Open Era ATGs' Win %s Against Fellow Slam Champions and Career H2Hs vs. the Top 10

[NonP]

@Razer did something similar the other day, but my last post got moi digging more deeply into how the (post-Aussies) OE ATGs did against every Slam champion. And my focus is narrower as I say it should be, looking at only those years when they were legit Slam contenders.

Of course that last Q is a never-ending subject of debate, so let's cut out the BS and agree on this strict definition: the ATG was a serious Slam prospect in the years he actually won and every year in between. So Pistol's collective H2H vs. fellow Slammers from '90 to '02 includes all his matches vs. Lendl, Gomez, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Stich, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Safin, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, T. Johansson (more on him below) and A. Costa. Pretty simple, no?

Except things get trickier as you go further back cuz the AO and even RG in some years didn't host a full field of contenders, so I'm gonna take some liberties here and substitute these "majors" (not necessarily full equivalents, FYI) for Borg's '74-81 stretch: the ATP YEC/WCT Finals and Philadelphia in '74-78 save the '77-78 WCT editions (scroll down). So Borg's own overall Slam H2H covers his career battles with Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Vilas, Riessen, Ashe, Orantes, Nastase, Panatta, Stockton, McEnroe and Lendl... except the inclusion of Riessen ad Stockton may understandably raise some eyebrows.

That means we need to add another criterion: the opponent must have reached at least 1 F and 2 more SFs/4 extra QFs at another official de facto major, as the standard 128-player draw makes fluke Ws that much more unlikely. So Riessen and Stockton are excluded from Borg's collective H2H vs. Slam champs, so are ToJo and Gaudio from Pistol's and Fraud's respectively. But Noah and (just barely) Costa get in thanks to their 1 other SF and 8/3 extra QFs.

Speaking of who, I actually think my original Big 3 overview was good enough but since, again, I'd like to keep the same criteria for everyone I've removed Fraud's matches vs. Thiem/DMed/Alcaraz (and Gaudio) and Bull/Djoker's vs. Dre/JCF/A-Rod/Gaston plus Marat for Novak. I know some of you Feddies will come back and say Djoker's matches vs. Roddick should definitely count, but I wanna keep this this streamlined so that's why I excluded them. If you'd like to redo it with criteria of your own, feel free.

Now without further ado, here are the GOATs' records vs. fellow Slammers (again with said exceptions) with yearly ranges in parentheses and vs. the top 10 in all career matches:

Borg (1974-81) - 64.4% (94-52), 71.1% (113-46)
Sampras (1990-2002) - 65.2% (146-78), 63.6% (124-71)
Federer (2003-18) - 64.6% (153-84), 64.6% (224-123)
Nadal (2005-22) - 63.5% (125-72), 64.6% (186-102)
Djokovic (2008-23) - 64.3% (157-87), 69.5% (251-110)

Borg's 71.1% vs. the top 10 is admittedly is skewed by his premature retirement, but then his 64.4% came mostly against fellow legends so the two even themselves out. The bottom line is that Ice-Borg was GOATy AF.

Let's move on to Jimmy/John/Ivan/Andre's numbers, with the above caveats for Jimbo (so his Slamming opponents include Wilander and Noah on top of Borg's) and counting AO champs starting in '83 (and, though they don't affect the H2Hs themselves, also YEC winners till '89 as the ATP Tour as we know it today began in '90):

Connors (1974-83) - 53.7% (110-95), 53.8% (127-109)
McEnroe (1978-84) - 52.5% (53-48), 57.7% (128-94)
Lendl - (1981-90) - 59.8% (125-84), 64.3% (166-92)
Agassi (1992-2003) - 57.8% (111-81), 54.8% (109-90)

As expected Mac's and Ivan's %s are kept down by the mighty fierce competition of that Golden Era of Tennis (and, in Mac's case, relatively brief reign at or near the top), though Lendl's record vs. Slammers is still pretty damn impressive. So is Dre's, BTW, though his % is somewhat inflated by the exclusion of older top dogs like Lendl and Gomez. OTOH Jimbo was apparently steady throughout his long career, LOL.

On to Mats/Stefan/Boris' own %s:

Wilander (1982-88) - 47.3% (43-48), 48.1% (62-67)
Edberg (1985-92) - 45.8% (76-90), 46.2% (98-114)
Becker (1985-96) - 58.8% (90-63), 65.1% (121-65)

It's eerie how similar these ATGs' win %s vs. Slammers and vs. the top 10 are to each other, or indeed how revealing the former %s are. Of course there are a few notable exceptions, which along with the overall picture tell us:

• Big 3 groupies that never fail to remind us how much better their pin-up heroes are than the GOATs of yore are deluding themselves. Sampras, Borg and the likes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales were every bit as dominant, just in different ways.
• Or take Lendl. If you count earlier '80s YECs on roughly equal footing as Wimby/USO/RG his Slam (equivalent) total is actually in double digits. So you could say his 59.8% against fellow Slammers, which stands almost halfway between Borg/Sampras/Big 3's mid-60s and Jimbo/Mac's low(er) 50s, sounds just about right.
• With the only exception of Dre (see above) my boy Pistol is literally the only ATG whose win % against Slam champs is higher than his average vs. the top 10. That's only the latest evidence of his big-match boss-ness. The clutchest MFer ever with the mightiest serve-forehand combo, aka the BOAT.
• OTOH my other boy Boris really, really underachieved. Should've joined the Jimbo/Mac/Ivan/Dre Slam Club at least (again with the above caveat about Lendl).

That's it for you glory-chasing mugs. Should be a good supplement to @Razer's thread on more recent ATGs and their H2Hs. Just keep in mind that the above de facto Slams are NOT all weighted equally. This is more a look at how these ATGs fared against fellow studs than a full accounting of their total Slam titles.

Now for the grown-ups who wish to learn more about tennis history:

The early WCT Fs (and Philly) merit consideration because except in '77 the ATP YEC was missing either Connors or Borg until '79. Here's the ATP ranking (in parentheses) of every WCT Fs participant in 1974-81, sorted by seeding (#3-8 for the '80/81 editions are ordered by their ATP rankings):

-1974-
1. Laver (6)
2. Borg (11)
3. Năstase (1)
4. Newcombe (2)
5. Okker (3)
6. Kodeš (8)
7. Ashe (5)
8. Smith (7)

-1975-
1. Ashe (8)
2. Solomon (15)
3. Borg (5)
4. Tanner (14)
5. Alexander (13)
6. Ramirez (16)
7. Laver (6)
8. Cox, Mark (25)

-1976-
1. Ashe (3)
2. Vilas (4)
3. Borg (2)
4. Ramirez (7)
5. Stockton (27)
6. Dibbs (11)
7. Solomon (13)
8. Lutz (18)

-1977-
1. Connors (1)
2. Stockton (12)
3. Năstase (4)
4. Fibak (14)
5. Gerulaitis (13)
6. Dibbs (8)
7. Panatta (11)
8. Drysdale (24)

-1978-
1. Borg (2)
2. Gottfried (5)
3. Gerulaitis (4)
4. Năstase (13)
5. Dibbs (6)
6. Ramirez (8)
7. Barazzutti (9)
8. Stockton (15)

-1979-
1. Connors (2)
2. Borg (1)
3. McEnroe (3)
4. Gottfried (10)
5. Gerulaitis (5)
6. Alexander (15)
7. Mayer, Gene (25)
8. Masters (48)

-1980-
1. McEnroe (2)
2. Connors (3)
3. Lendl (13)
4. Sadri (21)
5. Scanlon (25)
6. Gunthardt (32)
7. Kriek (33)
8. Amritraj (34)

-1981-
1. McEnroe (2)
2. Tanner (8)
3. Fibak (12)
4. Gottfried (14)
5. Kriek (16)
6. Amritraj (27)
7. Giammalva Jr. (30)
8. Mayer, Sandy (35)

You can see the tournament gradually taking a back seat to its ATP counterpart. So the good ol' @SgtJohn's exclusion of the '77-78 WCT Fs from his weighted Slam tallies seems about right to moi (I'd probably omit '76 myself but that's not relevant here as Borg himself won it), especially considering the tourney's limited 8-man draw (unlike Philly) and its knockout format (unlike the ATP YEC).

 

[Razer]

Boris's performance should be in a higher tier than Edberg/Wilander, it is sad that he is classed with them always due to his slam count.
Federer's % jumped to the absolute top league when included 1-2 slam winners as expected.

 

[NonP]

Sh*t, I totally forgot to remove Dre's own matches (6-1) vs. ToJo. So his overall win % against fellow Slammers now stands at 57.8% (111-81). Wondered how the hell it was so damn high and it's still higher than I'd expected, but that correction helps bring it down to earth, so to speak.

One more thing:

Boris's performance should be in a higher tier than Edberg/Wilander, it is sad that he is classed with them always due to his slam count.
Federer's % jumped to the absolute top league when included 1-2 slam winners as expected.

Given his fab DC (probably the best of the entire OE) and YEC/GSC records you could say Boris' real ATG status is belied by his Slam count. Looks like you were onto something when you (admittedly provocatively) insisted he and Dre are in the same class!

 

[Razer]

Sh*t, I totally forgot to remove Dre's own matches (6-1) vs. ToJo. So his overall win % against fellow Slammers now stands at 57.8% (111-81). Wondered how the hell it was so damn high and it's still higher than I'd expected, but that correction helps bring it down to earth, so to speak.

One more thing:


Given his fab DC (probably the best of the entire OE) and YEC/GSC records you could say Boris' real ATG status is belied by his Slam count. Looks like you were onto something when you (admittedly provocatively) insisted he and Dre are in the same class!

Yes and I have no axe to grind towards Andre in any way, both Pete and Andre's primes were in the 90s and before I started watching Tennis, so I have no emotional grudges on Andre for any reason. I am just not convinced that Andre is in a tier above Boris, they have to be in the same tier of greatness even if we give Andre a nod over Boris for his versatility, versatility is good but then Boris himself has his own plus points. His Davis Cup and YEC surely must be significant, he fought 5-6 hour matches in his life, I am not sure Andre has ever gone past even 4 hours in his life, let alone 5 or 6 hours on a court against a rival in an intense match.

 

[Debraj]

I am not sure, why you don't include results of 2019 season for Federer?i mean he was just 1 point away from a slam,how he wasn't a slam contender?at least,we can safely say he was a lot better in 2019 than 2013/2008.Extremely sorry,if i missed something

 

[heavyD]

Yes and I have no axe to grind towards Andre in any way, both Pete and Andre's primes were in the 90s and before I started watching Tennis, so I have no emotional grudges on Andre for any reason. I am just not convinced that Andre is in a tier above Boris, they have to be in the same tier of greatness even if we give Andre a nod over Boris for his versatility, versatility is good but then Boris himself has his own plus points. His Davis Cup and YEC surely must be significant, he fought 5-6 hour matches in his life, I am not sure Andre has ever gone past even 4 hours in his life, let alone 5 or 6 hours on a court against a rival in an intense match.

Agassi won all the Slams. Becker never won a single clay court tournament in his professional career so to me that knocks him down a notch. Agassi was the better all around player and so was Wilander who won slams on all surfaces (the only player to win Australian open on both grass and hardcourt).

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Given his fab DC (probably the best of the entire OE) and YEC/GSC records you could say Boris' real ATG status is belied by his Slam count. Looks like you were onto something when you (admittedly provocatively) insisted he and Dre are in the same class!

Tennis Abstract's Tennis 128 is really good for this sort of career-focused tiering imo. top 25 are GOATs, top 65 are ATGs (Becker & Agassi at 32 & 38), rest are HOFers.

 

[NonP]

I am not sure, why you don't include results of 2019 season for Federer?i mean he was just 1 point away from a slam,how he wasn't a slam contender?at least,we can safely say he was a lot better in 2019 than 2013/2008.Extremely sorry,if i missed something

The short A is that, again, I wanted to keep the criteria simple. But FYI including '19 for Fed wouldn't have changed a thing cuz we didn't see a new Slam champ since Cilic until Thiem won that disaster of a F at the '20 USO!

Agassi won all the Slams. Becker never won a single clay court tournament in his professional career so to me that knocks him down a notch. Agassi was the better all around player and so was Wilander who won slams on all surfaces (the only player to win Australian open on both grass and hardcourt).

Becker's CC resume is indeed underwhelming for an ATG of his caliber but his lack of a single title on the surface really tends to be overblown. After all my boy made 3 SFs at RG as opposed to Edberg's sole F and no other SF run there. And he lost squeakers of Fs at '89/91/95 MC to the likes of Mancini, Bruguera and Muster respectively, as opposed to all of 1 Masters W by Sampras at '94 Rome (admittedly over Boris himself in the F) or even McEnroe's 2 WCT ToCs on green clay. Is there really such a big gap between those results? Not in my book.

Not to mention he almost single-handedly won the '89 WTC for Germany - Steeb did do his part in RR vs. Krickstein, but then Becker notched all of Germany's other 4 singles wins including dominant straight-setters over top 10ers Mayotte and Hlasek and, of course, the F vs. Perez-Roldan - so you could say he does have one clay title to his credit. Now I know the WTC was a virtual exhibition for much of its existence, but do you really think this Boris couldn't have nabbed at least a smaller W like Mac's '79 South Orange, Stefan's '86 Gstaad or Pistol's '92 Kitzbuhel if he really tried?

Last but not least I've already mentioned Becker's arguably peerless DC record. Well, the guy won all but 1 of his 9 singles rubbers on clay. Here they are, with the full scores and the opponents' then ATP rankings in parentheses:

1985 QF W USA - W Teltscher (12) 6-2, 6-2, 6-3, decisive W Krickstein (23) 6-2, 6-2, 6-1
1986 1R L Mexico - W Lavalle (52) 6-3, 6-2, 6-4, stay-alive W Maciel (85) 6-3, 6-1, 6-1
1987 1R L Spain - W E. Sanchez (15) 6-4, 7-5, 5-7, 3-6, 6-3, decisive L Casal (53) 2-6, 6-0, 2-6, 3-6
1988 F W Sweden - W Edberg (5) 6-3, 6-1, 6-4
1992 1R L Brazil - W Mattar (136) 6-4, 5-7, 1-6, 7-6 (7-2), 6-0
1995 SF L Russia - W Chesnokov (59) 6-7 (4-7), 6-3, 7-6 (7-3), 7-5

That's pretty good, no? And compare his 9-1 to Mac's 5-6, Edberg's 10-7 and Sampras' admittedly pivotal (yes, due to his heroics in the '95 Fs vs. that same Russian squad) but slender 4-0 on the same surface.

So I can't accept that Becker's lack of a single CC title is such a glaring blemish on his resume. The guy could and did play elite tennis on the red stuff. He just didn't go around chasing meaningless pre/post-RG 250/500. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

 

[heavyD]

Maybe for you it does but for me Davis Cup doesn't carry as much weight in regards to a player's singles career.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Great stats thanks. As expected Boris is better than everyone bar the big three, Borg, Sampras and Lendl in terms of % against slam winners and even better versus top ten. Actually surprised that he isn’t even better, as his overall H2H against slam winners was really good already when I last had a little deeper look on it and this was even without restricting it to 85-96 which will bring it further up (was 0-3 against Goran after 96, 0-1 against Rafter, 0-2 against Pete, 0-1 against Agassi, 0-1 Krajicek, 0-1 Kafelnikov)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Given his fab DC (probably the best of the entire OE) and YEC/GSC records you could say Boris' real ATG status is belied by his Slam count. Looks like you were onto something when you (admittedly provocatively) insisted he and Dre are in the same class!

The counter argument to this are his (relatively) low number of weeks at No.1 (12) especially compared to Edberg (72). He definitely underachieved but as things stand it is really close between him and Edberg. Gun to my head I would pick Boris but wouldn’t see him considerably above and in Agassi tier.
His DC record is indeed impressive (38-3), even slightly better than Borg (37-3), I don’t think there is anyone better. For Borg it is important to note thst all three losses came in his first seven matches before he went to this 33 winning streak.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Becker (1985-96) - 58.8% (90-63), 65.1% (121-65)

Maybe I overlooked one of your caveats but Becker between 85 and 96 is:

Lendl 10-11
Sampras 7-10
Agassi 4-9
Ivanisevic 10-6
Edberg 25-9
Gomes 3-1
Vilas 1-0
Cash 3-1
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Korda 5-0
Muster 2-1
Moya 0-1
krajicek 4-3
Kafelnikov 4-1
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

Which amounts to 127-68 or 65%. Did I get something wrong? Or is this meant only against slam champions who won a slam in the respective time period (for Becker 85-96, which excludes Mac, Connors, Hewitt, Korda, Rafter, Goran, Moya, Noah) but I understand you included Newcombe, Laver and Nastase for Borg (Newc and Nastase won YEC/WCT which i understand you take as equivalent to slams in those years, but what about Laver?). Also all of them bar Muster and Gomes reached additional finals and sufficient semis/quarters. What am I missing here?

Edit: ok after reading again I understand it indeed refers only to players who won a slam in the respective period. Newc and Nastase are in for Borg due to their WCT/YEC which serves as equivalent during those years and Laver won Philadelphia 1974 (had missed that one before). Nevertheless Becker’s stats without those caveats are quite impressive.

 

[NonP]

Maybe for you it does but for me Davis Cup doesn't carry as much weight in regards to a player's singles career.

A Wilander fan like yourself should know full well that DC was a major part of top tennis players in Becker's heyday, especially for Europeans like him. You can say it's lost its luster in the last decade or so, even as early as the 2000s, but you can't judge past eras by today's standards.

Besides my post didn't just cover his DC career. The gist of it is that to knock Becker for his lack of a single CC title misses the forest for the trees unless you think Roddick was a better dirtballer (among dozens if not hundreds of others).

The counter argument to this are his (relatively) low number of weeks at No.1 (12) especially compared to Edberg (72). He definitely underachieved but as things stand it is really close between him and Edberg. Gun to my head I would pick Boris but wouldn’t see him considerably above and in Agassi tier.
His DC record is indeed impressive (38-3), even slightly better than Borg (37-3), I don’t think there is anyone better. For Borg it is important to note thst all three losses came in his first seven matches before he went to this 33 winning streak.

Yeah I probably wouldn't go as far as @Razer, but let's face it those weekly rankings are bunk. Boris was the real #1 for much of '89 which would put his "true" # of weeks at the top at least on par with Stefan's. Razer himself made a good point the other day when he said YE rankings reflect Bull's Slam total/overall GOAThood better than his 209 weeks. Yet more reason to be wary of taking the latter over the time-tested YE rankings.

As for Becker vs. Borg in DC, another point for my boy is that Bjorn got to play on his fav surface a TON, in a whopping 85% or 34 out of 40 singles rubbers as opposed to "only" 71% or 29 of 41 on carpet for Boris. Both are indisputable DC legends, of course (no doubt VB would stick up for their own boy but Bull missed too many crucial ties to be up there with those two), but if we must split hairs Boom Boom takes the top prize by a whisker.

Maybe I overlooked one of your caveats but Becker between 85 and 96 is:

Lendl 10-11
Sampras 7-10
Agassi 4-9
Ivanisevic 10-6
Edberg 25-9
Gomes 3-1
Connors 6-0
McEnroe 8-2
Stich 8-4
Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Wilander 7-3
Noah 4-2
Korda 5-0
Muster 2-1
Moya 0-1
krajicek 4-3
Kafelnikov 4-1
Hewitt 1-0
Rafter 2-0
Bruguera 2-2

Which amounts to 123-67 or 64%. Did I get something wrong? Or is this meant only against slam champions who won a slam in the respective time period (for Becker 85-96, which excludes Mac, Connors, Hewitt, Korda, Rafter, Goran, Noah) but I understand you included Laver and Nastase for Borg. Also all of them bar Muster and Gomes reached additional finals and sufficient semis/quarters. What am I missing here?

This is why I wanted to keep it simple, LOL. To be clear the player's opponents must also have won a major in the same time frame, so Goran, Jimbo, Mac, Yannick, Petr, Carlos, Rusty and Pat are out for Boris (BTW you missed the other Pat). I didn't consider whether their matches took place in said time frame proper cuz the main purpose of this exercise is to look at how each ATG fared against fellow Slammers whose prime more or less coincided with his. I know this streamlined approach ain't perfect, but I say it's better than adding one caveat after another and thereby muddying the waters re: peak/prime.

That said... it does feel rather absurd to exclude Ivanisevic who played my boy a whopping 16 times overall, and who indeed played his best tennis before '96 (sans that extra motivation in '01, of course). So I'm thinking about adding another rule: if the opponent made at least one Slam F during the same period, then he's considered a legit contender as well even if he never won the whole shebang once. So Mac and Goran for two would get in while Connors and Noah would stay out. Fair enough, no?

Or... is that still not good enough? After all Jimbo made a truckload of SFs and QFs after '84 so it's very debatable whether he was a less worthy opponent than Mac whose steep decline after '85 is well known. So maybe I should apply earlier caveat about 2 SFs or 4 QFs across the board: if the opponent made those deep runs at the majors during the given period (as opposed to a full-fledged W which can come from any time in his career), he's fair game for this exercise. Then both Jimbo and Yannick would also be included in Boris' collective H2H as the Merikan brat made 6 SFs on top of 3 extra QFs after '84 and Noah made 5 QFs of his own (1 of 'em a SF).

What do you think? I'm actually leaning towards the more inclusive latter approach, but that might make things a bit too confusing/complicated. And it also raises the Q of whether we should expand the ATG's own time frame as well. I'll play around with this before I settle on THE definitive standards.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yeah I probably wouldn't go as far as @Razer, but let's face it those weekly rankings are bunk. Boris was the real #1 for much of '89 which would put his "true" # of weeks at the top at least on par with Stefan's. Razer himself made a good point the other day when he said YE rankings reflect Bull's Slam total/overall GOAThood better than his 209 weeks. Yet more reason to be wary of taking the latter over the time-tested YE rankings

Agree that YE1 is the more valuable stat and that Boris should have got it on 89. Would still trail Edberg who got the YE1 twice. They are pretty close but overall Boris should be rated slightly higher imho. Same as you I wouldn’t go as far as Razer though.

As for Becker vs. Borg in DC, another point for my boy is that Bjorn got to play on his fav surface a TON, in a whopping 85% or 34 out of 40 singles rubbers as opposed to "only" 71% or 29 of 41 on carpet for Boris. Both are indisputable DC legends, of course (no doubt VB would stick up for their own boy but Bull missed too many crucial ties to be up there with those two), but if we must split hairs Boom Boom takes the top prize by a whisker.

Being a fan of both I have no issue giving my countryman the edge here and what you mentioned about him playing less on his favourite surface obviously is a point in his favour. Just the thing which baffles me is that Borg lost all his three matches at age 16, and still before his 17th birthday he started his run and never lost a match again.

This is why I wanted to keep it simple, LOL. To be clear the player's opponents must also have won a major in the same time frame, so Goran, Jimbo, Mac, Yannick, Petr, Carlos, Rusty and Pat are out for Boris (BTW you missed the other Pat)

Yeah I had figured that after reading again and edited my post (also added the H2Hs vs Cash and Vilas even though the latter does not fall into the category).

That said... it does feel rather absurd to exclude Ivanisevic who played my boy a whopping 16 times overall, and who indeed played his best tennis before '96 (sans that extra motivation in '01, of course). So I'm thinking about adding another rule: if the opponent made at least one Slam F during the same period, then he's considered a legit contender as well even if he never won the whole shebang once. So Mac and Goran for two would get in while Connors and Noah would stay out. Fair enough, no?

Or... is that still not good enough? After all Jimbo made a truckload of SFs and QFs after '84 so it's very debatable whether he was a less worthy opponent than Mac whose steep decline after '85 is well known. So maybe I should apply earlier caveat about 2 SFs or 4 QFs across the board: if the opponent made those deep runs at the majors during the given period (as opposed to a full-fledged W which can come from any time in his career), he's fair game for this exercise. Then both Jimbo and Yannick would also be included in Boris' collective H2H as the Merikan brat made 6 SFs on top of 3 extra QFs after '84 and Noah made 5 QFs of his own (1 of 'em a SF).

One final would put Korda in besides Mac and Goran (as another bonus he also won the GSC in 93 beating Pete and Stich in succession). Also agree with the 2 SF or 4 QF rule to get in Connors and Noah. Rusty, Vilas, Rafter and Moya are still out which makes sense as nobody would see them as Becker’s rivals and they only played him very few times. So I would agree that this latter approach might be the best.

 

[Gizo]

In terms of the Davis Cup, to me it was clearly a huge deal during the 70s and 80s. For a while, Davis Cup finals felt just as big and as important as grand slam finals. I’d certainly rank it ahead of the Australian Open pre-1988, including during when 1983-1987 when the latter was recovering but still not on a par with the other 3 majors yet.

Becker’s 31-2 record in live singles rubbers (I tend to discount dead rubbers), with a perfect 20-0 record at home, and a 5-0 record vs. Edberg and Wilander in finals (destroying them both in 1989 with a 5 set doubles win sandwiched in-between) was insane. He really played with a big swagger in that competition, especially at home. When he is compared vs. Edberg and Wilander, of course all 3 players have things in their favour vs. the other 2, but a major factor in Becker’s favour, is that he ranks as arguably the greatest ever player during the professional era, in a competition that was a huge deal during their respective careers and primes.

Borg probably had the weakest supporting cast out of any the legendary players during the professional era (though Becker in 1985 didn’t have a particularly strong supporting cast either) - Sweden’s insane depth in later years was largely thanks to his success, appeal and inspiration. The Davis Cup schedule was brutal during his time. During their title run in 1975, Sweden played 6 ties, with Borg winning all 12 of his singles matches and 3 doubles matches including in the semi-final and final. In 1978 and 1980, he played in Davis Cup matches in-between his title runs at RG and Wimbledon. He is clearly a far greater Davis Cup player than many players who won it more often.