How long will legacy last for current players? (aside from Fed/Rafa)

[BGod]

Fact of the matter in sports is there are few athletes whose legacy lasts for generations past.

I've met many former greats in most sports who a few decades after their retirement are relatively easy to meet and get a photo, etc. They are no longer hounded. This is the case for most players, over 90% of active players in any sport are going to be casual veterans 20 years post.

Now with tennis, let's look at the facts of legends:

Pancho Gonzales, the premier player of the 40s and 50s. Considered by many the GOAT and yet received little casual recognition 20 years after retirement due to Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg and then in the 90s with the emergence of Sampras and Agassi.

Ken Rosewall, became a trivia question after Laver cemented his GOAT status, although heavily recognized by tennis enthusiasts the casual fan would forget him again in 20 years post.

Entering the 90s, the only big name retired legends in most people's vocabulary were Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg. McEnroe and Connors were still playing remember.

Ivan Lendl, this guy gets recognized by maybe 1 in 5 attendants at Slam events. If anything, Federer elevated his recognition when he bested his Finals appearances and consecutive semifinals. Otherwise, he was a trivia question 15 years post retirement.


Now Federer is the Jordan of tennis. His name will echo for at least half a century. I know Pete Sampras could be considered as a counter argument but Rod Laver was never surpassed by Sampras as the GOAT in the same sense as Jordan surpassed Kareem/Magic/Wilt (course I put Wilt and Jordan as #1 but I'm not everybody). Nadal is going to have staying power because of his dominance on Clay and besting Federer at Wimbledon and winning two USO. The rivalry itself is what will keep him held high.

So this whole thread pertains to the following guys:


Novak Djokovic, a Lendl clone as many consider.
Stan Wawrinka, the memorable niche like Rafter?
Andy Murray, a British commemorative but outside?
Del Potro, his 2009 USO against Federer and comeback last year? An Ivanisevic type memorability?

 

[SinjinCooper]

I've already forgotten Murray and Djokovic.

 

[GabeT]

I suspect that Nole, Fed and Rafa will likely be pretty intertwined in people's minds 20 or 30 years from now. Just like the casual fan thinks of Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

 

[Tennisanity]

20 years from now, Federer will be most remembered. Second Nadal. And third Djokovic (even if Djokovic passes Nadal which he is likely to do).

 

[BGod]

I suspect that Nole, Fed and Rafa will likely be pretty intertwined in people's minds 20 or 30 years from now. Just like the casual fan thinks of Borg, Connors and McEnroe.

At one point I felt that could be the case but there are a few stark differences:

When Borg/Connors/McEnroe were big names they only competed with Laver/Rosewall for historical perspective. Outside of America, McEnroe isn't that big of a name. His match with Borg is well remembered but that's pretty much it now. Connors was THE first fan superstar. So of course he's going to have staying power. While Borg for his time was doing what nobody else could, win on clay and grass.

Djokovic had 2011 and 2015 like Mats Wilander and I feel he's going to go down much the same way. If he doesn't come back to form, he's basically going to have 2011 and 2015 with the 3/4 but 2015 will also be remembered for Federer doing what he did and now 2017 so far is Roger & Nadal's comeback tour. Novak is left on the side again.

So the question becomes how well will Novak's 2011-2015 be remembered in 2035? A footnote really.

 

[GabeT]

At one point I felt that could be the case but there are a few stark differences:

When Borg/Connors/McEnroe were big names they only competed with Laver/Rosewall for historical perspective. Outside of America, McEnroe isn't that big of a name. His match with Borg is well remembered but that's pretty much it now. Connors was THE first fan superstar. So of course he's going to have staying power. While Borg for his time was doing what nobody else could, win on clay and grass.

Djokovic had 2011 and 2015 like Mats Wilander and I feel he's going to go down much the same way. If he doesn't come back to form, he's basically going to have 2011 and 2015 with the 3/4 but 2015 will also be remembered for Federer doing what he did and now 2017 so far is Roger & Nadal's comeback tour. Novak is left on the side again.

So the question becomes how well will Novak's 2011-2015 be remembered in 2035? A footnote really.

Who are we talking about, the casual tennis fan? In my experience most casual fans I meet don't even know how many slams Fed won or which ones they are.

In the long run we are all dead, and everyone becomes, at best, a footnote.

For the moderately interested fan Nole will remain the only guy to hold all four slams at a time since Laver. Well, at least until someone breaks that record.

 

[ojo rojo]

It's tricky to predict. Are you talking about stats/records/?.. because you have factors that come into play outside of the "achievements" of players if we're talking about who will be "remembered" Ignoring proper tennis fans, it's more often the interesting characters that leave their mark on the general public. For example: I believe the average man-on-the-street most likely remembers more about Agassi the "wacky looking one" than Sampras " the boring one" ...
Or Becker "the larger than life teen Wimbledon champ" than Edberg the " quiet Scando"

Fed and Nads will be remembered for a long time. Because of their achievements of course but also because their success was documented like no one else before as it happened roughly at the advent of the digital revolution.





murygoat

 

[BGod]

Who are we talking about, the casual tennis fan? In my experience most casual fans I meet don't even know how many slams Fed won or which ones they are.

In the long run we are all dead, and everyone becomes, at best, a footnote.

For the moderately interested fan Nole will remain the only guy to hold all four slams at a time since Laver. Well, at least until someone breaks that record.

You seem to be talking about people who come out to tennis tournaments because they got free company tickets. I'm speaking about the casual fan that typically knows the Top 5 guys on tour at a given time.

I'm not saying Djokovic is going to be a ghost in 2035, but Wilander status seems likely at this point. Reason I say Wilander as oppose to Lendl is because Lendl hovered across 2 eras and multiple players as oppose to just 2 top guys. Wilander superseded Edberg/Lendl as the clear cut #1 for a good chunk and then proceeded to implode which seems to be what Novak is on course for.

Look at it another way, the only reason Connors/McEnroe/Borg maintained is because Connors technically had his own era and Borg excelled on 2 surfaces away from McEnroe/Connors when they were all winning.

How many people recall John Newcombe?

I know Djokovic's 12 titles are abundant but since all 4 Majors were contended things have changed. 12 titles doesn't mean as much when Sampras won his 14.

And Novak doesn't have the Agassi swagger.

Looking at the next 30 years I fully expect a few more players to garner 12+ titles.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed, Rafa, Pete, Borg and Laver will be remembered forever

Others would be forgotten

 

[GabeT]

You seem to be talking about people who come out to tennis tournaments because they got free company tickets. I'm speaking about the casual fan that typically knows the Top 5 guys on tour at a given time.

I'm not saying Djokovic is going to be a ghost in 2035, but Wilander status seems likely at this point. Reason I say Wilander as oppose to Lendl is because Lendl hovered across 2 eras and multiple players as oppose to just 2 top guys. Wilander superseded Edberg/Lendl as the clear cut #1 for a good chunk and then proceeded to implode which seems to be what Novak is on course for.

Look at it another way, the only reason Connors/McEnroe/Borg maintained is because Connors technically had his own era and Borg excelled on 2 surfaces away from McEnroe/Connors when they were all winning.

How many people recall John Newcombe?

I know Djokovic's 12 titles are abundant but since all 4 Majors were contended things have changed. 12 titles doesn't mean as much when Sampras won his 14.

And Novak doesn't have the Agassi swagger.

Looking at the next 30 years I fully expect a few more players to garner 12+ titles.

The guy who knows the top 5 players at a given time is not, in my experience, a casual fan. That is a pretty hardcore fan.

I have a group of some 20-30 people I play tennis with. Some even play several times a week. A few will go to the USO regularly. In my experience not a single one could answer if I asked him to tell me who the top 5 are.

Also, Nole's career is not over. Too early to judge how he will be viewed.

 

[ojo rojo]

Fed, Rafa, Pete, Borg and Laver will be remembered forever

Others would be forgotten

 

[GabeT]

Fed, Rafa, Pete, Borg and Laver will be remembered forever

Others would be forgotten

Where? Worldwide? In the US everyone who cares about tennis knows about McEnroe. Unless you are a hardcore fan you probably never even heard of Laver.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

No way Djoko will be forgotten. 12 slams , 4 in a row, all 4 slams, 2nd most weeks at 1 , numerous year ends etc. Some people might prefer Fedal style or find Novak boring, but he's been too intertwined at the top for too long to fade into obscurity. And inflicted too much damage on Fedal. If anything, he'll be remembered at least for that by those who aren't fans. Lendl is a lazy comparison.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Forever. Immortal legacy.

 

[tennisaddict]

Where? Worldwide? In the US everyone who cares about tennis knows about McEnroe. Unless you are a hardcore fan you probably never even heard of Laver.

The future will see 1000x carbon copies of Djokovic - Murray style players with identical success

Nothing to set them apart and also overshadowed by players of his own era

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

The present players will be praised more than the ones from the past. The older and more knowledgeable fans will be talking about context and all sorts of details when discussing former players' success. Just like there are people who are doing that for Borg, Laver and other greats of their time, that's what we'll be doing for the Big 3 in a couple of decades or so. I imagine the Former Pros section will be very crowded then.

As for Djokovic, he is in the highest league of players. When you are competing against two of the greatest players for majority of your career and still managing to have a great one, you won't be forgotten. The fact that some people are desperately trying to make his achievements look less impressive and baiting his supporters on a regular basis just further proves that he won't be forgotten.

 

[BGod]

The guy who knows the top 5 players at a given time is not, in my experience, a casual fan. That is a pretty hardcore fan.

I have a group of some 20-30 people I play tennis with. Some even play several times a week. A few will go to the USO regularly. In my experience not a single one could answer if I asked him to tell me who the top 5 are.

Also, Nole's career is not over. Too early to judge how he will be viewed.

That's just odd. I don't know what you want me to say to that except it's odd. Most people at my club will immediately say Roger, Nadal, Wawrinka, Murray, Novak. When Roger was out most would say it's Nishikori or Raonic that rounds out and a few years back most knew Ferrer was the also-ran. Most will also roughly know who the Slam champs are. Not counting when it's all 1 guy.

No way Djoko will be forgotten. 12 slams , 4 in a row, all 4 slams, 2nd most weeks at 1 , numerous year ends etc. Some people might prefer Fedal style or find Novak boring, but he's been too intertwined at the top for too long to fade into obscurity. And inflicted too much damage on Fedal. If anything, he'll be remembered at least for that by those who aren't fans. Lendl is a lazy comparison.

Lendl is the most apt comparison there is. A very consistent player, lots of weeks at #1 and good amount of titles. Just not the first few guys you think when someone cries out about legends.

Again, post this generation you're going to have more guys winning 12+ Slams. It's just natural mathematics at this point (player is contender on all surfaces for 8-10 seasons). Then it becomes era adjustment.

Right now you got:

Federer & Nadal
Sampras & Agassi
Edberg & Becker
McEnroe & Borg
Jimmy Connors
Rod Laver


I mean, not to be coy that's realistic. Hell a lot of people probably can't recall Edberg/Becker that much now.

 

[kabob]

Why are we even speculating? One day when Trump gets the midnight munchies and goes looking for a cheeseburger, he's going to accidentally press the big red button instead of a light switch and then oops! there goes civilization

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Of course Federer - this is easy. As much as his successes/wins, its his style that gets him the casual person's nod. All those YouTube videos, highlights, that ridiculous graceful power and footwork - it's difficult imagining any other player behind quite as stylish. It's not too much of a stretch imagining 20, 30, 40 years from now people saying "this was the most amazing tennis player" - he just looks the part.

In a different way Federer is like Borg. I think his legend only grows over time, legends usually do.

 

[BGod]

As for Djokovic, he is in the highest league of players. When you are competing against two of the greatest players for majority of your career and still managing to have a great one, you won't be forgotten. The fact that some people are desperately trying to make his achievements look less impressive and baiting his supporters on a regular basis just further proves that he won't be forgotten.

I'll remember Djokovic and so will most avid tennis fans today. But 20-30 years from now I fail to see how he's separated himself enough from Federer-Nadal shadow.

The fact the guy won 3 Wimbledons is likely to be a trivia question. He made a ton of USO Finals but only won 2, very Lendl-like.

His #1 Slam is Australia, which because of time-zone will always be the 3rd or 4th biggest Slam and Federer winning 5 there and being GOAT is going to overtake his 6 titles in the course of history.

 

[GabeT]

The future will see 1000x carbon copies of Djokovic - Murray style players with identical success

Nothing to set them apart and also overshadowed by players of his own era

Pretty sure that the UK, that didn't have a player win Wimbledon in decades, won't, all of a sudden, start producing multi slam winners. But who knows? Maybe there will be 1000s of players winning 12 slams and holding all four slams at the same time. Fun!

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I'll remember Djokovic and so will most avid tennis fans today. But 20-30 years from now I fail to see how he's separated himself enough from Federer-Nadal shadow.

The fact the guy won 3 Wimbledons is likely to be a trivia question. He made a ton of USO Finals but only won 2, very Lendl-like.

His #1 Slam is Australia, which because of time-zone will always be the 3rd or 4th biggest Slam and Federer winning 5 there and being GOAT is going to overtake his 6 titles in the course of history.

He was in their shadow until 2-3 years ago when a lot of people thought he had one fluke dominant year and was only made to play in Australia. He massively improved in both categories. Loads of Slams, all of them, including a rare 4 in a row which his two rivals don't have, long reign at #1... That's not being in somebody's shadow anymore. Sure I'd say he isn't as great as them but there is a huge difference between being right next to your rival and being well behind.

The fact he won three Wimbledon titles is amazing. If there is any Major that separates itself from the rest today, it's Wimbledon, and being in the top 5-6 greatest players of that tournament is huge for the player's legacy. While there are similarities between the two at the US Open as you said, Lendl has nothing to show when it comes to Wimbledon.

Djokovic is the #1 in Australia as long as someone doesn't equal or better his tally. Federer being the greatest player in general won't make his inferior results at certain tournaments look more impressive than the other player's who simply achieved more there. Being greatest of all time doesn't mean also being greatest at every tournament where you are actually not the greatest.

 

[BGod]

He was in their shadow until 2-3 years ago when a lot of people thought he had one fluke dominant year and was only made to play in Australia. He massively improved in both categories. Loads of Slams, all of them, including a rare 4 in a row which his two rivals don't have, long reign at #1... That's not being in somebody's shadow anymore. Sure I'd say he isn't as great as them but there is a huge difference between being right next to your rival and being well behind.

The fact he won three Wimbledon titles is amazing. If there is any Major that separates itself from the rest today, it's Wimbledon, and being in the top 5-6 greatest players of that tournament is huge for the player's legacy. While there are similarities between the two at the US Open as you said, Lendl has nothing to show when it comes to Wimbledon.

Djokovic is the #1 in Australia as long as someone doesn't equal or better his tally. Federer being the greatest player in general won't make his inferior results at certain tournaments look more impressive than the other player's who simply achieved more there. Being greatest of all time doesn't mean also being greatest at every tournament where you are actually not the greatest.

For Fed at AO, I meant if you ask 100 people 30 years from now who's won the most Aussie Open titles, majority will probably answer Federer. This happens a lot with GOAT like if you asked in football who won the most Super Bowls most wouldn't know it's Charles Haley. Now of course it's Brady but I'm trying to make cross-sport comparisons. Take the MVP in Basketball, Kareem won 6 over Jordan's 5 but most people won't know that answer.

On Wimbledon, it's Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker. Nadal in the 2008 match is likely going to lead a lot of people to think he won more titles than Novak. McEnroe made 5 straight finals and won 3, he's still going pretty strong but again likely due to his rivalry with Borg.

Look I could be wrong but assuming Djokovic doesn't come back into the fold he's going to be a trivia question 30 years down the road like Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Courier, but Courier is on television to help his case.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

For Fed at AO, I meant if you ask 100 people 30 years from now who's won the most Aussie Open titles, majority will probably answer Federer. This happens a lot with GOAT like if you asked in football who won the most Super Bowls most wouldn't know it's Charles Haley. Now of course it's Brady but I'm trying to make cross-sport comparisons. Take the MVP in Basketball, Kareem won 6 over Jordan's 5 but most people won't know that answer.

On Wimbledon, it's Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker. Nadal in the 2008 match is likely going to lead a lot of people to think he won more titles than Novak. McEnroe made 5 straight finals and won 3, he's still going pretty strong but again likely due to his rivalry with Borg.

Look I could be wrong but assuming Djokovic doesn't come back into the fold he's going to be a trivia question 30 years down the road like Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Courier, but Courier is on television to help his case.

Thanks for clearing that up, I misunderstood you at first. Anyway I think Djokovic has done enough to not be a trivia question. It's been tougher for him than Lendl and others you mention because he competed against the two most successful players but nevertheless he did very well. Well enough IMO. We'll see.

 

[NEW_BORN]

20 years from now, Federer will be most remembered. Second Nadal. And third Djokovic (even if Djokovic passes Nadal which he is likely to do).

Actually, 20 years from now, Federer will still be staying, Nadal will have retired and Djokovic will have joined a cult in the Himalayas.

 

[mental midget]

Of course Federer - this is easy. As much as his successes/wins, its his style that gets him the casual person's nod. All those YouTube videos, highlights, that ridiculous graceful power and footwork - it's difficult imagining any other player behind quite as stylish. It's not too much of a stretch imagining 20, 30, 40 years from now people saying "this was the most amazing tennis player" - he just looks the part.

In a different way Federer is like Borg. I think his legend only grows over time, legends usually do.

that's the thing. fed's incredible fan base is built on the most solid foundation there is--he's the guy you want to look like when you play tennis. not everyone, but...the most people. immortality is tough to come by but greatest trophy case + greatest highlight reel is about the closest you can get to a guarantee.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

that's the thing. fed's incredible fan base is built on the most solid foundation there is--he's the guy you want to look like when you play tennis. not everyone, but...the most people. immortality is tough to come by but greatest trophy case + greatest highlight reel is about the closest you can get to a guarantee.

Federer is more graceful like a ballerina.

Id rather look like Novak, he looks more athletic to me in a pure sense

 

[Mazz Retic]

murygoat

good Predict

 

[ojo rojo]

Federer is more graceful like a ballerina

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Federer is more graceful like a ballerina.

Id rather look like Novak, he looks more athletic to me in a pure sense

Excepting of course that as a tennis player you know under the hood of Fed's graceful Ferrari lies the kind of machinery and power that is equally intimidating.

There's a reason no other player on tour can successfully weild anything close to a heavy extremely headlight racket. He won most of his championships with a frame that was almost a handicap in the modern era.

But even Novak looks lithe and scrawny compared to other conventional atheletes - tennis is as much technical/mental as it is physical.

 

[Chanwan]

No way Djoko will be forgotten. 12 slams , 4 in a row, all 4 slams, 2nd most weeks at 1 , numerous year ends etc. Some people might prefer Fedal style or find Novak boring, but he's been too intertwined at the top for too long to fade into obscurity. And inflicted too much damage on Fedal. If anything, he'll be remembered at least for that by those who aren't fans. Lendl is a lazy comparison.

What's Wilander then?
Agree there's no way he's forgotten. Especially if he, as I suspect, bounces back and wins a couple of more slams.

Not sure where you get your 2nd most weeks at no. 1 from just yet though? Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Fed all have significantly more.

 

[Chanwan]

That's just odd. I don't know what you want me to say to that except it's odd. Most people at my club will immediately say Roger, Nadal, Wawrinka, Murray, Novak. When Roger was out most would say it's Nishikori or Raonic that rounds out and a few years back most knew Ferrer was the also-ran. Most will also roughly know who the Slam champs are. Not counting when it's all 1 guy.



Lendl is the most apt comparison there is. A very consistent player, lots of weeks at #1 and good amount of titles. Just not the first few guys you think when someone cries out about legends.

Again, post this generation you're going to have more guys winning 12+ Slams. It's just natural mathematics at this point (player is contender on all surfaces for 8-10 seasons). Then it becomes era adjustment.

Right now you got:

Federer & Nadal
Sampras & Agassi
Edberg & Becker
McEnroe & Borg
Jimmy Connors
Rod Laver


I mean, not to be coy that's realistic. Hell a lot of people probably can't recall Edberg/Becker that much now.

I read about or watch tennis more or less every single day year round. There are points in time, where I don't necessarily know the exact order of the top-5. Especially since top-3 to top-5 have started to change on a semi regular basis.
I always know who won the last 4 slams though and I can name you close to 100 % of the slam winners and finalists from the last 20 odd years of the top of my head.

Also, not remembering Lendl, but remembering Edbecg/Becker?
Lendl, albeit his lack of charisma, was the player of the 80's just as Pete was the player of the 90's and Fed was the player of the 00's and Novak's been the player of the 10's.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

What's Wilander then?
Agree there's no way he's forgotten. Especially if he, as I suspect, bounces back and wins a couple of more slams.

Not sure where you get your 2nd most weeks at no. 1 from just yet though? Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Fed all have significantly more.

yeah my bad got that stat wrong, he does have more weeks than nadal for example though and a sustained period of dominance right up there with the best.

 

[Chanwan]

yeah my bad got that stat wrong, he does have more weeks than nadal for example though and a sustained period of dominance right up there with the best.

Nadal is the best no. 2 there ever was