Interesting trivia

First topic message reminder :

Taken from the ATP website here's some interesting stats for you.

Novak is now the sixth player in the Open Era to win three slam titles in a single year. Since 2004 it's been achieved at least once by all the big 3 a total of five times. (three times by Federer alone)

Prior to their dominance it was achieved only three times since 1968 by Wilander, Connors and Laver (full grand slam in 1969)



Player/ Year/ Titles
Novak Djokovic 2011 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Rafael Nadal 2010 Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2007 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2006 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2004 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Mats Wilander 1988 Aust. Open, Roland Garros, US Open
Jimmy Connors 1974 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Rod Laver (Won Grand Slam) 1969 Aust. Open, Roland Garros, Wimb., US Open


It clearly indicates the total dominance by the big 3 over recent years plus the difficulty other players had to do likewise in earlier years. Borg was stopped by his failure to win the US and (I think) reluctance to play at the Aussie Open. McEnroe likewise with his non appearances at the Aussie Open and Sampras because he never figure out how to play on clay (although given his hard court credentials surprising he didn't win Wimbledon and both hard court titles in the same year). Agassi managed all four at least once but interestingly only two in the same year (French & US Open in 1999).

Also Connors won all three slams he entered in 1974 and wasn't (for various reasons) allowed to play the French Open otherwise he may well have gone on to win the grand slam as he did go on to win the US Open in 1976 when it was played on clay. Wilander often gets forgotten about when it come to all time greats but he has the rare distinction (along with Nadal) of having won at least two titles on all three surfaces (he never won Wimbledon but won the Aussie open twice when it was played on grass). Lendl contested a then record 19 slam finals (only surpassed by Federer in 2009).

Finally Laver the only man to have won the grand slam in the Open era (he also managed it previously as an amateur). For that reason alone an absoluter nailed on cert for GOAT status (well for some of posters anyway).

Its seems funny that 3 of the 6 guys who have won 3 slams in a year have done so since 2004....so have tennis players suddenly increased in talent massively or has it become much easier to win 3 in a year now due to surface convergence.

Conversely seems amazing otherwise that Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, McEnroe and Lendl couldnt do it....they must be SO much worse players than the 3 who did it since 2004.

I think this tells us its becoming easier for players to dominate seasons...i.e. it requires less variation to do so (and their forbears had to use)...so who is the most talented - the guy who wins say 12 slams in an era where you dont have to vary your game much, or the guy who won 12 slams when you did?

Perhaps I'm guilty of (for want of a better word) canonising the achievements of Rod but, on the other hand, I think it's fair to say that we collectively have a tendancy to always believe newer is better. That should not be use though to belittle what tennis players did in the past.

Take away modern rackets, their strings and modern training methods and you would find it was a very level playing field. Indeed just how much of the improvement or (better to say) advancement is down to modern technology is debatable.

For the purists though a 1,2,3 of (in no particular order) Laver, McEnroe and (possibly) Edberg would be wonderful. Call me a lover of the old fashioned serve and volley game but a match up at their respective peaks in career between any two of those three would be worth watching any day of the week.

newballs wrote:Perhaps I'm guilty of (for want of a better word) canonising the achievements of Rod but, on the other hand, I think it's fair to say that we collectively have a tendancy to always believe newer is better. That should not be use though to belittle what tennis players did in the past.

But what about Renshaw who won 7 wimbies...do many people refer to him as a GOAT?

lydian wrote:Its seems funny that 3 of the 6 guys who have won 3 slams in a year have done so since 2004....so have tennis players suddenly increased in talent massively or has it become much easier to win 3 in a year now due to surface convergence.

Conversely seems amazing otherwise that Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, McEnroe and Lendl couldnt do it....they must be SO much worse players than the 3 who did it since 2004.

I think this tells us its becoming easier for players to dominate seasons...i.e. it requires less variation to do so (and their forbears had to use)...so who is the most talented - the guy who wins say 12 slams in an era where you dont have to vary your game much, or the guy who won 12 slams when you did?

Good post.

I do feel that the homogenisation of the surfaces has made it possible to play one brand of tennis, with little to no adjustments, and still be extremely successful.

I recall that in years gone by even the claycourters would attempt to S&V to some extent on grass; that's pretty much become obsolete. I think this has also hurt Nadal against Novak this year. Each of their matches has basically followed the same pattern. With faster conditions Nadal could've have tried different ways to hurt Novak; like more net approches or even trying to hit more outright winners with his FH.

Shall we just rule out anyone from before 1975 as a matter of principle? Or any modern players who would have struggled with wooden rackets, but who got away with it being born at the right time?

Laver's overall winning percentage in Open Era tennis is higher than Pete Sampras, despite being over 30 at the time. He beat Borg twice in 1974 at the age of 35 and had a tight 3-setter (inc. 2 tie-breaks) vs Borg in 1976 at age 37, in semi-retirement. Beat Gueralitis in '77 at the age of 38. Open Era - a 12-2 record over Arthur Ashe. 9-3 over Newcombe.

If we're going to rule players out of GOAT candidacy because the didn't play in other eras, then we rule out everyone.

lydian wrote:Its seems funny that 3 of the 6 guys who have won 3 slams in a year have done so since 2004....so have tennis players suddenly increased in talent massively or has it become much easier to win 3 in a year now due to surface convergence.

I think this tells us its becoming easier for players to dominate seasons...i.e. it requires less variation to do so (and their forbears had to use)...so who is the most talented - the guy who wins say 12 slams in an era where you dont have to vary your game much, or the guy who won 12 slams when you did?

Well this is what I have been saying all along again and more recently when talking about Murray joining the small circle of 7 players having reached teh semis of the 4 slams in the same calendar year.

And the explanation is again, the same: Slower surfaces favouring the physical players. Players relying more on their physique than their talent haven't got bad days. If you are fit and rely on your fitness, very little can stop you. You don;t watch a Nadal v Djoko match nowadays saying one wasn;t "on form". A match is not sorted by key points well executed at key moments. Just rallying right and left and the player with the more physically efficient game wins without much surprise like Nadal was winning all his slams last year.

A player who depends on his natural skills is more dependant on the form of the day and therefore is very unlikely to achieve consistency.

It's not surprising that an other player who achieved that feat is Wilander, another very fit player....and Borg could have done it a few times too.

The exception is Federer here though he is pretty fit, he was relying on his talent to achieve 3 in a calendar year and was only stopped to hold 4 in a row by a more physical player on the most physical surface.

Tenez you're right. We assume because he only ever had to play one match as champion from the previous year (I think I'm right) and the entry was so small that the standard was therefore not necessarily that high. Add to that the fact that players from other parts of the world couldn't necessarily afford the time or money to enter then it was some kind of exclusive club (which to intents and purposes it was).

Even in the 30s through to the 60s it was only open to amateurs and Fred Perry was never forgiven by the tennis establishment after turning professional even with his Wimbledon titles. All the top players d it seems played for money.

That's why I think all the discussion over all time greats involve mainly players after the Open era. Supposedly open to all and with TV footage and deeds that happened within living memory for some , if not all, who take part in the debate.

Shall we just rule out anyone from before 1975 as a matter of principle?

No, Rod Laver was a fierce competitor who would embarass several of todays stars with his volleying supremacy and macho style.. give Laver's mentality and fighting will to Monfils and we would see a hell of a talent

It's like the musketeers time. You had one good player (Cochet?....can't remember...my grand parents told me once), and then he was joined by 3 not so bad players and by constantly playing against each other between the 4 reached higher levels and become an internatonal elite group of their time beating almost everybody else. That's all it took then.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Shall we just rule out anyone from before 1975 as a matter of principle?

No, Rod Laver was a fierce competitor who would embarass several of todays stars with his volleying supremacy and macho style.. give Laver's mentality and fighting will to Monfils and we would see a hell of a talent

Ah Monfils! The one player I'd pay good money to watch. Brilliant one minute the park player standard the next.
Forgot the rest a nailed on cert for the greatest entertainer of all time!

With Monfils I always think of Arthur Daley going "All right, mon fils?"
If Frank Lebouef was Frank the Beef, was Henri Leconte, Henry the Cu....no, don't go there, he was a storyteller!

And I think you'll find the greatest entertainer of all time was Liberace.
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/liberace-inspired-tennis-shoes

JHM by greatest entertainer I was referring to on the tennis court activities and not Vegas shows!

What is it with the French anyway? Monfils, Leconte, Santoro all brilliant entertainers. Shame on Gasquet only for having his fancy backhand.

newballs wrote:JHM by greatest entertainer I was referring to on the tennis court activities and not Vegas shows!

What is it with the French anyway? Monfils, Leconte, Santoro all brilliant entertainers. Shame on Gasquet only for having his fancy backhand.

It's our social welfare. It's so good that win or lose we get our meal at the end of the day so we might as well have a bit of fun.

Raiders, the fact you seem to think Agassi took drugs to win is absurd and doesn't make your argument look sensible. Not only is it a terrible slur, it's also untrue. Taking crystal meth which is what Agassi took and keeps you awake for days on end is not going to help you win grand slams. If want to know why he took it, read his autobiography. Most people who think little of Agassi and his achievements are probably those most likely not to have read it. I've read it and come out with a great deal of respect for him.

Why did he take it? Couldn't find an alarm clock to wake him up early?

lucius, I was big Agassi fan, but didn't like the 'woe is me, bring me your tears' tone of the book. Starting off by describing how he couldn't even hug his kids because of his back, just made me think "You should've stopped playing tennis then if it bothered you that much, and stop moaning now about it if you chose not to"

His marriage was collapsing, his tennis career was in the doldrums and he was in a dark place (i.e. depressed), it happens to so many people. Somehow suggesting that's to 'help' him win grand slams is a complete joke as well as untrue! If someone thinks a drug like crystal meth is a performance enhancing drug, like raiders is, do they care to explain how?

JHMarx, isn't that the sort of dedication to a sport that so many former and current tennis players get critised for lacking? For example Safin and Nalby? Agassi isn't perfect but for commitment to a sport he admittedly said he hated, he is difficult to rival.

It's not a criticsm of his dedication, but of the way it was deliberately written to draw sympathy from the reader, when in fact it was a decision he chose freely to make and could have easily changed at any time.
At that stage, he was actually in an enviable position not one that deserved sympathy.

Hmmm, I think that's the style the book was deliberately written in. In fairness, with a father like his, he does deserve plenty of sympathy, very few people have tyrannical fathers why try to live out their dreams through their children, even against the will of their child but that's what he had to do. I do agree he could have retired earlier, I can't work out why he didn't but despite the way the book is written to draw sympathy, he comes out favorably to me. He has actually got a great deal of substance in his autobiography compared to the tittle tattle you find in many other autobiographies.

Yes, the content is very interesting, even if I didn't like the tone. In fact, if the opening chapter had been placed toward the end (chronologcally) I might have forgiven it more. It was just the way it opened up with such an in your face cry for sympathy, from a man who, overall, has led a better life than most. As you can tell, it rankled with me.

It's surely better than The Nadull's auto 'Rafa' which by all accounts is just Dull.

I'd kind of like to do book reviews on this forum of the various tennis books I've read, but I think I'm probably sh1t at book reviews and it would take me too long to write anything not too embarrassing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:lucius, I was big Agassi fan, but didn't like the 'woe is me, bring me your tears' tone of the book. Starting off by describing how he couldn't even hug his kids because of his back, just made me think "You should've stopped playing tennis then if it bothered you that much, and stop moaning now about it if you chose not to"

Completely agree.

...and Meth is a PED...in fact in small doses, it does give you that split second extra needed to retrieve the most incredible serves. The information is out there for those who want to know.

Except he never tested positive for it during any grand slam Tenez, and he didnt take small doses as is clear from his autobiography. The time during which he took it was when he wasn't playing any tennis so it couldnt enhance his performance in any case (so it's irrelevant to this discussion). As you will no doubt know, they test players even if they're not playing tennis regularly.

luciusmann wrote: As you will no doubt know, they test players even if they're not playing tennis regularly.

If you knew they actually have rarely out of competition tests and back then it was even rarer so the chance of being caught red handed would have been very slim...yet he tested positive. ....But I am sure you have heard of the 7 nandrolone cases as well....haven't you?

Agassi seriously wants you to believe that he won all these grand slams despite hating tennis. The greatest of all time for sure. The category?

Bullshitting.

Have you read the autobiography to be able to comment on it newballs? Sheesh, if you have, fair enough but you don't sound like you have at all. He states very clearly why he went into tennis despite hating it, read it because ignorant comments like yours show you to be ill informed and highly opinionated.

If you got any evidence that Andre Agassi took drugs to cheat and win grand slams Tenez, I suggest you present the evidence (new evidence, not Agassi's admission) instead of speculating. Speculation is not evidence, very simple. It's pointless getting into speculation. Even if it was more lax like you suggest doesn't prove anything or mean that he did.

My apologies for joining this debate so late.

Pancho G. had to be slowed down by Tennis rule changes. That to me is amazing. I have watched him play. The Pasarell Wimbledon match is etched in my memory and I play it in my head almost every night.

Pete Sampras's serve and Federer's serve is modelled after Pancho's.

Regarding Laver, Hoad and Rosewall were great peers (similar to Borg/McEnroe/Connors, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic(now), Becker/Edberg/Lendl, etc.). Rosewall's longevity is legendary stuff. Laver also has DC credits that have not been mentioned so far.

Raiders, IMVHO, please read 'Education of a Tennis Player', when you get a chance.

Fred Perry (3 slams in a calendar year), Trabert (has been mentioned, too).

Laver, IMVHO, should be considered a GOAT candidate, if not the GOAT.

This is pure speculation, but imagine Federer's career without Nadal, or Nadal's career without Federer, then one would see more GSs in 2004-2011.

Just my 2p.

luciusmann wrote:
If you got any evidence that Andre Agassi took drugs to cheat and win grand slams Tenez, I suggest you present the evidence (new evidence, not Agassi's admission) instead of speculating. Speculation is not evidence, very simple. It's pointless getting into speculation. Even if it was more lax like you suggest doesn't prove anything or mean that he did.

I would not like to tarnish the image of your hero further. It's just a question of whether you are willing to consider a darker side of the man and its sport.

Agassi's book was a great read, and probably the best sports autobiography i have ever read, I usually try not read autobiographies because they are very dull especially sports biographies. It is very revealing and very enjoyable. He is very forthcoming and basically talked about the meth abuse it was one test that he tested positive for, you can hardly chalk about his grandslam success to meth. In fact, his father tried to give him dope when he was junior to make him play better and Andre took it and then tanked the match so he could tell his father that the speed pill was the cause and get out of using it.

Substance abuse doesn't just happen in sports, guys at your local gymn shoot roids. And housewives often abuse prescription pills. Mac and Borg supposedly did coke and pot together with Vitus in the early 80s. Agassi used meth as recreational drug, personally I don't think it is much of the ATP's business if the players use recreational drugs, it isn't a smart idea but it isn't cheating either.

luciusmann yes I have read it and it confirmed a side of his character that I didn't warm to - he was a bit of prat to many people when he started his career and unfortunately ended it that way too as far as I am concerned.

I don't want to belittle his achievements- he was one of the all time great candidates but this so-called long-term tennis loathing and his drug taking showed something rather unpleasant about his character. Nobody can convince me you win major slam titles really hating tennis so isn't there just the slightest chance he put that in for effect exaggerating some of the many problems he had with his tennis lifestyle.? Also the fact that he made all manner of (shall we say) less than truthful statements about his drug taking means that any reader could take whatever he writes or says as the same.

You may disagree with my opinion and beg to differ that there are many who would agree with me. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Others may choose to agree that he did himself no favours at all with this self serving publicity driven book.

There's an old saying about never biting the hand the feeds you. Andre, for whatever reasons, took a massive chunk out of tennis as a sport and then spat it out. Who knows if it'll come back to haunt him?

Newballs, that is a pretty harsh opinion. The guy gave a lot to tennis, and I do believe the fact that he hated the sport but as he put it was not qualified to do anything else in his life and he does talk about how he kept playing for his charity and for all the people in his team that depended on him, and that on some level he still needed the game. It was a classic love hate relationship and I can understand it. I felt the same way about practicing law till I went in a different direction and left it, now sometimes I miss it, but am happy enough doing what I am doing.

socal harsh? Perhaps it is. As you say maybe Andre had little choice in life but to make the most of his tennis talent. How much that means he gave to tennis is debatable and for sure he certainly got a lot out of it. Money , fame , trophies and the wife for a start!

Where I do have some admiration for him is in his charity work and I certainly wouldn't criticise him for that. You're a long time retired and it has given him a direction in life that should keep him on the straight and narrow.

lydian wrote:And how many more times COULD Laver have done in during 63-67 too? Well we know he won US Pro, Wembley Pro, French Pro and Wimbledon Pro 11 times during 63-67 - which indicates he might have been on around 22 slams ordinarily (as dont see the amateurs as having beaten him also).

We are not taking about what COULD have been, because there is no point on taking about something that 'could' have happened but never did. I can always say Federer could have had 7 more slams by now and already making the tally 23 had Nadal not emerged on the circuit. A GOAT claim doesn't have room for such "could have been" theories. Yes I know he won all Pro Slams, 8 of them in total. But do you know that Pro slams in those times had only 16 players in the draw. Compare this to 128 in today's times. And I can't believe that all 16 were absolute brilliant players. Top players were playing as pros, but that doesn't mean all Pros were top players.

And even though he developed his game in 64-67, his success was benefited by Hoad's retirement due to injuries and aging of Rosewall. But lest keep that aside. Rosewall reached a GS final aged 39 and Gimeno won FO aged 34. What happened to Laver and his GOAT game? Look at other great players Pete, Beckker, Connors, Jonny Mac Federer now. They all sure suffered and Federer is suffering slow decline with age, all will have to. But its never sudden like it did for Laver. In 1962 he wins all majors and in 1963 struggling to win anything against top pros. In 1968 he won 1 GS and 1 Final and a 4th round. That is nothing much better than what Ferrero had in 2002. And in 1969 he won all 4 majors. Then again from 1970 on wards fell to dust.

So in 1969 he had the GOAT level of game and next year on wards till the next 10 years, he looked like a journeyman. How did that happen? A GOAT level of player will never suffer such a steep rise and a such a sudden fall. GOAT level of game can't disappear in just 1 year. What can happen is that the circumstantial advantage can disappear which favored in one year. And don't talk about he didn't play in many GS tournaments after 1970. If 'he didn't play' is a valid excuse then even I didn't play in any GS and hence I can claim a GOAT status for myself. How does that sound? We can't talk about what could have happened. So let's just see what actually did happen.


GOAT for me needs to have the GOAT level of game. Laver never had any aspect of the game which I think( my opinion) which was better than everyone else who have played tennis till now.

luciusmann,

If Agassi didn't have to take any drugs why did he take it? If those didn't have any performance enhancing effects, why has WADA banned it? You seem to suggest everything based on what you've read in his book. You seems to suggest that you know about Agassi and his durg takings more than others just because you read the book. But the the things is you know and believe what Agassi has told himself in his book. See the things is in a book a player can be whatever he/she wants to be. Its not difficult. They are all based on marketing strategies.

Even Ben johnson in his book wants to suggest lot of things about his durg taking and the involvement of banned substance in whole athletics world in those days. You want to believe that? He even suggested he was an Egyptian Pharaoh in his previous life. I'm sure many Ben johnson fans would agree too those.

I read this discussion about Laver with interest. Good arguments coming both sides.

It remains that for me, it was too much of a small club to really compare them with today's players. They were the pioneers of professional tennis but really were amateurs enjoying the rise of a sport with little competition.

I actually agree with tenez on this one. I find it hard to believe that laver and Rosewall at 5'8 and 5'7 could compete with the modern players and be nearly as successful as they were. Tennis back then was still a country club game and great players came from just a few countries like the states, australia, and france. The game wasn't drawing talent from all across the world and wasn't a big business with the kind of financial resources to draw the best athletes and to force them to committ completely to the game. That is the principal reason that if I had to appoint a goat it would be Federer.

laverfan wrote:
Laver, IMVHO, should be considered a GOAT candidate, if not the GOAT.

If you consider career achievements, Laver sure is a GOAT candidate with 11 majors 8 pro majors and 4 GS in 1 year, twice done. If you consider aspects of the game, level of play, competition in those times, then for me he stands not much chance.

raiders action speak louder than words so please watch this link then re-post if you still think his tennis wasn't so great.

US Open final 1969 against Tony Roche on grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMUMG3Xb6I

It looks like Laver did not enter teh AO and FO 1970. That's strange. Was he already living in the US by then? Was he better off making money on the American circuit?

Too many unknowns I guess but that explains why he did not defend 2 of his 1969 slams.

socal1976 wrote:The game wasn't drawing talent from all across the world and wasn't a big business with the kind of financial resources to draw the best athletes and to force them to committ completely to the game.

This a very narrow interpretation and shows a lack of historical perspective. If you get a chance, please visit the THOF website and you will see an illustrious list of players.

If nothing else, take a look at the list of players who won slams post-WWII to see the wide array of nations who participated in Tennis.

Tenez wrote:it looks like Laver did not enter teh AO and FO 1970.

Regarding the FO...

"With Laver, Rosewall, and their fellow "contract pros" out of the French Championship because their bosses could not come to a financial accommodation with the the French Tennis Federation for their appearance, Czech Jan Kodes, Yougslav Zeljko Franulovic, American Richey and Frenchman Georges Goven reached the semifinals of the richest ($100,000) tournament outside America." - Bud Collins's Tennis Encyclopedia, Second Edition, page 155.

Regarding the AO...

"I had no thought of another Grand Slam in 1970, simply because our pro group (Lamar Hunt's WCT, which took over the MacCall-Modesta operation) did not enter the Australian or French Opens. The deal wasn't right. " - Education of a Tennis Player - page 224.

newballs wrote:raiders action speak louder than words so please watch this link then re-post if you still think his tennis wasn't so great.

US Open final 1969 against Tony Roche on grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMUMG3Xb6I

The thing is there are too many unknowns for Laver and just one match video won't put him for anything like GOAT. I've seen this video already. If you see a Tsonga mauling of Nadal in the AO 2008 semis or a Murray's performance against Nadal in US open 2008, they all absolutely fantastic.Do you put Muray or Tsonga for GOAT candidate? Of course not. But just a few a matches can't show that they have a great GOAT level of game. Every player in his entire career will have a few matches where he played brilliant ( win or loss doesn't matter). If you only look at those clips, you too will form an opinion as you have about Laver. If you see his video of 1969 US us open win, and form an opinion about his great GOAT level of game , then I'm sure you'll also change the opinion when you get to see his post 1969 matches. But they aren't there and hence you can't see them. So we have to deal with whatever we have. I agree I didn't see laver play as I'm little young for that age, but I just can't believe someone with a GOAT level of game will have such a sudden rise and downfall fall like Laver had. It just can't happen. One year with a GOAT level of game and from the very next year absolutely ordinary?? No way.

Look at the other great players. Their game never saw such sudden rise and fall. It was all gradual. That means Laver never had any GOAT level of game, it just worked great for him (due to whatever unknown reasons) in a very short span of time. And when that reason wasn't there, Laver fell to dust.

raiders they point of the footage was the type of game Laver played, the variety of shots and his movement. Whether the guy played well or badly you would still get a feel for his game. Agree that you can't extrapolate to conclusions about all time standing on that alone but that's why- although you seem reluctant to do so- you have to rely somewhat on the views of his peers and tennis commentators of the time.

Remember also that Laver had enjoyed a long career already by the time this footage was taken. He didn't have a sudden rise having enjoyed successful careers in bot the amateur and professional games before the Open era came along. Borg disappeared even more rapldly at a younger age (in his case retirement). Does that also weaken his best of all time credentials?

newballs wrote: Borg disappeared even more rapldly at a younger age (in his case retirement). Does that also weaken his best of all time credentials?

Borg is teh one that made me love tennis like I can easily imagine lots of youngsters would take on the sport thanks to Nadal. But yes, I don;t think Borg would have been able to sustain his edge for much longer, he had a great footwork and that was really a great natural skill he had along with his stamina but shotmaking wise, he was never the best and his physique was not going to be enough to stop the new, fitter, generation....especially teh one arriving with larger racquets.

Tenez here's some more interesting facts for you:

In 1975 Borg Rod Laver, then 36 years old, in the semifinal of the World Championship Tennis finals in Dallas, Texas 7–6, 3–6, 5–7, 7–6, 6–2. This was the year end championships I believe between the top players before the ATP tour was established in 1990 and it shows that even a then "ageing" Rod could give the young Bjorn a run for his money.

Borg also won 11 of 27 (41%) of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered which must be some kind of record .

Interestingly if you use win/loss % for all slam matches to select a GOAT the top 5 order would be (taking data through to the end of the US Open 2009) -

1 Bjorn Borg 50% 96% 93% 80% 141-17 89.2%
2 Roger Federer 87% 80% 91% 91% 188-27 87.4%
3 Rod Laver 86% 93% 88% 79% 60-10 85.7%
4 Rafael Nadal 84% 97% 85% 75% 95-16 85.6%
5 Pete Sampras 83% 65% 90% 89% 203-38 84.2%

The order may be different but the same 5 most "experts" (with the notable exception of raiders!) would agree on - certainly since the Open era started.

How should I to read those stats?

An even younger Borg also beat a younger Laver 61 61 the previous year. So difficult to draw conclusions over one match as Raiders said.
Rod's stats are impressive cause he played a pretty long stretch but to be fair it was a "stagnant era"where the same dozen players occupied the tennis scene for 20 years. Just says how little competitive it was then. The fact is that when Borg came young he imposed himself versus the pros in a much more commanding manner than Laver did in his youth.

Nadal has also good stats but again, like Borg, he arrived on the scene young with a much better fitness than mature players. Whereas I felt at the time that Borg was a special athlete, I felt that Nadal's fitness was essentially down to his team.

Anyhow, I honestly haven't got much/strong views on who woudl deserve the GOAT status in the pre-open era as I have not seen enough of them. The only thing I can see is that the most talented player I have even seen is currently playing and has won most slams thus far which to me is a lucky occurence knowing how much is needed besides talent to accumulate slam wins.

Tenez everybody seems to agree that the current tour is the most competitive ever with the top 3 in particular playing tennis with a power and intensity never seen before.

Purists (like myself) would love to see a return to the old fashioned serve and volley game or at least someone who will add that dimension to his game at the highest level.

Also to understand the statistics (apologies for the oversight) - they are from the Open era with the first four %s being the win/loss %s of the slams in order (i.e. Aussie through to US) followed by total numbers of matches won and lost then finally overall win/loss %.

Someone, somewhere once said "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies then there are statistics" but personally I'll stick to the belief that they prove a point here. Obviously in Rod's case you would need to factor in his pre-Open era stats to strengthen my GOAT argument but I'm more than willing to stretch to that conclusion.

newballs wrote:Tenez everybody seems to agree that the current tour is the most competitive ever with the top 3 in particular playing tennis with a power and intensity never seen before.

Yes more "competitive" than yesteryear but less than next year. Shame that the ITF is not as serious as the cycling federeration about drug testing cause like in the TDF this year, we could see the physical performances being weaker than the previous years.

Purists (like myself) would love to see a return to the old fashioned serve and volley game or at least someone who will add that dimension to his game at the highest level.

Certainly a mixture of everything would be good...or at least a mixture of surfaces to start with instead of these green clay, red grass, and blue sand!

Also to understand the statistics (apologies for the oversight) - they are from the Open era with the first four %s being the win/loss %s of the slams in order (i.e. Aussie through to US) followed by total numbers of matches won and lost then finally overall win/loss %.

Someone, somewhere once said "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies then there are statistics" but personally I'll stick to the belief that they prove a point here. Obviously in Rod's case you would need to factor in his pre-Open era stats to strengthen my GOAT argument but I'm more than willing to stretch to that conclusion.

As said we have always been told Laver was the best of the past champions but I know others who think Pancho was better. regardless they are both Pre-open era to me. The last slams Laver won were in the first year of th eopen era if I am correct and it seems that the old pro circuit was more appealing to him after 69. I cannot consider honestly Laver an Open era player. His great work lead to the pro era but the real pros joined the circuit when they were confident that they could make a living just by hitting the ball. in short, probably starts with Nastase's generation who also has a positive H2H v Laver having lost only a very tight match v Laver. It was a gradual professionalisation of the sport but most of Laver days were pre-open it seems.

I am surprised nobody is picking up on the weakness of the Australian Open in 1969. Hardly, the field assembled was worthy of a slam with 64 entrants and ten of the sixteen seeds were Australians. It would be akin to a modern day ATP500 tournament.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am surprised nobody is picking up on the weakness of the Australian Open in 1969. Hardly, the field assembled was worthy of a slam with 64 entrants and ten of the sixteen seeds were Australians. It would be akin to a modern day ATP500 tournament.

The reality is that most of the top players didn't start going to the Aussie Open (unless of course they were Australian anyway) until quite recently. Apparently the tournament was held three times in Perth in its earl;y days which meant even those from Victoria and New South Wales even bothered playing due to the very long train journey there and back. It was even won by a New Zealander one year when it was held in Christchurch (only two Australians took part!)

Seems that until the early 80s players from elsewhere wouldn't go because of the long distance to travel there, timing of the tournament around Christmas time and poor prize money.