True Measure Of Greatness

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.

Yep, agree with most of that (except dont see Hewitt as a pioneer - he had a couple of good years but even the old guys like Agassi were beating him in 2002 and 2004 during his peak).

Lets see Novak winning slams every year for 3-5 years before we label him with true greatness. Potential for it? Absolutely.
Achieved yet, absolutely not. True greats of the game show success over time, not one season....let's see what transpires.

I think of Hewitt as a pioneer in terms of how his speed on court and tenacity certainly showed that it could generate some success on court. With his injuries though, not sure if it is bad luck or just bad management of his physical conditioning. I am sure he would be the first to reflect that he should've and could've won more slams.

Like you say, time determines one's greatness and not just one season.

Agreed. Potential for greatness and achieving greatness are 2 different things.
It wasn't that long ago that Fed was tipped for 18-20 slams and then Rafa was tipped for 16+ slams. Now Nole is tipped for....who knows? But no-one can say for sure he will win even 1 or 2 more.

I remember during the post-match analysis following Hewiit's Wimby win that one TV commentator (John Barrett possibly) said he could win 10 more Wimbledon's. And check out this link for predictions of Hewitt's future circa 2002 :-
http://www.lleytonhewitt.biz/page22002.htm

That's an interesting link Julius. It's a common mistake by pundits and fans alike to take the current situation and extrapolate, often wildly, in to the future. Hewitt achieved a lot at an early age, but that did not mean he would still be playing well at a later age, such as someone like Agassi. Each career trajectory is different.

An example of the danger in predicting is to recall John McEnroe, after a year like he had just had, would not win another slam title in singles after 1984. Sure, there were mitigating circumstances, but few would have anticipated that.

lydian wrote:Yep, agree with most of that (except dont see Hewitt as a pioneer - he had a couple of good years but even the old guys like Agassi were beating him in 2002 and 2004 during his peak).

Lets see Novak winning slams every year for 3-5 years before we label him with true greatness. Potential for it? Absolutely.
Achieved yet, absolutely not. True greats of the game show success over time, not one season....let's see what transpires.

I agree but in the form he has been in now for all of this year we need to look at the opposition and where that stands. Rafael Nadal of late has encountered problems against Djokovic and the Serb has definitely had the upper hand. No.3 in the world Roger Federer would need to rediscover some of his best form which would be a big ask at this time of his career, No.4 seed Andy Murray needs a little more mental consistency and then you'd look to Del Potro (certainly for the US Open) but is he back to his best yet? Younger guns like Tomic and Raonic may be ones to watch in coming years as well but will that be in the next two or three years by which time Novak Djokovic could quite conceivably have another three or four slams in the bag.

Legend,


being a MOD, I don't think windup attempts like these suit your role....

You don't want others starting writing articles on Murray's greatness which then you''ll be locking up...

And anyway, what ARE you trying to say with this article:

that Novak is not a tennis great and Murray is?

Of course Novak is a tennis great, 3 slams to his name and counting, I'd say he'll end with a figure around 10, maybe more...

As for Murray, try and imagine he'd just won Wimbledon and become number one....nice, innit?

NITB,

This isn't an attempt at a wind up or anything.

Where in my article does it say Murray is greater than Novak?

I would very much appreciate people to read, then comment. Not vice versa.

Nitb, I didn't see this as a wind-up.
I think it's become an interesting debate on potential/predictions vs. achievement.
Depending on your defintion of tennis 'great' Nole may, or may not be a tennis 'great'. He's in with Ashe and Keurten - some consider those as greats, some don't.
Personally, I GUESS that Nole will end up with 5 or 6. But it might be 10 or it might be 3.
Is it that hard to imagine that he's a bit tired at the USO, or the pressure of being No. 1 might affect him slightly, and he doesn't win it?
And at the AO, could Murray, Fed, Nadal, Tsonga or Delpo win it?
Then the FO - Nole's never reached the final. Might not next year.
It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he does not win any of the next 3 slams, or only 1 one them.
Then what - another 6 after that?
Perhaps it's best to just wait and see, since none of us has a crystal ball.

Novak Djokovic won his third singles grand slam title at about the same age (year and month) as Lendl when he won his first singles grand slam title, so there is still time for Djokovic to add to his "legacy".

A measure of greatness is an ability to keep motivated and hard working after reaching the top level, gaining success and earning enough to retire on.

NITB
I think LKs article is very accurate - so far Djokovic has had a very good career and is in the middle of a great season. That's not (yet) enough to qualify him as a truly great player, but there is a good chance that he will get there if he can maintain this form.

Predictions of getting to 10 or more slams are rather premature - as pointed out above, McEnroe had a great year in 84 and never won a slam afterwards, and great things were expected of Hewitt in the early 00s which never materialised. Extrapolating from current great performances tends to lead to disappointment.

As for Murray, he clearly is now a level below Djokovic in career terms (there wasn't much to chose between them prior to this year - slight advantage to Djokovic in him having won one slam title, but they were in the same league), and has a lot further to go before he could potentially be considered a 'great' (other than against the very low goal of being a British great in the Open era, which he already is).

I think that like most posters have said, time will determine. I think it's easy for people to carried away with euphoria of success. There is every chance Djokovic can become a great, but he isn't one just yet.

I think players like Del Potro have a chance to become a great. If Andy won 1 slam or 3, I wouldn't be banging my drum about greatness. Like I said with the list I provided, those players are true greats. Their achievements speak volumes. I am not one to cheapen greatness for a bias perspective.

Djokovic tennis great? Not yet but well on his way.

Slams: he's right now 24 with little more than two years ahead of top form. I'd be very surprised if he clinches more than six.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Djokovic tennis great? Not yet but well on his way.

Slams: he's right now 24 with little more than two years ahead of top form. I'd be very surprised if he clinches more than six.

Well Jeremy who do you see winning the slams other than Novak Djokovic in the current form he is in?

I'll tell you what is great - this article.

Let's deal on the facts as they are right now. Djokovic is no great yet. He might be one day, or he might not. But he isn't yet.

Of the current players only two ARE greats.

The trouble with words like 'great' is that they are inappropriately used, but this is done by all of us at one time or another, so you almost have to find another adjective for the 'greats' of the game like Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, McEnroe, Agassi etc, etc.

The other thing is what is it that makes a player great - obviously titles, majors but Agassi will be remembered long after Llendl has been forgotten by most sports fans though I think they ended up with roughly the same amount of majors, if not exactly the same? Llendl was even more consistent generally and was the first player to really introduce modern definitions of fitness into the game. He suffered a bit of choking in his first major finals - ditto Agassi, but they both found a way to come through and triumph and he did not plunge down into the depths, like Agassi. Perhaps for me, Agassi adds to his 'greatness' by finding a way back through the challenger route, but mostly I think because of the charisma he brought to the court and the fans he attracted to the game - in a way poor Ivan, brilliant though he was in his time, didn't really do. I would include Llendl as a great, but perhaps it is more appropriate to call him a giant of the game, and I think for the moment this is what I am more comfortable calling Novak - he is a giant of the contemporary game at the moment.

So, McEnroe greatly underachieved in some ways, finishing on 7 majors and never winning one beyond 25 years of age - but not only tennis fans will never forget his wonderful artistic play and his legendary outbursts, but the public in general - he is a household name and is still widely imitated, and understood to be, by the simple repetition of the phrase 'you cannot be serious'

Just like everyone knows Tiger's name even if they cannot name another golfer, or everyone knew who Hurricane Higgins was, Federer, Nadal, McEnroe, Borg, Connors are household names. They have transcended mere tennis if you like.

time please
Interesting comment, and also interesting that you missed Sampras off your list of those who transcend the game. Not sure that Connors should be on there either really.

Extending your discussion of Agassi, I think the general public probably remember him much more than they remember Sampras, even though Pete was clearly the better player. Sometimes it comes down to personality or charisma as much as results, and also some of the back story (Andre's struggles in his middle career, before coming back to the peak).

In a similar vein, Ivanisevic will always be remembered more and more fondly than most one time slam winners - partly because he came 2nd so often and partly because of his personality.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Djokovic tennis great? Not yet but well on his way.

Slams: he's right now 24 with little more than two years ahead of top form. I'd be very surprised if he clinches more than six.

Well Jeremy who do you see winning the slams other than Novak Djokovic in the current form he is in?

If you mean for the next couple of years .....I think: Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga and Soderling, with different degrees of probabilities, are all obvious candidates to win Slams.

I think Federer is now in decline and will be hard pushed to raise his game again to win a slam (may be wrong but he needs to reverse a trend), Del Potro is a possible but lacks the consistency Novak possesses, Andy needs to overcome his mental barriers, Nadal is the obvious slam contender whilst the others you mentioned will need to raise their game to new levels if they are to win a slam. So you see Novak Djokovic is a better bet to win at least another three or four slams at least rather than not to in my opinion.

I would add that true "greats" transcend the sport. They become known more widely by the general public. Winning slams helps but it takes more than that to become more widely known. For example -

McEnroe will be acknowledged more than Llendl. Those memorable Wimbledon finals against Borg guaranteed that but also his personality. Coming from the US helps as does his continued presence in the media.

Nadal and Federer between them have taken most of the slams for nearly ten years. They have produced many memorable matches. Their rivalry will add to their perceived "greatness".

Djokovic has not only had an amazing year but has played some great tennis throughout his career. But he will have to do more if he is to be seen as "great" in the same way as McEnroe, Nadal, Federer and other players who have made that jump. In this country he may not even be perceived as being as "great" as Murray. This may not be fair but its just the way it is.

"Greats". Probably the worst word ever to afflict sport. Everyone's a "great" these days.

In my lifetime I've seen only

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Becker*, Agassi, Federer, Nadal

* Boris gets in for the seismic shock of winning Wimbledon twice so young.

Well totally disagree with this post. Novak is a tennis great if he retired tomorrow. I would consider Arthur Ashe as a tennis great no question about it. Even kuerten, who was sadly cut down by injury. There is about 15 players in the history of the game (open era) that have attained 3 or more slams maybe less. It shows a level of consistency and being able to win multiple slams is the true hallmark of greatness.

Sorry, I dont agree that Novak is a "great". He's great this year for sure. I also dont think Ashe and Guga are greats either. Not true greats.
Its hard to know where to draw the line but I think its around 6-7+ slams. Guys from this level onwards have achieved huge things in the game across multiple years. Novak has the potential no doubt but he's simply not there yet. With Nadal not in the form he once was, Fed fading and Murray always playing 2nd fiddle to the top 3 at slams I think Novak is peaking at a good time to amass slams. But at the moment there's no way you can mention him in say the same breath as Agassi as a "great". For me, there's always been 3 strata of greats
1) Fed/Samp/Borg/Laver/Nad - i.e. all eligible for GOAT discussion for different reasons
2) then Agassi/Mac/Lendl/Connors - i.e. legends
3) then Wilander/Edberg/Borg - i.e. true greats
4) then all the others - great players.

Personally I feel Novak will end up in the 3rd, maybe 2nd, strata.

To maintain the consistency over years like Fedal, Sampras, et al. in strata 1, it requires tremendous effort. Hope Djokovic can maintain his current level and continue the effort to improve.

The younger generation may provide additional challenges which are unknown at this point.

One day, when this era is done and dusted, you'll all remember poor old Noleisthebest.....and ask (again) now, how come we did not see it ....

Lydian, I don't have much of a problem with your post. I wouldn't put Novak in the either of your categories right now as you have stated. But I think when you talk about 3 slam winners, that is kind of where I draw the line of greatness. It bespeaks a level of consistency at the grandslam level and the ability to win the biggest of tournaments on multiple occassions. Novak certainly has a way to go before being included in category 1 or 2 of your list, but he is making a push to get into the #3 strata, we will see how it ends up.

dummy_half wrote:time please
Interesting comment, and also interesting that you missed Sampras off your list of those who transcend the game. Not sure that Connors should be on there either really.

Extending your discussion of Agassi, I think the general public probably remember him much more than they remember Sampras, even though Pete was clearly the better player. Sometimes it comes down to personality or charisma as much as results, and also some of the back story (Andre's struggles in his middle career, before coming back to the peak).

In a similar vein, Ivanisevic will always be remembered more and more fondly than most one time slam winners - partly because he came 2nd so often and partly because of his personality.

I had Sampras on list at top, but just forgot on the second list. Of course he really should be on it - 7 Wimbledons in the modern game is insane before you even look at his victories at US and AO - apologies Pete.

I am going to robustly defend Jimbo and say he really must be on the 'greats' list - maybe he falls a little short of the others in terms of majors, but he has an incredible number of titles won (he must hold record in modern game), plus his longevity and the way he remained so competitive through a few generations, and also not least because he, McEnroe and Borg brought a whole new generation (and a far bigger audience than tennis had ever known) to the sport. The three of them were household names and everyone had an opinion on their personalities. Connors will be mentioned in connection with the sport (witness how many times his name appears on forums) long after Llendl or Edberg or Wilander are just names on a roll of honour to all but the most ardent tennis fan - I think, for that reason alone, he can be said to have transcended the game of tennis and is a sporting hero - or 'great'

socal1976 wrote:Well totally disagree with this post. Novak is a tennis great if he retired tomorrow. I would consider Arthur Ashe as a tennis great no question about it. Even kuerten, who was sadly cut down by injury. There is about 15 players in the history of the game (open era) that have attained 3 or more slams maybe less. It shows a level of consistency and being able to win multiple slams is the true hallmark of greatness.

You do surprise me

3 Slams is just above the fluking them level.

Then again, why don't we just face facts; you are going to define anything wonderful precisely in terms of whatever Djokovic has done. I'm surprised that the run so far this year hasn't got you ranking him ahead of Federer/McEnroe. I know that if he were to lose only 3 matches this year you'd go for it.

Nobody's mentioned Jim Courier - if Djoko is a great, then Jim is at 4 slams, No. 1 for 50+ weeks, as well as a finalist in all four slams.

I don't think Jim's a true "great" - just bubbling under. I draw the line between the likes of Becker/Edberg (greats at 6 slams each and numerous other achievements) and Courier (not quite).

I think Novak most likely will be a great because I think he'll pick up at least a couple more slams and several other big tournaments over the next few years and has got a load more weeks at No. 1 - but were his winning ways to end tomorrow he would not go down as a great. I also think it would be a mistake to assume on the basis of the last 7 months that he'll be the next player to dominate, it is quite possible, but it's important to remember just how unusual the dominance of Fedal has been.

I'm surprised that so many put Agassi way higher than Lendl - sure he got the career slam which is an immense achievement and he had easy charisma and popularity, but I have Lendl down as a more successful player whose career was way more influential to the way modern tennis is played than Agassi's. Throughout the 1980's if you were going to get anywhere you had to beat the ever-present Lendl and he played his part in many great matches in which the bar of tennis quality was raised to new levels. Lendl is said to have been a bit of a flake at the highest level and to have come to the slam winners' ring relatively late; there may be something in that, but the point applies similarly to Agassi who, at times during his career, seemed to be making an exasperating mess of maximising his considerable talent whilst similarly shooting his mouth off unwisely. You could never accuse Lendl of that.

barrystar wrote:Nobody's mentioned Jim Courier - if Djoko is a great, then Jim is at 4 slams, No. 1 for 50+ weeks, as well as a finalist in all four slams.

I don't think Jim's a true "great" - just bubbling under. I draw the line between the likes of Becker/Edberg (greats at 6 slams each and numerous other achievements) and Courier (not quite).

I think Novak most likely will be a great because I think he'll pick up at least a couple more slams and several other big tournaments over the next few years and has got a load more weeks at No. 1 - but were his winning ways to end tomorrow he would not go down as a great. I also think it would be a mistake to assume on the basis of the last 7 months that he'll be the next player to dominate, it is quite possible, but it's important to remember just how unusual the dominance of Fedal has been.

I'm surprised that so many put Agassi way higher than Lendl - sure he got the career slam which is an immense achievement and he had easy charisma and popularity, but I have Lendl down as a more successful player whose career was way more influential to the way modern tennis is played than Agassi's. Throughout the 1980's if you were going to get anywhere you had to beat the ever-present Lendl and he played his part in many great matches in which the bar of tennis quality was raised to new levels. Lendl is said to have been a bit of a flake at the highest level and to have come to the slam winners' ring relatively late; there may be something in that, but the point applies similarly to Agassi who, at times during his career, seemed to be making an exasperating mess of maximising his considerable talent whilst similarly shooting his mouth off unwisely. You could never accuse Lendl of that.

I'd agree that Courier is up there as well, the thing that makes him not such a convincing case is that e has not won Wimbledon.

I wonder how may of the 4 slams he won he'd trade for one Wimbledon...

barrystar wrote:Nobody's mentioned Jim Courier - snip

Great spot. A very good player but never a great in a million years.

If 'greatness' was measured solely based on number of slams, then

Del Potro = Petr Korda = Pat Cash = Yannick Noah = Andres Gomez = Richard Krajicek = ....

Like Courier, people forget Vilas. 62 titles, 40 additional finals, amazing doubles player. He won 4 slams, including FO in 1977. I personally prefer Vilas to Courier.

barrystar wrote:Nobody's mentioned Jim Courier - if Djoko is a great, then Jim is at 4 slams, No. 1 for 50+ weeks, as well as a finalist in all four slams.

I don't think Jim's a true "great" - just bubbling under. I draw the line between the likes of Becker/Edberg (greats at 6 slams each and numerous other achievements) and Courier (not quite).

I think Novak most likely will be a great because I think he'll pick up at least a couple more slams and several other big tournaments over the next few years and has got a load more weeks at No. 1 - but were his winning ways to end tomorrow he would not go down as a great. I also think it would be a mistake to assume on the basis of the last 7 months that he'll be the next player to dominate, it is quite possible, but it's important to remember just how unusual the dominance of Fedal has been.

I'm surprised that so many put Agassi way higher than Lendl - sure he got the career slam which is an immense achievement and he had easy charisma and popularity, but I have Lendl down as a more successful player whose career was way more influential to the way modern tennis is played than Agassi's. Throughout the 1980's if you were going to get anywhere you had to beat the ever-present Lendl and he played his part in many great matches in which the bar of tennis quality was raised to new levels. Lendl is said to have been a bit of a flake at the highest level and to have come to the slam winners' ring relatively late; there may be something in that, but the point applies similarly to Agassi who, at times during his career, seemed to be making an exasperating mess of maximising his considerable talent whilst similarly shooting his mouth off unwisely. You could never accuse Lendl of that.

This post is worth breaking my break....Completely agree! Lendl, at his peak, was for a long while the best player. Agassi never truly dominated his peers.

I'd put Agassi and Lendl fairly level. Agassi's career slam - the first since Laver, and with less homogenous surfaces that nowadays - matches up to Lendl's long spell as No. 1 IMHO.
Agassi obviously had the 'bigger' personalilty, which means more of the general public will remember him, but does that really come into the measurement of a sporting great?

Agassi's career slam is his main point but frankly it was a bit of a fluke. He only won 1 Wimby and 1 FO....and he owes a lot of that FO to the crowd. You can't quite compare thos with one of the longest number 1 run.

Yes I can. If all it takes to win a career slam is a fluke, why didn't McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Borg, Sampras or Lendl do it? Perhaps there's a bit more to it than that.

Have to agree with Tenez on this one lendl in my mind rates higher than Mac and Agassi. Lendl was one of the most dominant #1s in a very difficult era with numerous greats playing each other in their peaks. 19 grandslam finals for Lendl and the massive amount of titles and his consistency would in my mind put lendl over any of the other 8 slam winners.

Courier in my mind is definetly a great. I mean I think in general everyone here is too strict with their definition of great. Many don't include courier, other's don't include edberg and wilander. Again I don't this attitude adequately takes into consideration the accomplishments of these players. Lets take a sport like football, if I gave you the name of a footballer that would be a consensus top 15-20 player of the last 40 years, everyone would agree that such a player is deserving of the title great. But with tennis champions it gets to the point where unless you are one of the handful of best to ever play then you some how are not considered a great player.

I think there's only Connors, Lendl and Agassi on 8.
Connors had more titles and was 2 weeks short of Lendl at number 1.
Lenld had a large H2H lead over Connors, but most of that was built up after Connors was 33, 34 years old and Lendl was at that point simply too young and fit for Connors.
Possibly Lendl losing 11 out of 19 GS finals would count against him.
McEnroe, on 7 GS, is an interesting one in that at his best he was probably better than all of those, but his best didn't last as long.
Whereas Wilander, on 7 GS, at his best probably wasn't better than any of them and his best lasted an even shorter time.

McEnroe, for example, tried to win AO. The default against Pernfors stands out.

Borg hardly played AO.

Connors had a chance for the grand slam in 1974 if he had not been banned.

Sampras on clay was bad despite a win in Rome.

Lendl's weakness on grass is well known.

Julius Agree Connors and Lendl could definetly be considered a tie between the 8 grandslam winners and based on connors durability and longevity you could even make a valid argument as to hime being better. But I would rate both Connors and lendl over agassi in terms of 8 slam winners eventhough Andre has the career slam. Andre was just real up and down in his career.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes I can. If all it takes to win a career slam is a fluke, why didn't McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Borg, Sampras or Lendl do it? Perhaps there's a bit more to it than that.

For the same reasons as I could tell you that if Agassi was so good, how come he only won a single wimby and a single FO when Borg won 11 altogether. Those things just happen sometimes (career GS)....All those guys you named were pretty close to do it (especially Edberg despite his 6 slams "only" ). Winning 6 FOs and 5 Wimby on the trott has very little luck in it.

MOst of Agassi's slams were when Pete retired, and he won 4 of his 8 slams in the AO which certainly was not the most disputed one.

Tenez wrote:For the same reasons as I could tell you that if Agassi was so good, how come he only won a single wimby and a single FO when Borg won 11 altogether.

'Cos Borg was better.
But career slams don't 'just happen' sometimes. Open era - Laver, Agassi, Fed, Rafa. Of those, Agassi is some way behind, but the achievement of a career slam cannot be over-looked or put down to luck.
Fair enough that Agassi won quite a few GS after Pete's decline. Equally, didn't Lendl win quite a few before Pete's emergence?

JuliusHMarx wrote: Equally, didn't Lendl win quite a few before Pete's emergence?

Lendl won his eighth AO and Sampras his first USO in 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

I think we can talk of the tiers of greatness:
1st tier (10+ of evenly spread slams): Laver, Federer, Sampras
2nd tier: Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Nadal
3rd tier: everyone else who won more than one slam.

Nole is above all as he is the best, his final place in this chart will be decided when he hangs up his mighty HEAD

Pretty good comments Nole, similar to lydian's way of classifying it. A 3 tiered approach I would place already at the head of the third tier poised to jump up into the second tier.

Nope, he has to be behind Jim Courier. And Boris Becker. And Stephan Edberg. They were more successful.

I probably missed a bunch more too.

I for one would like to see Djokovic get more slams. I see it that in this era there has been 2 greats and I would like to see a 3rd or 4th like the 80's experienced. If he continues this rich vein of form, I cannot see why he couldn't win more, much more. He is in a good place now where questions are not being asked of how he can improve, but how far forward he can go.

legendkillar wrote:I for one would like to see Djokovic get more slams. I see it that in this era there has been 2 greats and I would like to see a 3rd or 4th like the 80's experienced. If he continues this rich vein of form, I cannot see why he couldn't win more, much more. He is in a good place now where questions are not being asked of how he can improve, but how far forward he can go.

My thoughts precisely Federer and Nadal have won enough....time for the proverbial change of the guard....

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"