Sabalenka missed making history by blowing USO last year to Gauff

[Pheasant]

Had Sabalenka kept her nerves enough to win that 2023 USO final, then she would have bagged both hard court slam titles in back-to-back calendar years. I had to check to see how often this has been done. Unless I'm missing somebody, I believe that the hard court slam double in back-to-back years has only been done 3 times since 1988 in the WTA:

Steffi: 1988-89. She also won the 1990 AO, but lost the USO final to Sabatina
Seles: 1991-92: She also won the 1993 AO, but missed the 1993 USO.

Steffi came within one match of pulling off the triple-double.

Sabalenka has become a hard court ATG player. Let's see how far up the list that she can climb.

 

[Mark-Touch]

Sabalenka has become a hard court ATG player. Let's see how far up the list that she can climb.

You are mixing up issues here.
Setting records is one thing.
Being an ATG is another.

A player can set a record and NOT be an ATG.
When Sabalenka wins 18 singles slams get back to me about being an ATG.

 

[Sport]

You are mixing up issues here.
Setting records is one thing.
Being an ATG is another.

A player can set a record and NOT be an ATG.
When Sabalenka wins 18 singles slams get back to me about being an ATG.

Since when is winning 18 Slams the cut-off to be an ATG, Mark? Most here settle it in 6-7.

 

[JMR]

When Sabalenka wins 18 singles slams get back to me about being an ATG.

Is this now the standard for being an all-time great? 18 slams? So BJK, Seles, Venus, Henin, Goolagong -- they're out? Maureen Connolly, the first woman to win the CYGS, and the winner of every slam final she ever played (and pretty close to being the winner of every slam she ever played in), including six titles in a row, before she got hit by a truck -- she's not an all-time great?

Also, does this figure apply to men too?

 

[Pheasant]

You are mixing up issues here.
Setting records is one thing.
Being an ATG is another.

A player can set a record and NOT be an ATG.
When Sabalenka wins 18 singles slams get back to me about being an ATG.

I think 3-4 hard courts slam titles makes a player a hard court ATG player.

6-7 slam titles across all surfaces would make someone an ATG player, IMHO.

 

[Mark-Touch]

Since when is winning 18 Slams the cut-off to be an ATG, Mark? Most here settle it in 6-7.

The way I see it is that we have greats and ATG's.
An ATG great for women would be Court, Serena, Graf, Wills, Evert, Navritalova (18+)
A great would be King, Connolly, Seles, Lenglen, Henin, Venus etc.

Just as we would count Djoker, Nadal and Federer as ATG's. (20+).
And players like Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, Lendl etc. as greats.

 

[Mark-Touch]

Is this now the standard for being an all-time great? 18 slams? So BJK, Seles, Venus, Henin, Goolagong -- they're out? Maureen Connolly, the first woman to win the CYGS, and the winner of every slam final she ever played (and pretty close to being the winner of every slam she ever played in), including six titles in a row, before she got hit by a truck -- she's not an all-time great?

Also, does this figure apply to men too?

Please see my post #6.

 

[Mark-Touch]

I think 3-4 hard courts slam titles makes a player a hard court ATG player.

6-7 slam titles across all surfaces would make someone an ATG player, IMHO.

Well how would you distinguish
Djoker, Nadal and Fed from the rest?

ATG (all-time great) to me is the top, the ultimate category.
It can't be watered down.

Sure you could use many other words to describe those below ATG's:
elite
great
super
whatever...

Or in other words the cream of the crop (the cream of the greats) have a category
reserved all to themselves: ATG.

 

[JMR]

Please see my post #6.

Thank you. However, I don't think that the distinction between "great" and "all-time great" is viable. The reason is that the idea of transcending time is already built into the concept of greatness. We are making a judgment today, which we consider valid, about players of the past. Take Sampras, for example. When we call him a "great," we're saying that a player who retired 22 years ago, and who won his first slam 34 years ago, is considered great by the standards applicable in 2024. He wasn't merely great "for his era"; he is still great today. Hence, "all-time great." It's really another way of saying the same thing.

If you want to create tiers among ATGs, that's another matter. Many folks like to do that.

 

[Mark-Touch]

Thank you. However, I don't think that the distinction between "great" and "all-time great" is viable. The reason is that the idea of transcending time is already built into the concept of greatness. We are making a judgment today, which we consider valid, about players of the past. Take Sampras, for example. When we call him a "great," we're saying that a player who retired 22 years ago, and who won his first slam 34 years ago, is considered great by the standards applicable in 2024. He wasn't merely great "for his era"; he is still great today. Hence, "all-time great." It's really another way of saying the same thing.

If you want to create tiers among ATGs, that's another matter. Many folks like to do that.

I hear what you are saying and it is a valid argument.

To me ATG's are not fixed in stone.

Djoker, Nadal and Fed are ATG's today, but in 10 or 20 years they may need to be reassigned to the great category
when a few players emerge with 28 or 30+ slams etc.

Just as I considered Sampras an ATG when he held the slam record (14) but now need to consider him a great.

So for me the term ATG means looking at all of the time that tennis has been played up until now (all-time), who are the absolute
greatest players?

 

[robyrolfo]

I hear what you are saying and it is a valid argument.
To me ATG's are not fixed in stone.
Djoker, Nadal and Fed are ATG's today, but in 10 or 20 years they may need to be reassigned to the great category
when a few players emerge with 28 or 30+ slams etc.
Just as I considered Sampras an ATG when he held the slam record (14) but now need to consider him a great.

If you want to get serious about these ATG numbers, you (meaning everyone) has to recognize that Graf's winning 22 slams by the age of 30 is simply unbelievable. Nobody, not even the big 3, comes close.

 

[Mark-Touch]

If you want to get serious about these ATG numbers, you (meaning everyone) has to recognize that Graf's winning 22 slams by the age of 30 is simply unbelievable. Nobody, not even the big 3, comes close.

Sorry roby I made a mistake, please see my #15 post.

 

[Pheasant]

Well how would you distinguish
Djoker, Nadal and Fed from the rest?

ATG (all-time great) to me is the top, the ultimate category.
It can't be watered down.

Sure you could use many other words to describe those below ATG's:
elite
great
super
whatever...

Or in other words the cream of the crop (the cream of the greats) have a category
reserved all to themselves: ATG.

I get your point there. This is a matter of defining it. ATG to me is top-10 to top-15. I.e, Sabalenka is arguably top-10 to top-15 in the WTA on hard courts. I'd put her there, due to her peak.

Big 3 and Laver(and maybe a few others) are in the GOAT-contending tier. I.e, I don't see any arguments for Edberg being GOAT. But he's easily top-10 to top-15. He's an ATG. An ATG player comes up maybe once every 5 years on average.

 

[JMR]

So for me the term ATG means looking at all of the time that tennis has been played up until now (all-time), who are the absolute
greatest players?

The key phrase in your statement is "for me." I'm not saying that your definitions are indefensible, although for the reason I explained above, I think there's a problem with overlap/redundancy. But anyone is free to make up his or her own terminology. Effective communication, however, requires shared community understanding. If the vast majority of tennis fans use "all-time great" in one way, and you adopt a different, idiosyncratic definition of the term, there will be frequent misunderstandings and confusion. Why would you want that? Why not simply defer to the common meaning of the term, thus helping to promote mutual understanding, and then qualify it as desired with subcategories or the like (e.g., the tiers I mentioned)?

 

[Mark-Touch]

The key phrase in your statement is "for me." I'm not saying that your definitions are indefensible, although for the reason I explained above, I think there's a problem with overlap/redundancy. But anyone is free to make up his or her own terminology. Effective communication, however, requires shared community understanding. If the vast majority of tennis fans use "all-time great" in one way, and you adopt a different, idiosyncratic definition of the term, there will be frequent misunderstandings and confusion. Why would you want that? Why not simply defer to the common meaning of the term, thus helping to promote mutual understanding, and then qualify it as desired with subcategories or the like (e.g., the tiers I mentioned)?

I get your point there. This is a matter of defining it. ATG to me is top-10 to top-15. I.e, Sabalenka is arguably top-10 to top-15 in the WTA on hard courts. I'd put her there, due to her peak.

Big 3 and Laver(and maybe a few others) are in the GOAT-contending tier. I.e, I don't see any arguments for Edberg being GOAT. But he's easily top-10 to top-15. He's an ATG. An ATG player comes up maybe once every 5 years on average.

Sorry, you guys are right.

I had a 'brain fart' there for a moment.

In my mind I was thinking (GOAT) but using ATG instead.
All is good, we are in agreement.

 

[robyrolfo]

I get your point there. This is a matter of defining it. ATG to me is top-10 to top-15. I.e, Sabalenka is arguably top-10 to top-15 in the WTA on hard courts. I'd put her there, due to her peak.

Big 3 and Laver(and maybe a few others) are in the GOAT-contending tier. I.e, I don't see any arguments for Edberg being GOAT. But he's easily top-10 to top-15. He's an ATG. An ATG player comes up maybe once every 5 years on average.

This is well put, and I agree totally.