The fourth tier contains an eclectic mix of talented athletes spanning many different eras who were extremely competitive, but struggled to maintain an elite level of performance for more than a few years. Vilas, Newcombe, Ashe, and Nastase were from roughly the same era, while Courier, Roddick, and Murray became superstars for a brief period in recent history. None of these seven players won more than five Grand Slam titles in the Open Era, because their dominance was concentrated into 3-5 years of stellar play. First I will present those men who mainly competed during the 1970s:
Arthur Ashe (5.93* rating), Guillermo Vilas (6.04* rating), Ilie Nastase (6.01* rating), John Newcombe (6.46* rating)
*based on limited statistical information
Arthur Ashe's peak run lasted from 1968 to 1971, where he captured Australian and United States Open titles, two of his three major championships. Guillermo Vilas dominated from 1977 to 1979, winning three of the four majors except Wimbledon, where he never got past the quarterfinals in his career. Ilie Nastase was at his best from 1971 to 1975, winning four of five year-end Masters titles, a record matched only by Roger Federer (2003-2007). He defeated Arthur Ashe in the 1972 US Open final and also seized the 1973 French Open crown. Vilas beat Nastase at 1974's year-end final in five sets, preventing Ilie from winning an unbelievable five championships in a row. John Newcombe, like Ken Rosewall, played before and after the Open era. He was more renowned for his doubles heroics with Tony Roche; together they achieved an unprecedented 12 GS titles, which has since been eclipsed by the Bryan brothers of America. However, Newcombe also won 5 GS singles championships in the Open Era, including two consecutive Wimbledons ('71 & '72) where he overcame two great players - Ken Rosewall and Stan Smith.
If I had to choose the top player among these four - Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, or Ashe - I would take Nastase because he was capable on every surface. Ilie Nastase went to two Wimbledon finals, losing to Stan Smith and Bjorn Borg in '72 and '76, respectively. His 1972 US Open title was achieved when it was played on outdoor grass courts in Queens. Accounting for his triumph at Roland Garros in '73 and his indoor hardcourt and carpet surface Masters crowns in four out of five years ('71-'75), I can judge that he was the most complete player among these four guys. Head-to-head Nastase was 4-1 against Newcombe and 5-3 versus Ashe, his closest contemporaries in age. Vilas, who was six years younger with a 7-5 edge over Nastase in their matchups, nonetheless failed to go far in Wimbledon and the vast majority of his titles were on clay (46). Guillermo Vilas only had 10 grass and hardcourt championships combined, and his '78 and '79 Australian Open titles on grass were won against the likes of John Marks and John Sadri (Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, and Bjorn Borg were absent from Australia's GS tournament in those days). Ultimately, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Ilie Nastase, and Guillermo Vilas are in the same group for a reason: they all achieved short-term greatness. Ashe's tragic death reminds us of how fast one's life and career can fall from the mountaintop to the earth.
Andy Roddick, Jim Courier, and Andy Murray entered the game of tennis long after most of the above four players had either retired or ceased qualifying for GS singles draws. Yet they seemed to inherit the same trait of a sharp rise and fall from glory. Murray has been relatively more consistent than Roddick and Courier ever were, but has never reached World No. 1 because of the impassable mountain trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Courier and Roddick each attained a Year-End World Number One ranking once in 1992 and 2003, respectively, before Sampras and Federer emerged to apply a stranglehold on that position for several years. I would rank these three in the following descending order:
Andy Murray (6.28 rating), Jim Courier (5.48 rating), Andy Roddick (5.38 rating)
Andy Murray's embarrassing loss to Federer (6-0, 6-1) in this week's ATP World Tour Finals highlights his confounding inability to truly solve the Big Three throughout his career. He and Roddick together share the dubious distinction of NEVER subduing Roger Federer in a Grand Slam final in seven attempts (four Wimbledons, two US Opens, one Australian Open). Should we call it the hex of the Andy brothers? In fact, Roddick never won in any round of a GS tournament when he faced Roger, going 0-8. At least Murray managed to vanquish Federer in the 2013 Australian Open, but only after five grueling sets.
Courier had the same problem with Pete Sampras, who bested him in 16 out of 20 matches, including 6 of 8 GS confrontations. One thing I liked about Jim Courier, however, is his winning record against certain Third Tier players, especially in Grand Slams. Overall he was 7-5 vs. Andre Agassi (4-2 in GS) and 6-4 vs. Stefan Edberg (4-2 in GS). Somehow Courier could not sustain the brilliance he displayed on the tennis court for more than three years (1991-93). Andy Roddick's best stretch from 2003-2006 coincided with Federer's incredible ascendancy; otherwise, he probably would have won as many majors as Jim Courier. Courier was lucky that Sampras did not become a dominant force until after 1992. Another minor point in Roddick's favor is his decent performance in contests with Novak Djokovic (5-4) and Rafael Nadal (3-7). He has defeated both legends in a GS tournament (2004 US Open vs. Nadal, 2009 Australian Open vs. Djokovic). I would still rate Courier slightly ahead of Roddick because he did beat Sampras twice in Grand Slams (1991 US Open & 1994 French Open).
Despite his shortcomings, Andy Murray, in my opinion, is arguably the best player among all seven candidates in this Fourth Tier. His QF% of 60%, or notable accomplishment of reaching at least the quarterfinals in 21 of 35 GS, is far superior to anyone else's QF% in this class except John Newcombe, who compiled a QF% of 53% in his whole career (1960-1978). In the Open Era, only Newcombe, Rosewall, Nadal, Federer, Connors, Djokovic, and Borg have registered a QF% above 60%. That is impressive company for someone with just two major titles. Murray also sports a winning percentage of 80% (134-33 W-L) in all Grand Slam matches; the next best in this seven-man grouping are John Newcombe (78%, i.e. 152-44) and Arthur Ashe (77%, i.e. 138-41). Ilie Nastase, whom I would rank second here, won 58 career titles. Newcombe and Ashe, whom I would rank third and fourth on this list, each won 34 career titles. Vilas, a clay-court specialist, would rank fifth, followed by Courier and Roddick. That completes our fourth tier, the largest collection so far in one class, which is not incidental. The further you go down the ladder, the wider the steps, because the best athletes are rarer and the average ones are much more common.
Arthur Ashe (5.93* rating), Guillermo Vilas (6.04* rating), Ilie Nastase (6.01* rating), John Newcombe (6.46* rating)
*based on limited statistical information
If I had to choose the top player among these four - Newcombe, Vilas, Nastase, or Ashe - I would take Nastase because he was capable on every surface. Ilie Nastase went to two Wimbledon finals, losing to Stan Smith and Bjorn Borg in '72 and '76, respectively. His 1972 US Open title was achieved when it was played on outdoor grass courts in Queens. Accounting for his triumph at Roland Garros in '73 and his indoor hardcourt and carpet surface Masters crowns in four out of five years ('71-'75), I can judge that he was the most complete player among these four guys. Head-to-head Nastase was 4-1 against Newcombe and 5-3 versus Ashe, his closest contemporaries in age. Vilas, who was six years younger with a 7-5 edge over Nastase in their matchups, nonetheless failed to go far in Wimbledon and the vast majority of his titles were on clay (46). Guillermo Vilas only had 10 grass and hardcourt championships combined, and his '78 and '79 Australian Open titles on grass were won against the likes of John Marks and John Sadri (Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, and Bjorn Borg were absent from Australia's GS tournament in those days). Ultimately, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Ilie Nastase, and Guillermo Vilas are in the same group for a reason: they all achieved short-term greatness. Ashe's tragic death reminds us of how fast one's life and career can fall from the mountaintop to the earth.
Andy Roddick, Jim Courier, and Andy Murray entered the game of tennis long after most of the above four players had either retired or ceased qualifying for GS singles draws. Yet they seemed to inherit the same trait of a sharp rise and fall from glory. Murray has been relatively more consistent than Roddick and Courier ever were, but has never reached World No. 1 because of the impassable mountain trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Courier and Roddick each attained a Year-End World Number One ranking once in 1992 and 2003, respectively, before Sampras and Federer emerged to apply a stranglehold on that position for several years. I would rank these three in the following descending order:
Andy Murray (6.28 rating), Jim Courier (5.48 rating), Andy Roddick (5.38 rating)
Andy Murray's embarrassing loss to Federer (6-0, 6-1) in this week's ATP World Tour Finals highlights his confounding inability to truly solve the Big Three throughout his career. He and Roddick together share the dubious distinction of NEVER subduing Roger Federer in a Grand Slam final in seven attempts (four Wimbledons, two US Opens, one Australian Open). Should we call it the hex of the Andy brothers? In fact, Roddick never won in any round of a GS tournament when he faced Roger, going 0-8. At least Murray managed to vanquish Federer in the 2013 Australian Open, but only after five grueling sets.
Courier had the same problem with Pete Sampras, who bested him in 16 out of 20 matches, including 6 of 8 GS confrontations. One thing I liked about Jim Courier, however, is his winning record against certain Third Tier players, especially in Grand Slams. Overall he was 7-5 vs. Andre Agassi (4-2 in GS) and 6-4 vs. Stefan Edberg (4-2 in GS). Somehow Courier could not sustain the brilliance he displayed on the tennis court for more than three years (1991-93). Andy Roddick's best stretch from 2003-2006 coincided with Federer's incredible ascendancy; otherwise, he probably would have won as many majors as Jim Courier. Courier was lucky that Sampras did not become a dominant force until after 1992. Another minor point in Roddick's favor is his decent performance in contests with Novak Djokovic (5-4) and Rafael Nadal (3-7). He has defeated both legends in a GS tournament (2004 US Open vs. Nadal, 2009 Australian Open vs. Djokovic). I would still rate Courier slightly ahead of Roddick because he did beat Sampras twice in Grand Slams (1991 US Open & 1994 French Open).
Despite his shortcomings, Andy Murray, in my opinion, is arguably the best player among all seven candidates in this Fourth Tier. His QF% of 60%, or notable accomplishment of reaching at least the quarterfinals in 21 of 35 GS, is far superior to anyone else's QF% in this class except John Newcombe, who compiled a QF% of 53% in his whole career (1960-1978). In the Open Era, only Newcombe, Rosewall, Nadal, Federer, Connors, Djokovic, and Borg have registered a QF% above 60%. That is impressive company for someone with just two major titles. Murray also sports a winning percentage of 80% (134-33 W-L) in all Grand Slam matches; the next best in this seven-man grouping are John Newcombe (78%, i.e. 152-44) and Arthur Ashe (77%, i.e. 138-41). Ilie Nastase, whom I would rank second here, won 58 career titles. Newcombe and Ashe, whom I would rank third and fourth on this list, each won 34 career titles. Vilas, a clay-court specialist, would rank fifth, followed by Courier and Roddick. That completes our fourth tier, the largest collection so far in one class, which is not incidental. The further you go down the ladder, the wider the steps, because the best athletes are rarer and the average ones are much more common.
No comments:
Post a Comment