Modern ATG Metrics?

BGod

Legend
Are they even more Slam heavy or does the structure of the tour raise the Masters, WTF & #1 in recognition?

I mean the Grand Prix series in the 80s-90s was nowhere near the consistency. Many top players skipped half of them. And there were a lot of questions with lower tournaments having more Prestige.

You also have the prospect of a 10th Masters on grass. A total 19 weeks of primary season (24-30 is routine in other sports) along with a few for lower tournaments.

Or does the Bo5 format elevate the need for 4+ Slams and of course with Big3 achieving 20+ does 4 Slams even count anymore?

In football, although guys like Marino & Tarleton won 0 titles they had heavy numbers and were from a different era. Now with Brady and other historical precedent you essentially need 2-3 rings along with multiple MVPs. In hockey you need multiple MVPs and Cups but career numbers are harder to match from the past.

So is it going to be something like 20 Masters & 4+ Slams or is it going to be 8+ Slams regardless of Masters?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Are they even more Slam heavy or does the structure of the tour raise the Masters, WTF & #1 in recognition?

I mean the Grand Prix series in the 80s-90s was nowhere near the consistency. Many top players skipped half of them. And there were a lot of questions with lower tournaments having more Prestige.

You also have the prospect of a 10th Masters on grass. A total 19 weeks of primary season (24-30 is routine in other sports) along with a few for lower tournaments.

Or does the Bo5 format elevate the need for 4+ Slams and of course with Big3 achieving 20+ does 4 Slams even count anymore?

In football, although guys like Marino & Tarleton won 0 titles they had heavy numbers and were from a different era. Now with Brady and other historical precedent you essentially need 2-3 rings along with multiple MVPs. In hockey you need multiple MVPs and Cups but career numbers are harder to match from the past.

So is it going to be something like 20 Masters & 4+ Slams or is it going to be 8+ Slams regardless of Masters?
Going forward, some of the top players are not signing on to a full schedule, like Serena Williams in the women's game...the new hard rubber/cement courts are tough on the knees and legs. The top players can afford to pick their spots and rest their bodies in between events.
 

Waves

Rookie
Yeah the longer I’m around, the less I believe in a timeless goat, especially with the changes in every sport. But if one were to be considered, then you cannot be a cheater(Brady), the number of trophies aren’t the be all/end all(Richard, Russell), and you have to pass the eye test(Djokovic overhead). It’s a tough call, and you will never change anyone else’s mind!
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Yeah the longer I’m around, the less I believe in a timeless goat, especially with the changes in every sport. But if one were to be considered, then you cannot be a cheater(Brady), the number of trophies aren’t the be all/end all(Richard, Russell), and you have to pass the eye test(Djokovic overhead). It’s a tough call, and you will never change anyone else’s mind!
That Djokovic's biggest weakness is his overhead hardly disqualifies him. If it were weak to the point of exploiting it, you would have a case, but try to win a match just by hitting overheads to him. You would get destroyed.

To the larger point, it will never be the case that you will have a GOAT that everyone agrees on. I think what should be agreed upon though is that the level of competition has increased drastically from the pre-Open Era to the Open Era when tennis became an internationally popular sport and not a small insular one played by some great players but among a small field. So insofar that there is a GOAT, that person should come from the Open Era. Then that leaves those that most dominated their eras and I'd say that would leave the contenders to Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
That Djokovic's biggest weakness is his overhead hardly disqualifies him. If it were weak to the point of exploiting it, you would have a case, but try to win a match just by hitting overheads to him. You would get destroyed.

To the larger point, it will never be the case that you will have a GOAT that everyone agrees on. I think what should be agreed upon though is that the level of competition has increased drastically from the pre-Open Era to the Open Era when tennis became an internationally popular sport and not a small insular one played by some great players but among a small field. So insofar that there is a GOAT, that person should come from the Open Era. Then that leaves those that most dominated their eras and I'd say that would leave the contenders to Laver, Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Connors never dominated his era the way that Laver or others have. Sampras was great on grass. I don't think that any player was ever completely dominant.
There may be more depth in the game today than fifty or sixty years ago, but I doubt that there is greater depth in the Top Ten today compared to the 1939-1980 decades, where you usually had two or more all-time greats in top form against each other.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Connors never dominated his era the way that Laver or others have. Sampras was great on grass. I don't think that any player was ever completely dominant.
Over an era, no player is completely dominant depending on how you define "era" and "completely". Connors was pretty dominant with his 268 weeks at #1. From 1974-1978, of the 12 majors he played, he won or reached the final in 11 of them. Had he regularly played the Australian and French Opens in his prime, his numbers would have increased significantly.

There may be more depth in the game today than fifty or sixty years ago, but I doubt that there is greater depth in the Top Ten today compared to the 1939-1980 decades, where you usually had two or more all-time greats in top form against each other.
Until very recently, we had 3 ATGs, some would argue the 3 greatest of the ATGs, playing against one another. Insofar as the top 10 "today" is weaker than usual, it's mostly due to injury, not because there is a lack of very good players. In 2017, half of the top players from 2016 either played injured or had to take off a large part of the season due to injury. Some of those top 2016 players like Murray and Wawrinka never recovered their form. As for literally today, Federer is both injured and near retirement while Nadal and Thiem are both injured. That makes these outlier periods. The top 10 depth in 2018-2020 looks about average.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Connors never dominated his era the way that Laver or others have. Sampras was great on grass. I don't think that any player was ever completely dominant.
There may be more depth in the game today than fifty or sixty years ago, but I doubt that there is greater depth in the Top Ten today compared to the 1939-1980 decades, where you usually had two or more all-time greats in top form against each other.
I get where you're going, but how could you have greater depth in a Top 10 -- it's always 10. Do you mean greater parity within the Top 10? Greater diversity?
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Over an era, no player is completely dominant depending on how you define "era" and "completely". Connors was pretty dominant with his 268 weeks at #1. From 1974-1978, of the 12 majors he played, he won or reached the final in 11 of them. Had he regularly played the Australian and French Opens in his prime, his numbers would have increased significantly.



Until very recently, we had 3 ATGs, some would argue the 3 greatest of the ATGs, playing against one another. Insofar as the top 10 "today" is weaker than usual, it's mostly due to injury, not because there is a lack of very good players. In 2017, half of the top players from 2016 either played injured or had to take off a large part of the season due to injury. Some of those top 2016 players like Murray and Wawrinka never recovered their form. As for literally today, Federer is both injured and near retirement while Nadal and Thiem are both injured. That makes these outlier periods. The top 10 depth in 2018-2020 looks about average.
The injuries are part of our era, the hard rubber/cement surfaces which damages knees and legs. That is a part of who we are today, and it hurts the field at the top. In the past golden ages of tennis, the top six to ten players were largely healthy and competitive.
 
Last edited:

Verbal_Kint

Rookie
The injuries are part of our era, the hard rubber/concrete surfaces which damages knees and legs. That is a part of who we are today, and it hurts the field at the top. In the past golden ages of tennis, the top six to ten players were largely healthy and competitive.
Krajicek, Phillipousis, Safin, Kuerten, Stich, Haas. All 90s, all great, all injured all the time.
 
Top