Which ATG has been the biggest loser in the Big 3 era?

[Tennis_Monk]

Actually, the opinions that tout big 3 supremacy are more credible than the one's that inflate some of the oldies.

Player's can only play in the conditions around them and who's in front of them . Big 3 utilized them better than the oldies.

Rod laver was able to win not once but twice all the grandslams.
For Petros Sampras, best he could manage was a French open semi finals appearance.

 

[Mainad]

Rod laver was able to win not once but twice all the grandslams.
For Petros Sampras, best he could manage was a French open finals appearance.

Sampras never made a French Open final.

 

[dapchai]

Sampras never made a French Open final.

Does that mean Sir Andy is greater than Sampras?

 

[Gogu Pangrati]

Sampras. One of the Big 3 already has as many slams at a single event as Sampras had throughout his entire career. Auchy! 14 slams seemes right now a number Carlitos can just reach by snapping his fingers...

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Agassi fans still not over it.

Laver, Borg, Big 3, and can make a case for Pancho Gonzales who did make it to two French Pro-Slam finals. Sampras was the best player of his generation nobody disputes this, but I don't think it's outrageous to have the aforementioned players above him it's debatable one way or the other.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Laver, Borg, Big 3, and can make a case for Pancho Gonzales who did make it to two French Pro-Slam finals. Sampras was the best player of his generation nobody disputes this, but I don't think it's outrageous to have the aforementioned players above him it's debatable one way or the other.

I absolutely loathe Sampras, but nobody can make a serious argument for ranking Borg above him.

 

[Sudacafan]

Fedr

 

[I Am Finnish]

Fedr

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

I absolutely loathe Sampras, but nobody can make a serious argument for ranking Borg above him.

Borg won 11-27 (40.7%) of his slams while Sampras 14-52 (26.9%). Borg showed up to AO once or twice in his career and would've won more slams than Pete if he had played in more slams and not retired at the age of 25. In addition, he was the reigning FO champion and could've won more titles. Borg displayed greater command of surface disparity by winning the fastest and slowest slams five or more times each. Sampras greatest success was in fast hc, indoor carpet, and grass. At minimum, Borg made 3 HC finals and Sampras not even 1 FO final. Overall, Borg is 90% in GS matches compared to 84% for Sampras. Borg has 82% winning percentage compared to 77% for Sampras.

National Representation is not even close. Borg's Davis Cup record runs circles around Sampras. Borg was 37-3 in Davis Cup and 9-2 versus prior or future GS champs while Sampras was 15-8 and 3-3 against GS champions. I'll give Sampras credit for that great DC run in clay when he won in Moscow, but he also had an early exit in the 1992 Olympics.

Year-end-Finals this goes to Sampras as he won 5 titles (4 Carpet, 1 HC) and also added a couple of Grand Slam Cups. Borg also won two Grand Prix and a WCT Final, so he did have success there as well.

As for h2h against main rivals Borg had winning records against all his main rivals as Connors, Vilas, Orantes, and Nastase. Newcombe (2-3) and McEnroe (7-7) toward the end were the only players that got the advantage in their rivalry. Sampras had a losing record against Krajicek, Hewitt, Stich, Roddick, Bruguera, and Haarhius (to name a few).

If someone thinks Sampras > Borg that is okay, but to say no serious argument for Borg is a bit preposterous.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

None of them is a loser, but in terms of whose legacy was most tarnished by the big three, it is Sampras. Basically all his records are gone (most of them due to Federer alone). Borg has not really lost any records. His three channel slams etc. are still in place, as is his most dominant slam run in 1978 FO.

 

[timnz]

I'd say Lendl. Lendl's claim to fame was being good on the slower surfaces, along with sustained high level. It won him 8 slams and tons of time at #1.

For Laver, he's still got his claim to fame. Borg retired at 25 so there will always be that "what if" factor about him, and most of the others weren't that extremely high ranked to begin with.

Sampras went from #1 to #4 within 20 years, but his performances at the majors are still talked about. Lendl is largely irrelevant at this point. His 1986-1987 years were fantastic, but overshadowed by McEnroe's 1984. His distribution is good, but excels nowhere compared to other ATGs. His #1 records were beat by 3 people. His closest record other than the weeks at #1 is his RG record- 3.
Veste
The Big 3 completely filled up the hole Lendl left in the game, to an extent that no one of greater stature can say (Sampras, Laver, Borg).

I’d argue that Lendl‘s record indoors (in the days that indoor was really fast) was the very best of the entire 1980s. 9 straight WTF finals. Record number of European community championships. 2 WCT finals. mcenroe would be the only one with a comparable record that decade. Lendl had Unbeaten indoors from late 1981 to early 1983 include WCT finals and WTF.

 

[thrust]

Sampras' legacy probably lost the most aura. When he got to 14 everyone including myself thought it would take ages for it to ever be broken and for me, he was the GOAT of the modern era given his totality of titles won and dominance....in the 20 years since, his total of 14 majors has not only been surpassed but it's been absolutely obliberated by three (not one, not two, but THREE) different players

Sadly, the biggest "loser" is Pete. When he retired, he was the slam leader, the YE and weeks at #1 leader. Because of the big three, all his major records have been broken. Thanks to Nadal and Novak, Federer's slam and weeks at number One records, have been broken before he has retired.

 

[DSH]

Murray

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Sadly, the biggest "loser" is Pete. When he retired, he was the slam leader, the YE and weeks at #1 leader. Because of the big three, all his major records have been broken. Thanks to Nadal and Novak, Federer's slam and weeks at number One records, have been broken before he has retired.

Perhaps, but Pete is still firmly a top 5 all-time player, is #1 at the USO and #2 at W, was the best player of his generation by some margin, and had 6 consecutive YE #1. His career still shines quite brightly.

That said, I certainly agree with some of your arguments.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

Zverev

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I absolutely loathe Sampras, but nobody can make a serious argument for ranking Borg above him.

Nonsense. You can make a case for either as the best player.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

 

[martinezownsclay]

Sampras obviously. When he retired many had him as the GOAT, even over Laver. All his records being so easily bypassed by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have him not only seen behind those 3, but by nearly everyone behind Laver now (while when he retired many had him above Laver, but almost nobody does anymore) and Gonzales too now, and quite a few also have him behind some of Tilden, Borg, and 1 or 2 others as well now. He basically went from possibly the consenus GOAT to the bottom half of the top 10.

On a lesser scale that might wind up applying to Federer. He could wind up going from the almost undisputed consensus GOAT to being generally seen as 4th or 5th only all time, with many already now seeing him as only 3rd best player of his era. I know I have said I personally feel he is better than Djokovic and Nadal still, but that is definitely a minority viewpoint already, and will likely become so even more in the future.

In many ways Laver's legacy actually improves over time. Even with all the seemingly untouchable records falling easily nobody can duplicate his Grand Slam, even if he regard his 69 Grand Slam as the only legitimate one, nobody can even duplicate that. All the other records are falling right and left, but that one can't be touched. Djokovic couldn't attain it even in the godawful 2021 field, proving how difficult it is. That he was almost never headed as top dog during his 7 year or so reign while Djokovic, Nadal, Federer have all spent years trading back and forth top honors, also makes him look even better. I see him as a rare person who will almost never be out of the GOAT race entirely.

 

[Aabye5]

Fans of variety

 

[Terenigma]

It's easily Sampras if we're talking Big 3 era because anyone who lived through that generation never expected anyone to do what he did slam wise but quite frankly I think Federer has a case for being the biggest loser with what's happened in the past few years. He's barely mentioned anymore when we talk Nadal/Djokovic despite having almost his entire career being the player everyone knew and setting so many records himself before both Djokovic and Nadal took them away from him.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

How do you DEVALUE slams?

How can any of these guys be losers? (Except Becker, but that's not tennis-related.)

I don't understand this strange thread.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Sampras' legacy probably lost the most aura. When he got to 14 everyone including myself thought it would take ages for it to ever be broken and for me, he was the GOAT of the modern era given his totality of titles won and dominance....in the 20 years since, his total of 14 majors has not only been surpassed but it's been absolutely obliberated by three (not one, not two, but THREE) different players

Lesson learned...

Never overrate a servebot vulturing slams in a fast-court era.

 

[Mustard]

I absolutely loathe Sampras, but nobody can make a serious argument for ranking Borg above him.

You can, easily. Borg had dominant years to the extent that Sampras never did, not even 1994 and 1997. Go and check their records.

And consider this, Borg played 3 majors per year, and won 11 majors by age 25.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

No Fedr in the poll? An disgrace.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Agassi winning the YEC against indoor ATGs like Pete, Becker, and Edberg on lightning fast carpet… then Wimbledon on 90s grass against Grass ATGs like Becker and Goran, Roland Garros, and both HC majors, and doing it all as a baseliner with KEVLAR is an unmatched achievement. Seriously it’s a once in a lifetime thing that he did it in such an unfavorable era for him.

Nadal would have a nervous breakdown when the rally ball doesn’t bounce above his shoulders or magically hit 4000 RPMs from his poly strings lol. He’d be so confused seeing a serve bounce at his knees and players taking 8 seconds between points that he’d probably become a fisherman or something.

Djokovic could try to play like Agassi but would get laughed off the tour for his awful volleying. And LOL at winning Wimbledon 6 times in the 90s when he can’t even beat big servers like Querrey, Kyrgios or Vesely.

those guys are still talented and athletic enough to adapt and win a ton still.. I mean a GOAT is a GOAT in any era… but since even they would have it tough, imagine if Zverev and Tsitsipas tried to play their little game in the 90s. Man I’m cracking up just thinking about it.

Zverev and Tsitsipas's games are product of their time, so you can't assume their style of tennis could time travel. If players of today played during a completely different era, it's safe to suggest that they would have developed a completely different game, suited for these specific conditions. That's the limit of those hypotheticals debates to me. Detereminism plays a huge part there.