5 of the last six they played from '75-'76. Ashe was 13 years older than Borg and nowhere near the GOAT Borg would show himself to be.

Connors dominated Borg through 1976 winning 6 of their first 7 meetings.
From '77-'81 Borg would reverse that almost completey going 14-2 v. Jimbo, and winning their last ten meetings, 5 on carpet, 2 on hards, 2 on grass and only one on clay.

Borg peak and dominant years began in 1977 when he cracked Connors equation.

Too many exceptions? Rosewall, Laver, Nastase, Connors, Lendl, and Agassi were the exceptions who had impacts two generations after their primes. Less than one a generation, and if not GOAT candidates, the next in line are TOO MANY exceptions?

All of these names are All Time Greats, capable of runs in big spots on the downhill side of their careers, but no longer capable being the dominant player in a year, or as they once did. They all have their absolute zenith where they appear unbeatable, a plateau of several years and then lose their grip as they age, as the next great emerges or they pull the pin on their career.

Remember when Sampras slipped to third in the rankings? It was a big deal because his dominance had ended. He was still a great player and because, day in and day out he had been so much greater than his competition, his slip brought him down to the level of his next best competition. Still a contender, just not the prohibitive favorite any longer. Sampras's slide seemed jarring because of his failure to win a title for almost two years but he was still in numerous finals including two USO's. But he wasn't the Sampras who was winning two slams a year. The one who described one slam as a good year and two a great one.

Federer's slip this year is to a point analogous to Sampras's good year. It is a slip, for him, just the same. Perceptible. Not just because the A/O and Wimbledon didn't go his way but because of the other titles he dropped and the players he lost to. It may be mono, but it may be a true slip. It doesn't mean he won't win more majors but it is unlikely we'll see three a year again.

 

[rwn]

i believe it is not even close. while becker won is bigger trophies in the 80's in the "transition" from Borg to Sampras, Agassi went picking wins allover the nineties here and there and thru the 2000's. in normal conditions, agassi wouldnt be facing federe in slam finals by is 30's... wouldnt you agree?

Nope. Agassi won more slams in the 2000s than Becker in the 90s. I understand that Sampras fans don't like that, but those are the facts. BTW Agassi had only 3 slams at the end of 1998. Comparable with Hewitt, Safin today. And he was Sampras' most consistent competition. Makes you think, doesn't it

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Nope. Agassi won more slams in the 2000s than Becker in the 90s. I understand that Sampras fans don't like that, but those are the facts. BTW Agassi had only 3 slams at the end of 1998. Comparable with Hewitt, Safin today. And he was Sampras' most consistent competition. Makes you think, doesn't it

nope;
Agassi won most his majors during the Sampras winning time span. fact! dont forget sampras winning span was up to 2002. peak or no peak... and the peak concept is way to overated... some player dont even have peaks!

 

[hoodjem]

I think Fed could keep going at 1+ major a year for the next 4-5 years.

(He seems to play a game that does not take a huge toll on his body.)

 

[flying24]

I think Fed could keep going at 1+ major a year for the next 4-5 years.

(He seems to play a game that does not take a huge toll on his body.)

I think there is a good chance. Contrary to some of the short sighted yahoos who seem to already think he is the best player ever, I think he is smart enough to realize he has to keep accomplishing significantly in the coming years to elevate his status further to what it is now. He will be motivated to do this, and I think that will also contribute to his success the next 3-4 years. Also the naysayers saying he was done will also add fuel to the fire.

 

[spiritdragon]

nice list dude. its really interesting to see the opponents that the past and present greats have defeated.

 

[rwn]

nope;
Agassi won most his majors during the Sampras winning time span. fact! dont forget sampras winning span was up to 2002. peak or no peak... and the peak concept is way to overated... some player dont even have peaks!

Exactly. No reason to think a 35 yo can't play the best tennis of his career.