True Measure Of Greatness

First topic message reminder :

What do Arthur Ashe, Jan Kodes, Gustavo Kuerten and Novak Djokovic have in common?

They have won 3 Grand Slam titles.

Are they great all round players? No. Some will tell you otherwise. Cherry pick stats. for example Djokovic has the highest break point conversion rate and that makes him the best returner of serve this season. The other most important stat is return of first serve % which a certain Andy Murray is top of.

Do I consider Hewitt great? No. Far from it. But he is what I call a 'Pioneer' that signalled change in the game for years that followed an saw a new breed of tennis player born. Ivanisevic was part of the big serve revolution in the early 90's, but that didn't reflect in Slam victories.

This is my point. I am a tennis fan. I support Andy Murray. If he started to convert form into slam victories I for one would be pleased. What I wouldn't do is cheapen the argument for Greatness to support a bias view of a player. Greats are players like Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Newcombe, Federer, Nadal. Players who time and time have proven themselves at the highest level and shown great consistency. True champions. It is these legacies that sometimes get tarnished when 'Greatness' is heaped on players who have yet to stand the true test of time with their achievements.

You need to at least credit Nadal, Tenez!

laverfan wrote:You need to at least credit Nadal, Tenez!

He is a tricky one. He plays outside the rules.

Tenez wrote:My tiers of greatness:
1st tier (10+ of evenly spread slams): , Federer He is the undisputed greatest tennis player after all.
2nd tier: Laver, Borg, Sampras
3rd tier: Lendl, McEnroe etc...6 slams plus...

The others with less slams are good but not "greats"

What would you expect other than a complete exclusion of Nadal as laverfan has pointed out. With posts like these you destroy your own credibility. I am not a Fed or Rafa fan, have been both complimentary and critical of both. But would in no way deny one or the other's legacy, if anything you weaken Fed's resume by knocking Rafa. If he isn't that great why does Roger than lose to a semi-talent cheat as you portray him in your posts.

I am a fan of Rafa's game and never say die demeanour, but not his on court antics such as MTOs at crucial points for injuries from which he seems to recover quite miraculously, nor his time wasting tics. However, he is indisputably one of the greatest most definitely and has been a true achilles heel to TMF. On a clay court, he is an animal - just awesome.

Tenez wrote:My tiers of greatness:
1st tier (10+ of evenly spread slams): , Federer He is the undisputed greatest tennis player after all.
2nd tier: Laver, Borg, Sampras
3rd tier: Lendl, McEnroe etc...6 slams plus...

The others with less slams are good but not "greats"

I'd put Nadal in the 2nd tier tbh, rules or no rules, and then I'm very happy with this classification. Lendl and even the mighty Mac didn't have the sustained impact on the game nor set the higher peaks of records that the top two tiers did.

We can't be putting the likes of Courier and Hewitt in a "greats" list, or the meaning of the word becomes "Slam winner".

I think Greatness is a group for the elite. I am no so much into the idea of segmenting it. Players that are considered Great are so by merit and accomplishments. If Djokovic wins more Slams and adds to his legacy, the debate for his place in the list of Greats becomes the more interesting as there will be other factors besides slam victories to throw into the debate eg Davis Cup victory and the streak.

Djokovic is closing the gap on becoming a great. This time next year we could be saying Djokovic is a great and how further up the ranks of greats he can go.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:My tiers of greatness:
1st tier (10+ of evenly spread slams): , Federer He is the undisputed greatest tennis player after all.
2nd tier: Laver, Borg, Sampras
3rd tier: Lendl, McEnroe etc...6 slams plus...

The others with less slams are good but not "greats"

I'd put Nadal in the 2nd tier tbh, rules or no rules, and then I'm very happy with this classification. Lendl and even the mighty Mac didn't have the sustained impact on the game nor set the higher peaks of records that the top two tiers did.

We can't be putting the likes of Courier and Hewitt in a "greats" list, or the meaning of the word becomes "Slam winner".

Spot on bogbrush. Federer is out on his own, no doubt about it. The quartet in your second tier all dominated at least one slam for multiple years, or, in Laver's case, did something extraordinary and won the lot in a single year. This, to my mind, sets these guys apart. The others have caveats, McEnroe could have won more given his talent, Lendl had a win-loss of 8-11 in slam finals - great credit for getting there but this is a definite black mark. Agassi, as outlined by others above, was never really dominant - I was a big fan and his career was a great story, but Sampras puts him in the shade and they can't be in the same tier.

Positively 4th Street wrote: in Laver's case, did something extraordinary and won the lot in a single year.

... and that too twice... 1962 and 1969 (... and to push it further the Pro slams in between).

Roy Emerson should be somewhere in this list.

This is what BB calls the 'slam winners'...

http://tinyurl.com/3mb3ewg

laverfan wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote: in Laver's case, did something extraordinary and won the lot in a single year.

... and that too twice... 1962 and 1969 (... and to push it further the Pro slams in between).

Roy Emerson should be somewhere in this list.

This is what BB calls the 'slam winners'...

http://tinyurl.com/3mb3ewg

I almost mentioned Emerson in my previous post. Read that you mentioned Vilas earlier too, he's much overlooked - reading McEnroe's autobiography led me to find out more and it was time well spent.

Sorry but number of slams alone doesn't tell you the whole story.

Where would you place Emerson? 12 slams but in the amateur era when the professionals couldn't play.

You also have to look at other factors such as length of career and dominance over the rest of the field during your career.

newballs wrote:Sorry but number of slams alone doesn't tell you the whole story.

Where would you place Emerson? 12 slams but in the amateur era when the professionals couldn't play.

You also have to look at other factors such as length of career and dominance over the rest of the field during your career.

Well that's why I think these things are largely subjective. I think, if you must have a list of 'greatest' of course Emerson should feature because of his success in his era and his standing amongst his peers. But, as you quite rightly point out, the professionals were off elsewhere.

I am not saying that the media shouldn't debate it, or we shouldn't here - but I don't believe you can come to a definitive answer or list that everyone agrees upon

The detraction from Amateurs' accomplishments, because Pros were somewhere else, is rather subjective. The 'Pro' tag does not necessarily imply better Tennis, the showmanship and inbreeding of the 'Pro' career has it's own detractors.

Some have already made the 'weak' era argument during the Pro-Am divide, which, if you read Bud Collins's book is rather incoherent and vague.

I will post references probably later tonight.

That would be interesting laver - look forward to

"Greatness" is a provocative term IMHO !



Who can say how the *amateur* players would have fared against

professional players IF that had happened in THAT particular era ?



Catgut v modern man-made strings

Wooden racquets v uber light-weight large headed racquets.

Did we even Have rubberised court surfaces in those days ,

or was it just grass and clay



Until the Last tennis ball has been Hit by the Last Tennis Player

on Earth who is to say who is, was, or indeed who has been

the Greatest of Any Era !



Just enjoy what we are watching and stop with the psychobabble

yummymummy wrote: or was it just grass and clay

A lot of carpet (presumably not the sort of stuff you get in your living room), and wooden courts as well. Laverfan will know more about this - I'm sure Laver wood have played on would (that doesn't seem right somehow).

JuliusHMarx wrote:

yummymummy wrote: or was it just grass and clay

A lot of carpet (presumably not the sort of stuff you get in your living room), and wooden courts as well. Laverfan will know more about this - I'm sure Laver wood have played on would (that doesn't seem right somehow).

I'd forgotten about the old wood floors Julius - WOW ! Golden Oldie time



NOT that I remember them of course

Sorry you cant claim Federer has an even spread with just 1 French Open win - yes his record is exemplary but until a player comes along with 4-5 wins at every slam there is no clear tier 1 'winner' - this for me is always the criteria for GOAT, probably 18+ slams and as I say multiple wins at each one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

yummymummy wrote: or was it just grass and clay

A lot of carpet (presumably not the sort of stuff you get in your living room), and wooden courts as well. Laverfan will know more about this - I'm sure Laver wood have played on would (that doesn't seem right somehow).

Very good play on words Julius. :hatoff:

Laver played on wooden and carpet courts during his Pro years with Pancho and the gang.

lydian wrote:Sorry you cant claim Federer has an even spread with just 1 French Open win - yes his record is exemplary but until a player comes along with 4-5 wins at every slam there is no clear tier 1 'winner' - this for me is always the criteria for GOAT, probably 18+ slams and as I say multiple wins at each one.

Well the 5 consecutive titles at two different majors is one of the unique records. But the point I guess is Lydian that we will all assess it differently and there can be, as you say, no clear winner unless there is one player whose achievements in every aspect leave no room for argument - or would they? - I can just hear the cries of 'foul - weak era' now

The greatest of all time tag was one the media took and ran with as it provided endless copy - I don't suppose it is a debate that occupies the locker room over much

It's a reasonable point lydian makes, but closer inspetion of Feds RG record I think compensates for an apparant "weakness" on the surface.

The fact that it's two consecutive 5ers, 4 at another and 1 but with 4 losing finals at RG I think says this is a player who has been brilliant everywhere.

The difference between that and, say, Sampras with his 0 finals and 1 semi-final at RG is vast and easily warrants a tier difference. Even Borg was weaker at the USO (ignoring the AO as he didn't care about that).