Who's the greatest carpet player ever?

[Pheasant]

We've spoken a ton about the greatest grass court players, hard court players, Wimbledon, USO, the Big 3, etc. But who's your pick for the best carpet player ever?

here's some stats from Ultimate Tennis Statistics that might help.

McEnroe

43 titles(tied for #1 with Connors)
350-64, .845 overall(#1)
34-26, .567 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won: 65(#1 ever)
Consecutive sets won: 49(#1)

Sampras
15 titles
145-45, .763 overall
16-13, .552 vs top 5

Lendl
32 titles
269-55, .830 overall
37-19, .661 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won 51(#2) and 30(tied for #3)
Consecutive sets won: 36(#3)

Borg
23 titles
187-39, .827 overall
25-7, .781 vs top 5

Connors
43 titles
365-77, .826 overall(#4)
22-34, .393 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won: 30(tied for #3)
Consecutive sets won; 44(#2)

Becker
26 titles
258-64, .801 overall
44-18, .710 vs top 5

Who’s your pick? I’m taking McEnroe. Granted, I’m biased. But I think that his numbers might back me up here. He has the most titles(tied with Connors), the best winning pct by a decent margin, as long as the longest winning streak on that surface. I love Pete’s peak, so I included him as well. He was deadly on carpet. Lendl’s 9 straight YE finals(won 5 titles) was incredible, so I think that he has solid on that surface as well.

 

[Pheasant]

Here are some HTH records among each other here:

Borg:
2-1 vs Lendl
4-3 vs McEnroe
5-2 vs Connors
11-6 total

McEnroe
3-4 vs Borg
8-6 vs Lendl
0-1 vs Sampras
1-6 vs Becker
12-17 total

Lendl
7-4 vs Becker
6-8 vs McEnroe
6-4 vs Connors
2-1 vs Sampras
0-1 vs Borg
21-18 total

Connors
2-5 vs Connors
4-6 vs Lendl
3-9 vs McEnroe
0-3 vs Becker
0-1 vs Sampras
9-24 total

Sampras
6-7 vs Becker
1-2 vs Lendl
1-0 vs McEnroe
1-0 vs Connors
9-9 total

Becker
6-1 vs McEnroe
7-6 vs Sampras
2-0 vs Connors
4-7 vs Lendl
19-14 total

 

[buscemi]

Fun to see Kafelnikov in 9th place in the Open Era win percentage on carpet (not that I think he's the 9th best carpet player in the Open Era). Tennis Abstract has him at 166-60 (73.5%) on carpet.

To answer your question, I'm going with McEnroe.

 

[Pheasant]

Wow. Laver wasn’t too shabby.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Wow. Laver wasn’t too shabby.

unrelated to the thread, but i'm surprised his win rate was less on carpet and indoor hard compared to outdoor hard. anybody can answer if they know - does that have to do with how UTS records exhibitions/invitationals, or did Laver in fact take a performance hit indoors? if so, did that have to do with his forehand, his serve becoming relatively less effective compared to the field, or something else?

 

[Pheasant]

unrelated to the thread, but i'm surprised his win rate was less on carpet and indoor hard compared to outdoor hard. anybody can answer if they know - does that have to do with how UTS records exhibitions/invitationals, or did Laver in fact take a performance hit indoors? if so, did that have to do with his forehand, his serve becoming relatively less effective compared to the field, or something else?

I believe that carpet wasn’t popular until Laver was in his 30s, which is why I am surprised that the declined version of Laver still had that good of a record on that surface.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I believe that carpet wasn’t popular until Laver was in his 30s, which is why I am surprised that the declined version of Laver still had that good of a record on that surface.

oh that's a good point that i didn't think about. i haven't read anything about the move away from wood or the origins of carpet, but curious about that context and how Laver and other touring pros adapted. Laver was winning his recorded Open Era matches on grass at the same old age, at a slightly higher rate (absolutely or relative to the field), so i didn't think the stats could be explained by just his slowed reflexes or movement.

 

[I get cramps]

Indoor tennis is relatively new, in regard to lawn and clay court tennis. In Europe, it was played mostly in Skandinavia, with the Kings Cup, a team competition preeminent. In the 20s they played indoors in France at Lyon and Paris, and the Basque Jean Borotra, who was formerly a pelota player, was the best indoor player for a long time. Americans Vines and Budge has also considerable success on the pro tours, which started always at the Madison Square Garden. In the 40s and 50s, Kramer and Gonzales, who won the US pro at Cleveland indoors 8 times, were the best indoor players, while the Australians didn't know indoor tennis as amateurs, and had to adjust to the indoor circuit as pros. Wembley London pro was the foremost indoor tournament of the pros, which was dominated by Rosewall (1957,1960-63) and then since 1964-67,69-70 by Laver. The surface in the old times was often a wooden or linol surface, in the late 60s synthetic or carpet courts became standard. Indoor courts had often bad light, and some of the longest matches in history (Patty-Drobny, battling to a draw at Lyon, or Taylor-Gasiorek in Poland with over 150 games) were played almost in the dark on ultra fast courts, which made returning virtually impossible.
In the modern open era, i also would give Lendl the edge, with Becker, Mac, and Sampras close second. Some of Becker's best matches were indoor matches, at Davis Cup (vs. Edberg, Mac or Agassi), London or Sydney. I remember a great Lendl-Becker match at London in 1985 or 86, which Lendl won in 5, with two topspin lobs deciding the fifth set.

 

[Pheasant]

oh that's a good point that i didn't think about. i haven't read anything about the move away from wood or the origins of carpet, but curious about that context and how Laver and other touring pros adapted. Laver was winning his recorded Open Era matches on grass at the same old age, at a slightly higher rate (absolutely or relative to the field), so i didn't think the stats could be explained by just his slowed reflexes or movement.

Laver finally started playing on carpet frequently in 1968. Here's his record on each surface from 1968-1973(age 30-35 seasons):
Grass: 88-14, .863
carpet: 149-25, .856
Hard: 121-25, .829
clay: 92-31, .748

So as we can see here, he was nearly as good on carpet as he was on grass.

What hurt Laver's winning pct on carpet relative to the other surfaces is the fact that he played on carpet far more often than any other surface during his really old years. From 1976-78(age 38-40 seasons), here's his distribution of matches by surface:
carpet: 24 matches, 11-13, .458
hard: 11 matches, 6-5, .545
grass: 3 matches, 1-2, .333
clay: 3 matches, 0-3, .000

Those 24 matches hurt him a lot; especially compared to grass. He had EIGHT times more matches on carpet than grass, which dragged down his overall stats.

 

[buscemi]

Laver finally started playing on carpet frequently in 1968. Here's his record on each surface from 1968-1973(age 30-35 seasons):
Grass: 88-14, .863
carpet: 149-25, .856
Hard: 121-25, .829
clay: 92-31, .748

So as we can see here, he was nearly as good on carpet as he was on grass.

What hurt Laver's winning pct on carpet relative to the other surfaces is the fact that he played on carpet far more often than any other surface during his really old years. From 1976-78(age 38-40 seasons), here's his distribution of matches by surface:
carpet: 24 matches, 11-13, .458
hard: 11 matches, 6-5, .545
grass: 3 matches, 1-2, .333
clay: 3 matches, 0-3, .000

Those 24 matches hurt him a lot; especially compared to grass. He had EIGHT times more matches on carpet than grass, which dragged down his overall stats.

Really interesting breakdown. Pretty incredible winning percentage from Laver on carpet from age 30-35.

 

[Pheasant]

Really interesting breakdown. Pretty incredible winning percentage from Laver on carpet from age 30-35.

I had no idea that Laver was that awesome on carpet until you posted that bar graph of carpet winning percentages on it. Laver, despite missing most of his prime years on carpet, put up awesome numbers on that surface. Per Ultimate Tennis Statistics(that site includes players' rankings prior to 1973), his career record vs the top-5 on carpet was a spectacular 35-14, .714. That .714 mark is 2nd only to Borg, who retired during his prime. However, Laver's stats include his age 35-40 seasons. If we only include his seasons through 1972(age-34 seasons and younger), then his record vs the top-5 was 29-6, .829, which crushes everyone else on that list.

Laver should be a candidate, despite missing most of his prime years on this surface.

 

[I get cramps]

Hanover in 1990 saw Lendl at the helm, 30 years old then, overpowering Becker, pushing him to the ropes. Ivan eventually conceded defeat, with a score of 1-6, 7-6, 6-4. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that 30 years at the time would be the equivalent of about 34 years in the present time.

The following year, in his round-robin matches in Hanover against Courier, Forget, and Novacek, Lendl lost fifteen games; five games per match played.

The length of time Lendl was a tremendous threat to any player on the carpet circuit is phenomenal.

 

[urban]

Laver indeed declined heavily after the 1975 season, when he had his last hurrah at 37. He played only for half of the seasons in 1974 and 1975, but was still in the top 3/4 or at least top 5/6 in 1975. His losses since 1976 and later dimiish his match win percentage a bit in the lists of Ultimate Tennis Stats, Tennis Abstract or Tennis Base, which count also his many exhibition (real exhibitions) losses to Borg since 1976/77. 1968-1975 he was clearly in the range of 80-82 % match wins overall. In his open era career most have him at 79%, in his whole career at ca. 78%, which is excellent regarding the structure of the old pro tour with over 120 matches per year against top competition. Interestingly, UTS has him as open era leader in tournament wins/ participation percentage with 33, 96 % overall in open era, ahead of Borg, Djoker and Nadal. Laver also leads this open era percentage on hard court with close to 40%, which shows that he was not a grass specialist alone, and would have liked to play more slams on hard courts in his time.

 

[buscemi]

Hanover in 1990 saw Lendl at the helm, 30 years old then, overpowering Becker, pushing him to the ropes. Ivan eventually conceded defeat, with a score of 1-6, 7-6, 6-4. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that 30 years at the time would be the equivalent of about 34 years in the present time.

The following year, in his round-robin matches in Hanover against Courier, Forget, and Novacek, Lendl lost fifteen games; five games per match played.

The length of time Lendl was a tremendous threat to any player on the carpet circuit is phenomenal.

I'm not sure how big of a deal that is for Lendl compared to other players.

Rosewall and Laver played possibly the greatest carpet match of all time in the finals of the 1972 WCT Finals when Rosewall was 37 and Laver was 33.

Connors beat Lendl in the finals of the 1984 Tokyo Indoor event (6-0 in the third set) when he was 32.

McEnroe was 30 when he won the WCT Finals in 1989, beating Lendl in the SF.

 

[Gizo]

I'd still go for Mac out of the players that I've seen (his destruction of Lendl in the 1984 Brussels final winning nearly twice as many points as him is among the best performances I've seen from any player on any surface / setting), but Lendl was insanely good on carpet as well.

His 1986 YEC title run, in he which stormed through his 5 matches without dropping a set and without being taken to a tiebreak was quite something and is worth some bonus points IMO.

That remains the only time that a male player has won a 5 match RR format YEC without dropping a set, i.e. not counting the brief period from 1982-1985 when it had a straight knockout format (Lendl in 1982 and 1985 and Mac in 1983 won their respective titles in those years without dropping a set). On the women‘a side I believe that Serena's title run in 2012 is the only time that has happened (from 2003 when the RR format was introduced) - she was taken to 1 tiebreak during that run (during her RR match against Li Na) while Lendl was taken to 0 in 1986.

The 2nd set of his opening RR match against Gomez which he came from 3-5 down to win 7-5, was the only 1 of his 11 sets at the tournament in which he conceded more than 4 games, or even faced a break point. During his next 4 matches against the other 4 players ranked in the top 5, he never conceded more than 4 games in any of his 9 sets and didn't face a single break point. If you discount his 2nd RR match in 1987 against Connors, who retired after 7 games due to respiratory problems, he won 23 consecutive sets at the YEC / Masters from 1985-1987.

He had very good longevity on the surface, winning titles on it 1980 and 1993 (beating Becker en-route having also beaten Sampras in Philly earlier in the year), with a truckload in-between. He had a perfect 40-0 record in sanctioned matches under a roof in 1982 (I'm not sure exactly how many of those matches were on carpet vs. indoor hard), culminating in him destroying Connors and Mac back to back to win the Masters (having also won noteworthy invitational titles in Toronto, Antwerp and Chicago that season). His 'unofficial' titles in Antwerp in-particular, which paid out huge money (he won the biggest monetary prize in tennis history at the time after beating Mac to his 3rd title in 4 years there in 1985) also add a lot to his record.

 

[urban]

One addition to Lavers performance on carpet post 1976. I wrote above, that he declined after 1975 on the ATP tour. One aspect however, that is not covered by the stats sides like Tennis Abstract or UTS is his performance on the WTT tour, which was played mainly on carpet indoors on multi-colored courts. Laver was pretty competitive there since 1976, and in his first year 1976, he was Rookie of the year at 38 and second best male player behind Alex Sandy Mayer. And in the WTT people like Borg, Nastase and Connors were playing. Scott Tennis has sampled all those WTT results in a separate thread here.
I have a new book on WTT by John Schwarz, World Team Tennis. The Legacy of a Sports League 1974-1978. New Jersey 2020, which covers mainly the promotional and financial aspects of WTT. On page 310, an earnings list for the first half of 1976 (up to the Wimbledon break) is published, where Laver with 83, 300 $ still leads the male rankings with Borg, Ashe, Ramirez, Connors and Vilas following next.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It is between Mac and Lendl for overall greatness and between Pete and Boris for highest peak level. Again shout-out to my man Borg for having the highest winning % against top 5. This guy was a beast on any surface.

Here are some HTH records among each other here:

Borg:
2-1 vs Lendl
4-3 vs McEnroe
5-2 vs Connors
11-6 total

Borg is even 5-3 against Mac iirc.

 

[buscemi]

I feel like Nastase deserves at least a mention. He won WTF every year from 1971-1975 except 1974, when it was played on grass.

4-2 against Laver on carpet
10-9 against Connors on carpet

 

[Pheasant]

I feel like Nastase deserves at least a mention. He won WTF every year from 1971-1975 except 1974, when it was played on grass.

4-2 against Laver on carpet
10-9 against Connors on carpet

Nice call. Nastase was a beast.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I voted for Lendl, even though I'm not convinced he is the best. I've a feeling that JMac at his peak was further ahead of his peers on carpet than anyone else. And what Sampras managed at the YEC ('96 against Becker and '99 against Agassi) is so impressive.

But I feel like Lendl, as with his slam record, is badly handicapped by the sheer quality of his opposition. As I write this, Becker (6) and McEnroe (5) have the most votes in the poll. At the YEC Ivan beat Boris in three straight years without dropping a set, and only lost the '88 final to the German by the very slimmest of margins. He has three straight sets victories over JMac too. I'm not sure that Lendl is outright better than either of them, but at the same time there's very, very few players who could have such repeated successes against so many surface greats.

Fun to see Kafelnikov in 9th place in the Open Era win percentage on carpet (not that I think he's the 9th best carpet player in the Open Era). Tennis Abstract has him at 166-60 (73.5%) on carpet.

Yeah, those five Kremlin Cup titles really boosted his numbers. He's a great example of why raw stats need to be contextualized. (Not dissing Kafelnikov at all, I think he's been underrated both during and after his career, and his induction to the HoF was long overdue.)

 

[Drob]

We've spoken a ton about the greatest grass court players, hard court players, Wimbledon, USO, the Big 3, etc. But who's your pick for the best carpet player ever?

here's some stats from Ultimate Tennis Statistics that might help.

McEnroe

43 titles(tied for #1 with Connors)
350-64, .845 overall(#1)
34-26, .567 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won: 65(#1 ever)
Consecutive sets won: 49(#1)

Sampras
15 titles
145-45, .763 overall
16-13, .552 vs top 5

Lendl
32 titles
269-55, .830 overall
37-19, .661 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won 51(#2) and 30(tied for #3)
Consecutive sets won: 36(#3)

Borg
23 titles
187-39, .827 overall
25-7, .781 vs top 5

Connors
43 titles
365-77, .826 overall(#4)
22-34, .393 vs top 5
Consecutive matches won: 30(tied for #3)
Consecutive sets won; 44(#2)

Becker
26 titles
258-64, .801 overall
44-18, .710 vs top 5

Who’s your pick? I’m taking McEnroe. Granted, I’m biased. But I think that his numbers might back me up here. He has the most titles(tied with Connors), the best winning pct by a decent margin, as long as the longest winning streak on that surface. I love Pete’s peak, so I included him as well. He was deadly on carpet. Lendl’s 9 straight YE finals(won 5 titles) was incredible, so I think that he has solid on that surface as well.

Nice background info. I was looking at some of these carpet statistic the other day, by coincidence.

I would only mention that you maybe do Laver low by not including him. I would have voted Becker, but instead "Other" to make this point.

You know, they only started switching to carpet around 1969, so Laver had maybe four-five prime-late-prime years on the surface. Nevertheless, he won the two TCC, arguably of Major stature, 4 US Pro Indoor, 2 Wembley. Four or more of his WCT tournaments championships had the draw and the feel of being "like" a Masters 1000, 2 MSG Pro, and so on. Twenty-four carpet titles in a short time. And, of course, there is Kenny Rosewall, with two Majors on carpet.

 

[buscemi]

A bit surprised to see Becker leading the poll at the moment (Becker 8, McEnroe 7, Sampras/Lendl 4) b/c I don't see any of the posts in this thread touting Becker as the best, and he's not the best in any of the categories listed:

-McEnroe is #1 in winning percentage on carpet​

-McEnroe & Connors are tied for the most titles on carpet​

-Borg has the best record vs. top 5 players on carpet​

-Sampras and Lendl are tied for the most WTF titles​

-McEnroe has the most WCT Finals titles​

-McEnroe has won the most consecutive matches/sets on carpet​

-Connors has the most match wins on carpet​

-Sampras won the most Grand Slam Cups​

The main argument that seems to work in Becker's favor is that many view the level in the 1996 WTF final as the highest level on carpet ever, but that match was won by Sampras over Becker.

Becker is obviously an amazing carpet player, but can anyone make the case that he's the best carpet player?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

A bit surprised to see Becker leading the poll at the moment (Becker 8, McEnroe 7, Sampras/Lendl 4) b/c I don't see any of the posts in this thread touting Becker as the best, and he's not the best in any of the categories listed:

-McEnroe is #1 in winning percentage on carpet​

-McEnroe & Connors are tied for the most titles on carpet​

-Borg has the best record vs. top 5 players on carpet​

-Sampras and Lendl are tied for the most WTF titles​

-McEnroe has the most WCT Finals titles​

-McEnroe has won the most consecutive matches/sets on carpet​

-Connors has the most match wins on carpet​

-Sampras won the most Grand Slam Cups​

The main argument that seems to work in Becker's favor is that many view the level in the 1996 WTF final as the highest level on carpet ever, but that match was won by Sampras over Becker.

Becker is obviously an amazing carpet player, but can anyone make the case that he's the best carpet player?

The argument can - as you said - only be made regarding peak level and even here I have Pete still ahead. The 96 final was as close as it gets and Becker himself said it was the highest level he ever played so yes, even if extremely close I would still give Pete the edge peak vs peak. On the other hand, Boris was overall 7-6 against Pete on carpet so he shouldn’t be underestimated. As for highest peak, those two are definitely 1 and 2.
What is interesting again is Borg having the best winning % against top 5. It never ceases to amaze that he comes out on top in all kind of stats you wouldn’t expect at first. That guy is the most versatile player of all times.

 

[buscemi]

The argument can - as you said - only be made regarding peak level and even here I have Pete still ahead. The 96 final was as close as it gets and Becker himself said it was the highest level he ever played so yes, even if extremely close I would still give Pete the edge peak vs peak. On the other hand, Boris was overall 7-6 against Pete on carpet so he shouldn’t be underestimated. As for highest peak, those two are definitely 1 and 2.
What is interesting again is Borg having the best winning % against top 5. It never ceases to amaze that he comes out on top in all kind of stats you wouldn’t expect at first. That guy is the most versatile player of all times.

Only hesitation with Borg is hard courts. At 109-38 (74.15%), he only has the 17th highest winning percentage, and he didn't win the U.S. Open the four times he played it on hard courts (1978-1981). He didn't play a huge amount on hard courts, which only started gaining in popularity in his last few years on the tour, though, so tough to hold that against him too much.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Only hesitation with Borg is hard courts. At 109-38 (74.15%), he only has the 17th highest winning percentage, and he didn't win the U.S. Open the four times he played it on hard courts (1978-1981). He didn't play a huge amount on hard courts, which only started gaining in popularity in his last few years on the tour, though, so tough to hold that against him too much.

While it is of course his worst surface, his % is still comparable to Fed’s on clay and Pete’s on carpet and even better than Kuerten’s on clay. I wouldn’t hold his inability to win the USO on HC against him given the opposition and circumstances he had to face (which involved death threats). He straight-setted Connors and pushed peak Mac to five on their home turf, so it is fair to say he was very much capable of winning the whole thing.

 

[buscemi]

While it is of course his worst surface, his % is still comparable to Fed’s on clay and Pete’s on carpet and even better than Kuerten’s on clay. I wouldn’t hold his inability to win the USO on HC against him given the opposition and circumstances he had to face (which involved death threats). He straight-setted Connors and pushed peak Mac to five on their home turf, so it is fair to say he was very much capable of winning the whole thing.

I guess my big question would be Laver:

81.2% on grass​

80.5% on hard courts​

79.6% on carpet​

78% on clay​

Tough to beat those numbers, although Borg obviously comes very close.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I guess my big question would be Laver:

81.2% on grass​

80.5% on hard courts​

79.6% on carpet​

78% on clay​

Tough to beat those numbers, although Borg obviously comes very close.

This is true but looking solely at winning % is also a little too simplistic. Borg’s 6 FO and 5 consecutive Wimblies with three channel slams and the way he changed his game-style within two weeks is arguably the single-greatest showing of skill-versatility in tennis history, so it is fair to cut him some slack on (slightly) lower winning %. His two YEC in what is arguably the toughest carpet era, positive H2H against all his main rivals Connors, Mac and Lendl (which also manifests in him having the best winning % against top 5) leaves us with HC at the only surface we might quibble about.
On top: if we have a closer look at Borg’s numbers:

Clay: 85.7 %
Grass: 83.7 %
Carpet: 82.7%
Hard: 74.1 %

He is still better than Laver on his first second and third best surface. On top: if we discount fir the six losses he had on hard during his failed comeback, it already rises to 76.8 %, better than Federer’s number on clay.

 

[Pheasant]

I voted for Lendl, even though I'm not convinced he is the best. I've a feeling that JMac at his peak was further ahead of his peers on carpet than anyone else. And what Sampras managed at the YEC ('96 against Becker and '99 against Agassi) is so impressive.

But I feel like Lendl, as with his slam record, is badly handicapped by the sheer quality of his opposition. As I write this, Becker (6) and McEnroe (5) have the most votes in the poll. At the YEC Ivan beat Boris in three straight years without dropping a set, and only lost the '88 final to the German by the very slimmest of margins. He has three straight sets victories over JMac too. I'm not sure that Lendl is outright better than either of them, but at the same time there's very, very few players who could have such repeated successes against so many surface greats.




Yeah, those five Kremlin Cup titles really boosted his numbers. He's a great example of why raw stats need to be contextualized. (Not dissing Kafelnikov at all, I think he's been underrated both during and after his career, and his induction to the HoF was long overdue.)

Good post.

Also, what people are missing is that Lendl missed nearly 3 months of tennis after the 1988 USO with shoulder surgery until he played the Grand Prix Masters. He was very rusty, yet still good enough to make the final and push prime Becker to 5 sets in a thrilller. As a matter of fact, Lendl had a ton of injuries that year, including a fractured foot in the Winter, a pulled pec muscle during the clay season, a pulled quad during the grass court season, then torn cartilage while playing the USO that year. He said that he didn’t feel good at all during the USO either, which led to him getting the surgery immediately afterwards.

I’m not convinced that Becker peaked higher than Lendl on carpet. His 4-7 record against him doesn’t back that up. Lendl was a beast on carpet. McEbroe during his peak was otherworldly, however. But he unfortunately fell off of a cliff after 1985.

 

[buscemi]

This is true but looking solely at winning % is also a little too simplistic. Borg’s 6 FO and 5 consecutive Wimblies with three channel slams and the way he changed his game-style within two weeks is arguably the single-greatest showing of skill-versatility in tennis history, so it is fair to cut him some slack on (slightly) lower winning %. His two YEC in what is arguably the toughest carpet era, positive H2H against all his main rivals Connors, Mac and Lendl (which also manifests in him having the best winning % against top 5) leaves us with HC at the only surface we might quibble about.
On top: if we have a closer look at Borg’s numbers:

Clay: 85.7 %
Grass: 83.7 %
Carpet: 82.7%
Hard: 74.1 %

He is still better than Laver on his first second and third best surface. On top: if we discount fir the six losses he had on hard during his failed comeback, it already rises to 76.8 %, better than Federer’s number on clay.

True, but if we look beyond winning % it's important to note that Borg retired at age 26 (with that failed comeback years later while Laver retired at age 38, which no doubt impacted both of their winning percentages.

And while Borg was a beast with those back-to-back French/Wimbledons, Laver completed that double both as an amateur and a pro. Two great all around players!

 

[buscemi]

I’m not convinced that Becker peaked higher than Lendl on carpet. His 4-7 record against him doesn’t back that up. Lendl was a beast on carpet. McEbroe during his peak was otherworldly, however. But he unfortunately fell off of a cliff after 1985.

But there's a bit of a circle there, no doubt impacted by the age of the players when they played:

-McEnroe was 8-6 against Lendl on carpet​

-Lendl was 7-4 against Becker on carpet​

-Becker was 6-1 against McEnroe on carpet​

 

[Winners or Errors]

But there's a bit of a circle there, no doubt impacted by the age of the players when they played:

-McEnroe was 8-6 against Lendl on carpet​

-Lendl was 7-4 against Becker on carpet​

-Becker was 6-1 against McEnroe on carpet​

Well, Mac started spiraling down in 1985, no doubt impacting his H2H with Becker. I imagine Lendl won most of their meetings from 1985 on as well, and that the H2H was pretty lopsided in Mac's favor prior to that year. I'm not looking it up, just guessing.

 

[buscemi]

Well, Mac started spiraling down in 1985, no doubt impacting his H2H with Becker. I imagine Lendl won most of their meetings from 1985 on as well, and that the H2H was pretty lopsided in Mac's favor prior to that year. I'm not looking it up, just guessing.

Yeah, McEnroe was up on Lendl, 12-9 and 7-4 on carpet, through 1984. Lendl then went 12-3 (2-1 on carpet) against McEnroe from 1985-1992.

Lendl was up on Becker, 7-3 and 5-1 on carpet, through 1987. Becker then went 7-4 (3-2 on carpet) against Lendl from 1988-1992.

 

[Gizo]

Good post.

Also, what people are missing is that Lendl missed nearly 3 months of tennis after the 1988 USO with shoulder surgery until he played the Grand Prix Masters. He was very rusty, yet still good enough to make the final and push prime Becker to 5 sets in a thrilller. As a matter of fact, Lendl had a ton of injuries that year, including a fractured foot in the Winter, a pulled pec muscle during the clay season, a pulled quad during the grass court season, then torn cartilage while playing the USO that year. He said that he didn’t feel good at all during the USO either, which led to him getting the surgery immediately afterwards.

I’m not convinced that Becker peaked higher than Lendl on carpet. His 4-7 record against him doesn’t back that up. Lendl was a beast on carpet. McEbroe during his peak was otherworldly, however. But he unfortunately fell off of a cliff after 1985.

Yes I've never been convinced about Becker having a higher peak level than Lendl on carpet either.

Lendl destroyed a prime Connors and McEnroe back to back to win the 1982 Masters, and outclassed all other members of the top 5 (including Becker) in successive matches (without facing a single break point and without conceding more than 4 games per set) to win the 1986 Masters. So he set an exceptionally high bar in terms of his peak level on the surface.

That being said, I've always wondered whether 'peak level' is an overrated aspect of these debates. How often do players produce their very best tennis? Not very often. How often do two opposing players simultaneously produce their best tennis in the same match? Hardly ever. I actually think that players’ 'median' levels should carry more weight than their peak levels as that is more in line with day to day / match by match reality.

Also regarding Lendl, he even more so than any other player that played exclusively in the open era, had a insanely good record in big money invitational tournaments on carpet. It has always felt wrong that he is 'only' credited with 94 titles overall, 32 titles on carpet etc.

 

[NedStark]

Yeah, McEnroe was up on Lendl, 12-9 and 7-4 on carpet, through 1984. Lendl then went 12-3 (2-1 on carpet) against McEnroe from 1985-1992.

Lendl was up on Becker, 7-3 and 5-1 on carpet, through 1987. Becker then went 7-4 (3-2 on carpet) against Lendl from 1988-1992.

To be fair, much of the 7-4 record was due to the fact that in 1985-1986 young Becker had to face peak Lendl (3 of Lendl’s 7 wins were in 1985 - since 1986 they were dead even).

Interestingly, Lendl won their last 2 matches (one of them on carpet) including his only Slam win against Boris.

 

[buscemi]

Yes I've never been convinced about Becker having a higher peak level than Lendl on carpet either.

Lendl destroyed a prime Connors and McEnroe back to back to win the 1982 Masters, and outclassed all other members of the top 5 (including Becker) in successive matches (without facing a single break point and without conceding more than 4 games per set) to win the 1986 Masters. So he set an exceptionally high bar in terms of his peak level on the surface.

This is all fair, but also in fairness, I don't think anyone thinks 30 year-old Connors, a version of McEnroe who didn't win a Major that year, or a pre-Major Lendl were at their peak on carpet at 1982 WTF. And, if Lendl had reached his carpet peak by 1982, McEnroe winning 6 straight sets against him at WTF in 1983-1984 would tell us a lot about their respective peaks.

So, I think we would both agree that Lendl played at a higher level on carpet from 1985-1987 then he did from 1982-1984. You point to the 1986 WTF, which was impressive, but he was beating a 20 year-old Edberg and a version of Becker who had just barely turned 19. Impressive, but Edberg and Becker were both clearly pre-peak.

 

[Gizo]

This is all fair, but also in fairness, I don't think anyone thinks 30 year-old Connors, a version of McEnroe who didn't win a Major that year, or a pre-Major Lendl were at their peak on carpet at 1982 WTF. And, if Lendl had reached his carpet peak by 1982, McEnroe winning 6 straight sets against him at WTF in 1983-1984 would tell us a lot about their respective peaks.

So, I think we would both agree that Lendl played at a higher level on carpet from 1985-1987 then he did from 1982-1984. You point to the 1986 WTF, which was impressive, but he was beating a 20 year-old Edberg and a version of Becker who had just barely turned 19. Impressive, but Edberg and Becker were both clearly pre-peak.

To be fair I don't think a lot of those disclaimers are particularly relevant, or detract at all from the quality of Lendl's victories. I tend to focus on primes rather than trying to draw lines deciding when players were at their absolute peak, and Connors was in his prime from 1974-1984, and McEnroe from 1979-1985.

McEnroe in 1982 won a host of highly regarded titles on carpet in 1982, including Philadelphia, San Fransisco, Tokyo and Wembley, (plus the Sydney indoor tournament which was on indoor hard). After his US Open defeat to Lendl, he went on a roll in the Davis Cup and in the indoor tournaments during the fall, and went into the Masters final having won his last 26 sanctioned matches. So Lendl destroying him in that manner was hugely impressive. Without Lendl stopping him in 1982, McEnroe could easily have won big(ger) indoor titles in Dallas, Antwerp and the Masters on top of the ones that he already won.

Connors turning 30 in 1982 isn't overly significant, given the nature of his career (he was better at 29/30 than he was at 27/28 for example), especially given the year that he had with his Wimbledon-US Open double and winning 7 official titles in total. And indoors he reached the final or semi-finals of every sanctioned tournament that he entered that year, and so was still formidable on carpet and under a roof (McEnroe stopped him in the Philadelphia and San Francisco finals). Just before the Masters, he had beaten McEnroe in a stacked invitational tournament in Chicago (who had won his RR match against Lendl), before losing to Lendl in a competitive final.

And given the nature of Becker's career with different peaks and troughs. I don't think you can put too much emphasis on his age. 1986 was one of the best seasons of his career, both results-wise and level-wise; his standard of tennis to win Wimbledon that season was outstanding and a level up from his already impressive standard to win it the first time in 1985. Throw in the fact that he won both matches during the 1985 Davis Cup final, which was on a par in importance with grand slam finals, and he was very much considered to be a big match player at the time. He went into the Masters in 1986 having won a host of good quality indoor titles in Sydney, Tokyo and Paris-Bercy, and having beaten Lendl in 3 out of their 4 matches that year (with 2 of them under a roof). The 1986 YEC final was hyped as a pretty big deal, and a lot of people would have considered Becker (on a 21 match winning streak going into it no less) to be the best in the world had he won. So Lendl beating him in that manner, i.e. without facing a single break point, was a very big statement of intent.

Now I agree that Edberg was pre-peak and that's the only disclaimer that I would agree with. But Lendl's h2h against him was 3-3 going into their 1986 Masters match, with Edberg having won their last match on carpet in Tokyo. Ahead of the Masters, he had recently won titles in Basel and Stockholm with a final defeat to Becker in Tokyo in-between, so he was in good form and on the rise. Again 4 consecutive victories against the other 4 players in the top 5, without facing any break points or being taken to 5-5 in any set, is pretty unprecedented stuff in any era.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The mens is so tough. I want to say Federer is a candidate, but in reality the sport was already moving away from carpet largely at that point, so he didn't really have a fair chance to claim this title. Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Laver all have a very good case. Mind you I am sure in the future Djokovic fans will argue him even though he doesn't play on even a single acutal carpet court these days.

It would be an interesting thing to research and pick someone, as there are a lot of worthy candidates.

From what I have learnt about his career I would say Laver would probably be my pick.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Good post.

Also, what people are missing is that Lendl missed nearly 3 months of tennis after the 1988 USO with shoulder surgery until he played the Grand Prix Masters. He was very rusty, yet still good enough to make the final and push prime Becker to 5 sets in a thrilller. As a matter of fact, Lendl had a ton of injuries that year, including a fractured foot in the Winter, a pulled pec muscle during the clay season, a pulled quad during the grass court season, then torn cartilage while playing the USO that year. He said that he didn’t feel good at all during the USO either, which led to him getting the surgery immediately afterwards.

I’m not convinced that Becker peaked higher than Lendl on carpet. His 4-7 record against him doesn’t back that up. Lendl was a beast on carpet. McEbroe during his peak was otherworldly, however. But he unfortunately fell off of a cliff after 1985.

Becker was an outstanding player, especialy on grass and carpet, but he has a mystique about him that tends to have people overrate him slightly. Particularly on carpet as his game seems just build for carpet dominance, and it was really, but I am not sure his actual dominance reached the level of the perception, even though he did great. Just look at how he was talked about as a Borg or Sampras at Wimbledon for a few years after he retired with only 3 Wimbledon titles and a LOSING record in Wimbledon finals, LOL!

And I am also not sure at all Becker's peak level on carpet is above Lendl's, let alone his average career level.

 

[Gizo]

In terms of Becker's peak level on carpet, 2 demolitions of Edberg stand out there, in the 1989 Davis Cup final and 1990 Stockholm final.

As discussed elsewhere, Davis Cup finals during that period were just as big and important as grand slam finals, so Becker destroying Edberg like that on that stage in 1989 was hugely impressive. And in the 1990 Stockholm final, he only conceded 6 points in his 12 service games, won almost 50% of the points on Edberg's serve, and had the midas touch. That was an eagerly anticipated contest between the 2 top ranked players in the world, at a highly regarded tournament that both players had won before, and of course on home soil for Edberg.

It can be tough to compare players from different generations / that had their primes during different periods on a particular surface though, when the number of big tournaments and tournaments in general available to them on that surface were noticeably different.

Tennis on carpet was a far bigger deal in the 70s and early 80s in-particular, than it was in the late 80s and then 90s - in general indoor tennis was more important in the 80s compared to the 90s . The decreasing prevalence of tennis on carpet and indoors in general, went hand in hand with 'outdoor hard court' events becoming more prominent (in my opinion a regrettable but understandable change).

 

[buscemi]

In terms of Becker's peak level on carpet, 2 demolitions of Edberg stand out there, in the 1989 Davis Cup final and 1990 Stockholm final.

As discussed elsewhere, Davis Cup finals during that period were just as big and important as grand slam finals, so Becker destroying Edberg like that on that stage in 1989 was hugely impressive. And in the 1990 Stockholm final, he only conceded 6 points in his 12 service games, won almost 50% of the points on Edberg's serve, and had the midas touch. That was an eagerly anticipated contest between the 2 top ranked players in the world, at a highly regarded tournament that both players had won before, and of course on home soil for Edberg.

It can be tough to compare players from different generations / that had their primes during different periods on a particular surface though, when the number of big tournaments and tournaments in general available to them on that surface were noticeably different.

Tennis on carpet was a far bigger deal in the 70s and early 80s in-particular, than it was in the late 80s and then 90s - in general indoor tennis was more important in the 80s compared to the 90s . The decreasing prevalence of tennis on carpet and indoors in general, went hand in hand with 'outdoor hard court' events becoming more prominent (in my opinion a regrettable but understandable change).

The problem I have with this is that Becker lost badly at WTF in both 1989 (to Edberg in the final, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1) and 1990 (to Agassi in the SF, 6-2, 6-4).

I get that Davis Cup was hugely important at the time, but it was only two matches vs. a whole tournament.

And the win at Stockholm in 1990 was great, but it was just a Masters Series event and bookended on the front by a loss on carpet to Lendl in the Tokyo final and on the back end by a loss to Edberg in the Paris final (retiring at 3-3) and the crushing SF defeat to Agassi at WTF.

 

[Gizo]

The problem I have with this is that Becker lost badly at WTF in both 1989 (to Edberg in the final, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1) and 1990 (to Agassi in the SF, 6-2, 6-4).

I get that Davis Cup was hugely important at the time, but it was only two matches vs. a whole tournament.

And the win at Stockholm in 1990 was great, but it was just a Masters Series event and bookended on the front by a loss on carpet to Lendl in the Tokyo final and on the back end by a loss to Edberg in the Paris final (retiring at 3-3) and the crushing SF defeat to Agassi at WTF.

In the 1989 Davis Cup final, Becker essentially played in 2 singles matches against elite, big name opponents (one of them having noticeably declined that year but still with a huge amount of big Davis Cup match experience to draw upon) that were equally important compared to singles grand slam finals, plus a doubles match which was more important than a non-Wimbledon doubles grand slam final, within the space of 3 days, and won them all, with dominant wins in the 2 singles matches. It was a stellar effort on the highest stage of all on carpet. His level of play was labelled as 'unthinkable' at the time, and it was pretty much was. It was god mode stuff, on the biggest stage of all on carpet.

Under that high pressured environment, with a huge expectation to deliver on his shoulders, huge fanfare, and insanely high TV ratings in his home country, I say that's comfortably bigger stakes and more difficult than the vast majority of standard tournaments. It can be difficult to appreciate how big the Davis Cup truly was at that time, without following tennis regularly then. The defeat to Edberg in the Masters final isn't overly relevant when assessing Becker's ultra-high level in the Davis Cup final, other than the fact that he made sure that it wasn't a factor and rebounded effortlessly.

In that same final for perspective, Wilander ranked his win over Steeb as one of the most important of his career - he knew how big the stakes were, especially after losing to the same opponent in the previous year's final.

And Stockholm was a very highly regarded tournament with a rich tradition well before 1990, especially in-light of the huge influx of talented and successful Swedish players, and importance of indoor tennis. Borg actually received some criticism in Sweden for not winning the title there before 1980, and was delighted and relieved to 'finally' do so at the 7th attempt. Then the likes of McEnroe (again after 1978), Edberg, Becker and Lendl all struck gold there.

Losing 7-5 in a final set tiebreak in an entertaining and well contested final to Lendl in Tokyo, who had beaten Edberg in the semi-finals and is one of the greatest indoor / carpet players that has ever lived, wasn't exactly a bad defeat - Lendl's backhand return and passing shots were on song and laser-like in that match. Becker's run of reaching the final at 4 consecutive tournaments during the fall in 1990, also beating Edberg in straight sets to win the title in Sydney, was very impressive. Then he lost to another elite player in a YEC SF, that was a horrible match-up for him and who had already turned the tide in their h2h. No shame there, and that was a strong end of the year that set him up nicely for the 1991 Australian Open, and doesn't detract from the insanity of his play in the Stockholm final. And there was some talk about whether he'd play at the 1990 YEC in the first place, as a result of the thigh injury that forced him to retire in the Paris final. And Edberg recovered from his bitterly disappointing US Open defeat, to put together a consistent run of results in the fall to end the year. The fact that Becker and him faced each other 3 times in 4 tournaments, indicates that they both meant business, plus Stockholm was a big deal for Edberg and other Swedish players.

 

[Gizo]

In terms of great performances by female players on carpet, Navratilova's destruction of Evert in Madison Square Gardens in 1983 (at the Virginia Slims Championships) is up there.

Admittedly that was during a period when Evert lacked belief against Navratilova, and was literally struggling to win sets against her (only winning 1 set out of 26 that they contested until the 1984 US Open final). But still Navratilova could do no wrong that day, and show-cased her confidence by hitting a drop-shot on the very first point. She ruthlessly targeted Evert's backhand, knowing that Evert preferred to hit cross-court from that side right into her forehand wheel-house. She just played with so much swagger. On the flip-side and well away from carpet, the 1986 RG final was an example of when over-confidence and 'hubris' against Evert came back to bite her.

I always thought that a reasonably fast indoor court was the absolute best environment for women's tennis - IMO that continued to be evident up to and including 2007, where there were classic matches at the YEC pretty much every year without fail.

 

[Pheasant]

In terms of great performances by female players on carpet, Navratilova's destruction of Evert in Madison Square Gardens in 1983 (at the Virginia Slims Championships) is up there.

Admittedly that was during a period when Evert lacked belief against Navratilova, and was literally struggling to win sets against her (only winning 1 set out of 26 that they contested until the 1984 US Open final). But still Navratilova could do no wrong that day, and show-cased her confidence by hitting a drop-shot on the very first point. She ruthlessly targeted Evert's backhand, knowing that Evert preferred to hit cross-court from that side right into her forehand wheel-house. She just played with so much swagger. On the flip-side and well away from carpet, the 1986 RG final was an example of when over-confidence and 'hubris' against Evert came back to bite her.

I always thought that a reasonably fast indoor court was the absolute best environment for women's tennis - IMO that continued to be evident up to and including 2007, where there were classic matches at the YEC pretty much every year without fail.

Man, did Martina own carpet. Unfortunately(I was a huge Evert fan back then), Martina in the 1980s made life miserable for Evert on carpet. Her level was simply too high. I don't recall Evert ever winning a set against Martina on carpet in the 1980s. I might be forgetting a few matches here and there. But it felt like nearly all of those matches on carpet were straight set blowouts.

And by the way, even as a teenager, I thought that the Virginia Slims was a hilarious name for a tennis tourney. Having a cigarette company sponsor a sport as healthy as tennis is LOL-funny.

 

[Drob]

Laver finally started playing on carpet frequently in 1968. Here's his record on each surface from 1968-1973(age 30-35 seasons):
Grass: 88-14, .863
carpet: 149-25, .856
Hard: 121-25, .829
clay: 92-31, .748

So as we can see here, he was nearly as good on carpet as he was on grass.

What hurt Laver's winning pct on carpet relative to the other surfaces is the fact that he played on carpet far more often than any other surface during his really old years. From 1976-78(age 38-40 seasons), here's his distribution of matches by surface:
carpet: 24 matches, 11-13, .458
hard: 11 matches, 6-5, .545
grass: 3 matches, 1-2, .333
clay: 3 matches, 0-3, .000

Those 24 matches hurt him a lot; especially compared to grass. He had EIGHT times more matches on carpet than grass, which dragged down his overall stats.

Yes, the 79% is misleading. Ages 29-34, his winning % is .856, as you show. That is higher than any of the listed candidates on the ballot. I don't know how many carpet tourneys he won in total. It is at least 24. I can count about a dozen that were of a Masters 1000-type caliber, including four US Pro Indoor, a few Open-era Wembley, etc. As for record versus top-5 players, he was always facing top-5 players in these tournaments - Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Smith, et al.

How about a grassroots movement to change votes to "Other"?

 

[Gizo]

Man, did Martina own carpet. Unfortunately(I was a huge Evert fan back then), Martina in the 1980s made life miserable for Evert on carpet. Her level was simply too high. I don't recall Evert ever winning a set against Martina on carpet in the 1980s. I might be forgetting a few matches here and there. But it felt like nearly all of those matches on carpet were straight set blowouts.

And by the way, even as a teenager, I thought that the Virginia Slims was a hilarious name for a tennis tourney. Having a cigarette company sponsor a sport as healthy as tennis is LOL-funny.

Yes starting from their match in Tokyo in late 1980, Navratilova completely shut Evert out during their last 14 matches against each other on carpet, only dropping 1 set along way (though IIRC Navratilova was already starting to gain the upper hand on carpet before then).

Evert said a few times that on a slick carpet court, if Navratilova served well she felt powerless. And during that stretch of matches, Navratilova invariably did, including during their final ever official match in Chicago in 1988 when she only faced 2 break points fending both of them off.

I thought that the 2nd set of their 1984 Virgina Slims Championships final, the first best of 5 set match in women's tennis for more than 80 years, was a real treat. That was the best set of tennis I recall from Evert vs. Navratilova on carpet during that run of matches. Ultimately Navratilova saved a series of break points with some wonderful play, and came out on top in the big points to win it, which demoralised Evert who then struggled during the 3rd set. Still that match was another showcase of all the weapons in Navratilova's arsenal, including her superb court coverage. I remember her hitting some blistering cross court forehands on the rise.

That was shortly before Navratilova then dished out the 2 drubbings on clay in the Amelia Island and RG finals. There was talk at that stage about Evert only having a chance of beating her on clay, and I remember Billie Jean King saying that she thought Evert at 29 was too old to turn things around against her. Thankfully Evert rebounded to score a series of additional victories against her including those 2 back to back 3 set RG finals in 1985-1986, and ensure that a more enjoyable and balanced phase of their rivalry followed (their 1987 Wimbledon SF was a real treat).

 

[Pheasant]

Yes starting from their match in Tokyo in late 1980, Navratilova completely shut Evert out during their last 14 matches against each other on carpet, only dropping 1 set along way (though IIRC Navratilova was already starting to gain the upper hand on carpet before then).

Evert said a few times that on a slick carpet court, if Navratilova served well she felt powerless. And during that stretch of matches, Navratilova invariably did, including during their final ever official match in Chicago in 1988 when she only faced 2 break points fending both of them off.

I thought that the 2nd set of their 1984 Virgina Slims Championships final, the first best of 5 set match in women's tennis for more than 80 years, was a real treat. That was the best set of tennis I recall from Evert vs. Navratilova on carpet during that run of matches. Ultimately Navratilova saved a series of break points with some wonderful play, and came out on top in the big points to win it, which demoralised Evert who then struggled during the 3rd set. Still that match was another showcase of all the weapons in Navratilova's arsenal, including her superb court coverage. I remember her hitting some blistering cross court forehands on the rise.

That was shortly before Navratilova then dished out the 2 drubbings on clay in the Amelia Island and RG finals. There was talk at that stage about Evert only having a chance of beating her on clay, and I remember Billie Jean King saying that she thought Evert at 29 was too old to turn things around against her. Thankfully Evert rebounded to score a series of additional victories against her including those 2 back to back 3 set RG finals in 1985-1986, and ensure that a more enjoyable and balanced phase of their rivalry followed (their 1987 Wimbledon SF was a real treat).

Interesting; first Best of 5 match for women in 80 years. I had no idea.

Good stuff.

 

[GuyForget]

Sampras + it's not even a debate, won YE 5 times, + always beat Becker when it mattered. Lendl amazing stats in his era, but Sampras was in another league, both mentally + in terms of aggression

 

[Holmes]

It always seemed to me that PETE played his best quality tennis indoors, even though he was most dangerous at Wimbledon.

 

[Holmes]

Fun to see Kafelnikov in 9th place in the Open Era win percentage on carpet (not that I think he's the 9th best carpet player in the Open Era). Tennis Abstract has him at 166-60 (73.5%) on carpet.

To answer your question, I'm going with McEnroe.

Why is Sampras the only champion without a triumphant pose?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It always seemed to me that PETE played his best quality tennis indoors, even though he was most dangerous at Wimbledon.

Tough to argue here, it is certainly close. GSC 97 Rafter, YEC finals 94/96 against Becker and the 99 final against Agassi come to mind.