Something to make you go hmmm by: Peter Bodo, TENNIS.com
posted: Friday, December 14, 2007
Although tennis is the ultimate me-first sport, the achievements and statistics of individual players sometimes have overarching relevance and might even lead us to modify the way we see the entire sport. That's very much the case as Roger Federer continues to tear up the record books and close on the all-time Grand Slam singles title record.
We are in the midst of a paradigm-shifting moment thanks to Roger. For example, all the talk a few years ago about "power" taking over the game? Baloney. Same goes for the notion, first floated during Boris Becker's heyday, that the sport would ultimately belong to players 6-4 or better -- the guys that John McEnroe said would emerge as "the Michael Jordans" of our sport. Didn't happen. The only thing Federer and His Airness have in common is Nike duds.
Speaking of McEnroe -- when you have a paradigm shift, you inevitably have winners and losers. Haves become have-nots, and vice versa. And to my way of thinking, Federer has done a lot to cast McEnroe, as well as most of his Open-era posse, as have-nots. In this case, that means those guys might not have been as good as we once thought.
To fully appreciate the argument, keep this in mind: Pete Sampras broke Roy Emerson's all-time Grand Slam singles title record (12) in 2000, after that mark had stood for 30 years. Now, Roger Federer is poised to shatter Sampras's mark less than a decade (which is less than one generation, playerwise) after it was established. Sampras has 14 major singles titles, two more than Federer, who could amass close to 20 of those puppies if he stays his present course.
The interesting thing is that this was not supposed to happen in the Open era, when the explosive growth of the game all over the world theoretically leveled the playing field for a legion of great players. Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were the leaders of the first wave of players who competed entirely in the new era. Given the assumptions about the way the game was changing and improving, their ability to win multiple majors won each of them accolades and premature consideration as the potential GOAT (greatest of all time). Connors finished his career with eight majors, Borg won 11. At the time, the numbers seemed staggering. When Stefan Edberg, McEnroe, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander put up comparable numbers, somebody should have said, Hmmmmm …. The game was churning out once-in-a-lifetime players -- at a once-every-two-years clip!
When you look at what Sampras and Federer have achieved, you have to go back and rethink how easily we threw around labels like "genius" and "all-time great." I think all the players mentioned above were great players with exceptional records. Winning five to eight majors is an awesome achievement, and a sure ticket to the Hall of Fame.
But it doesn't necessarily put you in the same league as Rod Laver, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. Don't look now, but the icons of the Connors-McEnroe generation, with the possible exception of Ivan Lendl, have become solid but undeniably second-class citizens in Tennis Nation.
--------------------------------------
I think Tennis.com should find someone else to write articles for them. "Second-class citizens"? Give me a break.
posted: Friday, December 14, 2007
Although tennis is the ultimate me-first sport, the achievements and statistics of individual players sometimes have overarching relevance and might even lead us to modify the way we see the entire sport. That's very much the case as Roger Federer continues to tear up the record books and close on the all-time Grand Slam singles title record.
We are in the midst of a paradigm-shifting moment thanks to Roger. For example, all the talk a few years ago about "power" taking over the game? Baloney. Same goes for the notion, first floated during Boris Becker's heyday, that the sport would ultimately belong to players 6-4 or better -- the guys that John McEnroe said would emerge as "the Michael Jordans" of our sport. Didn't happen. The only thing Federer and His Airness have in common is Nike duds.
Speaking of McEnroe -- when you have a paradigm shift, you inevitably have winners and losers. Haves become have-nots, and vice versa. And to my way of thinking, Federer has done a lot to cast McEnroe, as well as most of his Open-era posse, as have-nots. In this case, that means those guys might not have been as good as we once thought.
To fully appreciate the argument, keep this in mind: Pete Sampras broke Roy Emerson's all-time Grand Slam singles title record (12) in 2000, after that mark had stood for 30 years. Now, Roger Federer is poised to shatter Sampras's mark less than a decade (which is less than one generation, playerwise) after it was established. Sampras has 14 major singles titles, two more than Federer, who could amass close to 20 of those puppies if he stays his present course.
The interesting thing is that this was not supposed to happen in the Open era, when the explosive growth of the game all over the world theoretically leveled the playing field for a legion of great players. Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg were the leaders of the first wave of players who competed entirely in the new era. Given the assumptions about the way the game was changing and improving, their ability to win multiple majors won each of them accolades and premature consideration as the potential GOAT (greatest of all time). Connors finished his career with eight majors, Borg won 11. At the time, the numbers seemed staggering. When Stefan Edberg, McEnroe, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander put up comparable numbers, somebody should have said, Hmmmmm …. The game was churning out once-in-a-lifetime players -- at a once-every-two-years clip!
When you look at what Sampras and Federer have achieved, you have to go back and rethink how easily we threw around labels like "genius" and "all-time great." I think all the players mentioned above were great players with exceptional records. Winning five to eight majors is an awesome achievement, and a sure ticket to the Hall of Fame.
But it doesn't necessarily put you in the same league as Rod Laver, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer. Don't look now, but the icons of the Connors-McEnroe generation, with the possible exception of Ivan Lendl, have become solid but undeniably second-class citizens in Tennis Nation.
--------------------------------------
I think Tennis.com should find someone else to write articles for them. "Second-class citizens"? Give me a break.
