Instead of listing them one by one, I will group the best tennis players into classes or tiers, where all the members of that class are about the same caliber or achieved similar career numbers. Some of these groups may surprise you, become some players (especially from the USA) are a little overrated and European players are sometimes underrated because of American bias. Most analysts choose Federer or Nadal as the greatest player, but Bjorn Borg may have been just as good, and these three form our first tier:
Bjorn Borg (10.03 rating), Roger Federer (10.09 rating), Rafael Nadal (10.12 rating)
Borg won four straight French Opens and five consecutive Wimbledon championships, with the highest Quarterfinal Percentage (QF%) in Grand Slams, reaching at least the quarters in 21 of 27 GS tournaments (78%). Only Novak Djokovic and Jimmy Connors have a QF% above 70% among the greats (Federer and Nadal are both at 69% in this category). Bjorn Borg also has the best winning percentage (141-16 or 90%) in Grand Slams. If he had played a few more years instead of retiring prematurely, he would have probably eclipsed Nadal and come close to Federer's record of 17 Grand Slams. Borg was the champion in 11 of 27 GS singles draws, an unbelievable 41% success rate. Even at half that rate, he would have gotten one out of every five majors, and passed Nadal's 14 GS titles with 4 majors in five years. He could have then retired at age 31, instead of quitting at the young age of 26. Because he gave up too soon, I cannot rank him ahead of Nadal or Federer. But he was definitely the first dominant player in the history of modern tennis.
Now for the second tier, I selected five players who are a shade below the elite first tier:
Pete Sampras (8.40 rating), Jimmy Connors (8.80* rating), John McEnroe (8.81 rating), Novak Djokovic (9.02 rating), Ivan Lendl (9.45 rating)
.jpg)
Sampras has the lowest rating among these guys, mainly because he could not win much on clay, with only one French Open semifinal and three quarterfinal appearances. In all other years, he failed to reach the 4th round. He won just three clay court titles his entire career, one of them in the Masters Series at Rome, Italy. Pete Sampras defeated Boris Becker in straight sets there, but this was not a great accomplishment. Becker never won a single professional clay court tournament, going 0-6 in finals. Pete Sampras has a lower QF% in Grand Slams (56%) than the other four players in this tier, even though he did go 14-4 in GS finals, including 8 consecutive wins. Thus, Pistol Pete was kind of boom or bust, and like Nadal he missed or skipped some Grand Slams, especially the Australian Open in '91, '92, and '99. Sampras was probably the most talented American tennis player ever, but his skill set did not always translate well to certain surfaces or situations. He had a great serve, solid volley, and dangerous forehand, but the other parts of his game were somewhat ordinary (return of serve and backhand). Head-to-head Pete Sampras appears to have an edge over John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, but those two were both more than ten years older than him and past their primes when they faced him.
The ratings of McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl are enhanced by the larger number of year-end tournaments (WCT Finals and Tour Finals) during the 1980s, so one can still make an argument for Sampras as the best player in this class. Personally, I would rank them subjectively in the following order: Lendl, Djokovic, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors. Ivan Lendl won twice as many Masters Series titles (22) as Pete Sampras (11). Lendl and Sampras are tied for the most consecutive seasons (11) reaching at least one GS final. They both made it to eight US Open finals (Lendl did it for eight years in a row from '82 to '89 - no other player has reached more than seven straight finals in a particular Grand Slam). Federer appeared in 7 consecutive Wimbledon finals from 2003 to 2009, the next longest streak. Lendl played in 19 GS finals, while Sampras reached 18 GS finals. But Lendl's main downfall was his 8-11 losing record in those biggest matches of his life, and Sampras shined the brightest in those clutch moments. Ivan Lendl was equal to or better than Pete Sampras in terms of their accomplishments except in this ultimate category.
Novak Djokovic may end up being the highest-rated player in this group by the end of his career. He has gone to 22 GS quarterfinals in a row, and has the second-highest QF% behind Bjorn Borg, with 30 trips in 40 Grand Slams (75%). He is a model of consistency who has not missed a major tournament since 2005. If he had played in an era without even one of the two greatest ever - Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - he might have been regarded as arguably the best tennis player of all time. He is a combination of the best attributes of earlier players (Lendl's baseline groundstrokes, Agassi's service return and two-handed backhand, Connors' relentlessness and determination). Speaking of Andre Agassi, he will headline the third tier which I will discuss in my next post.
Bjorn Borg (10.03 rating), Roger Federer (10.09 rating), Rafael Nadal (10.12 rating)
Borg won four straight French Opens and five consecutive Wimbledon championships, with the highest Quarterfinal Percentage (QF%) in Grand Slams, reaching at least the quarters in 21 of 27 GS tournaments (78%). Only Novak Djokovic and Jimmy Connors have a QF% above 70% among the greats (Federer and Nadal are both at 69% in this category). Bjorn Borg also has the best winning percentage (141-16 or 90%) in Grand Slams. If he had played a few more years instead of retiring prematurely, he would have probably eclipsed Nadal and come close to Federer's record of 17 Grand Slams. Borg was the champion in 11 of 27 GS singles draws, an unbelievable 41% success rate. Even at half that rate, he would have gotten one out of every five majors, and passed Nadal's 14 GS titles with 4 majors in five years. He could have then retired at age 31, instead of quitting at the young age of 26. Because he gave up too soon, I cannot rank him ahead of Nadal or Federer. But he was definitely the first dominant player in the history of modern tennis.
Now for the second tier, I selected five players who are a shade below the elite first tier:
*asterisk means tentative rating based on limited statistical information
Pete Sampras (8.40 rating), Jimmy Connors (8.80* rating), John McEnroe (8.81 rating), Novak Djokovic (9.02 rating), Ivan Lendl (9.45 rating)
.jpg)
Sampras has the lowest rating among these guys, mainly because he could not win much on clay, with only one French Open semifinal and three quarterfinal appearances. In all other years, he failed to reach the 4th round. He won just three clay court titles his entire career, one of them in the Masters Series at Rome, Italy. Pete Sampras defeated Boris Becker in straight sets there, but this was not a great accomplishment. Becker never won a single professional clay court tournament, going 0-6 in finals. Pete Sampras has a lower QF% in Grand Slams (56%) than the other four players in this tier, even though he did go 14-4 in GS finals, including 8 consecutive wins. Thus, Pistol Pete was kind of boom or bust, and like Nadal he missed or skipped some Grand Slams, especially the Australian Open in '91, '92, and '99. Sampras was probably the most talented American tennis player ever, but his skill set did not always translate well to certain surfaces or situations. He had a great serve, solid volley, and dangerous forehand, but the other parts of his game were somewhat ordinary (return of serve and backhand). Head-to-head Pete Sampras appears to have an edge over John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl, but those two were both more than ten years older than him and past their primes when they faced him.
The ratings of McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl are enhanced by the larger number of year-end tournaments (WCT Finals and Tour Finals) during the 1980s, so one can still make an argument for Sampras as the best player in this class. Personally, I would rank them subjectively in the following order: Lendl, Djokovic, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors. Ivan Lendl won twice as many Masters Series titles (22) as Pete Sampras (11). Lendl and Sampras are tied for the most consecutive seasons (11) reaching at least one GS final. They both made it to eight US Open finals (Lendl did it for eight years in a row from '82 to '89 - no other player has reached more than seven straight finals in a particular Grand Slam). Federer appeared in 7 consecutive Wimbledon finals from 2003 to 2009, the next longest streak. Lendl played in 19 GS finals, while Sampras reached 18 GS finals. But Lendl's main downfall was his 8-11 losing record in those biggest matches of his life, and Sampras shined the brightest in those clutch moments. Ivan Lendl was equal to or better than Pete Sampras in terms of their accomplishments except in this ultimate category.
Novak Djokovic may end up being the highest-rated player in this group by the end of his career. He has gone to 22 GS quarterfinals in a row, and has the second-highest QF% behind Bjorn Borg, with 30 trips in 40 Grand Slams (75%). He is a model of consistency who has not missed a major tournament since 2005. If he had played in an era without even one of the two greatest ever - Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - he might have been regarded as arguably the best tennis player of all time. He is a combination of the best attributes of earlier players (Lendl's baseline groundstrokes, Agassi's service return and two-handed backhand, Connors' relentlessness and determination). Speaking of Andre Agassi, he will headline the third tier which I will discuss in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment