How do you define "greatness" in tennis?

First topic message reminder :

Do you define greatness by the number of titles? If so, Federer is the greatest.

Longevity?

Ability to win on all surfaces?

Winning ruthlessly in straight sets?

Quality of opposition during that era?

Not having bogeymen (if only you didn't face them in the draw, you could win the title)?

Federer - 6 Wimbledon, 5 US Open, 1 French, 4 Australian (only one French and that was when he didn't have to play Nadal)
Sampras - 7 W, 5 US, 0 Fr, 2 Aus (never a serious contender at the French)
Laver - 4 W, 2 US, 3 Fr, 2 Aus (two real grandslams; no man managed even one since)
Emerson - 2 W, 2 US, 2 Fr, 6 Aus (half of the titles were at the least-recognised Aus Open)
Nadal - 2 W, 1 US, 6 Fr, 1 Aus (6/10 titles French)
Borg - 5 W, 4 US, 6 Fr, 0 Aus (best winning percentage in majors entered; tough competition with Connors, MacEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas)
Connors - 2 W, 5 US, 4 Fr, 1 Aus (tough competition with Borg, MacEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas)

I think it was Sampras who said "You don't win a slam without some luck".

socal1976 wrote:I think Roger was a bit fortunate to win the 09 and 07 wimby. Roddick really choked away that late break and Roger just wasn't missing at all with his serve. Either guy could of won either one of those two wimby's and Roger pulled out really close affairs.

Nah. 07 was simply the result of Federer having a more economical game where is grace made the clear difference over the ball basher. Nadal is clearly tired in that 5th set and beaten fair and square.

Wimby 09 had the right results too. Was very windy and was a clear leveler. Fed failed to take advantages on key BPs in first 2 sets and that made him nervous unable to apply his sharper game over Roddick. The better player once again owon there.

Faust wrote:Fedsfan you are saying that Fed's
6 wimbledons and 5 USOs are more
impressive than Sampras 7 wimbledons
and 5 USOs because ...spin spin spin.
Is getting a bit surreal here?!

No, I am not saying that. Federer needed to surpass Sampras' Wimbledon titles to be considered the all time great there. As for the USO, its tied but which is more impressive? 5 consecutive titles or 5 over a career of 12 years?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think it was Sampras who said "You don't win a slam without some luck".

Greatness arises from consistently putting yourself in the position to take one and make the best of your luck.

There are occasional slams when luck plays very little part - RG 2008, Aus 2007 are good examples.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Roger was a bit fortunate to win the 09 and 07 wimby. Roddick really choked away that late break and Roger just wasn't missing at all with his serve. Either guy could of won either one of those two wimby's and Roger pulled out really close affairs.

Nah. 07 was simply the result of Federer having a more economical game where is grace made the clear difference over the ball basher. Nadal is clearly tired in that 5th set and beaten fair and square.

Wimby 09 had the right results too. Was very windy and was a clear leveler. Fed failed to take advantages on key BPs in first 2 sets and that made him nervous unable to apply his sharper game over Roddick. The better player once again owon there.

I agree. He who plays the key points by maintaining a cool head gets the win. Fed was two points from winning Wimbledon 08. Nadal kept it together in that match so he prevailed. In 09 Roddick had the opportunity but just could not seal the deal for whatever reasons. Some might disagree though!

Really hated Federer losing that 08 final as it gave fuel to the Nadtards in their 'who's better?' debate. Nadull should've lost that out of respect for his superiors

Greatness is also about bringing tennis to the masses, about making the sport more popular after you left than when you entered.

I loved this transcript of the speech given by Agassi when he was inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame earlier this year.
If greatness was determined by cult of tennis personality, Agassi would surely be near or at the top:

http://www.tennisfame.com/andre-agassis-hall-of-fame-induction-speech

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Really hated Federer losing that 08 final as it gave fuel to the Nadtards in their 'who's better?' debate. Nadull should've lost that out of respect for his superiors

Be prepared to be torn apart! I think it would have been an injustice if from 2-0 up and match points in the 3rd had Nadal lost as he was the better player that day. On the flip side, is it an injustice that he who claws his way back from 0-2 down should be pipped to the post? Its one of those finals where both deserved to have won in a way. Unfortunately as Federer himself has said, in tennis someone has to lose, there are no draws. Its a pity he lost from a historical angle i.e to have won 6 in a row and matched a 100 year odd record would have been amazing and probably never to be repeated again in a hurry.

Yeah, that's twice in my life I've been really sad to see a guy lose at the last hurdle when about to get 6 in a row.

FedsFan wrote:

Faust wrote:Fedsfan you are saying that Fed's
6 wimbledons and 5 USOs are more
impressive than Sampras 7 wimbledons
and 5 USOs because ...spin spin spin.
Is getting a bit surreal here?!

No, I am not saying that. Federer needed to surpass Sampras' Wimbledon titles to be considered the all time great there. As for the USO, its tied but which is more impressive? 5 consecutive titles or 5 over a career of 12 years?

Who says that to win five consecutive USOs
in your prime is more impressive than winning one
at 19 years and 28 days ( youngest USOpen ever)
and then one at 32?

One of the most impressive runs for title at Wimbledon was in 1987. The top 8 seeds were Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Mecir, Noah, Connors, and Gomez.

Unseeded Pat Cash knocked out Guy Forget in the 4th round, Wilander in QF, Connors in SF, and Lendl in the Final, ALL IN STRAIGHT SETS. That was his only major title.

Faust wrote:

FedsFan wrote:

Faust wrote:Fedsfan you are saying that Fed's
6 wimbledons and 5 USOs are more
impressive than Sampras 7 wimbledons
and 5 USOs because ...spin spin spin.
Is getting a bit surreal here?!

No, I am not saying that. Federer needed to surpass Sampras' Wimbledon titles to be considered the all time great there. As for the USO, its tied but which is more impressive? 5 consecutive titles or 5 over a career of 12 years?

Who says that to win five consecutive USOs
in your prime is more impressive than winning one
at 19 years and 28 days ( youngest USOpen ever)
and then one at 32?

Clearly, you're a sampras fan..

The Roger v Pete debate ended when Roger won the FO.

Sampras had just turned 31 when he won his last USO.

Darn.. those facts

Agree Faust, Sampras on USO surface was a beast of a player, very hard to beat. He got to 8 finals winning 5, Roger has got to 6 finals winning 5.

Sampras's back injury and absence from USO in 99 arguably cost him another slam title as his form at SW19 that year was devastating....and he had just won Cincy as well which as we know is a very similar surface to USO. He then went on to win the ATP Masters Cup at the end of year...so I'd have put money on him having reached the final or likely won USO that year.

Emancipator obviously I am a Sampras fan.He was 31 years and 28...29
days yes. Lydian great point for 1999!It was Sampras best summer before
the USOpen.Emancipator you never answered my question yesterday.
Sampras in 2000 and 2001 won straight set victories against ten years younger Hewitt and Safin
in the NIGHT semifinals.Less than 24 hours later he lost to both.Could he gave won
two more USOs if like Federer in 2008 against Murray and 2009 Federer against
Potro he played the first semifinal and had a Monday final with a day off between?And
would Murray have a better chance being younger if he had played ala Safin and not a two day
semifinal with Nada while Federer was restingl?Obviously you are a Federer fan.

Sampras had the huge advantage to play at home with the crowd behind him. And you coudl win matches just by serving your way out of it like versus Corretja.

What Federer did is simply out of this world.

Sampras never quite understood RG clay, and was never able to make adjustments to his playing style. The more he played at RG, the worse his performance got.

Sampras at the French Open:
1991 - 2nd round - lost to Champion (name of the player, not champion)
1992 - QF - Agassi
1993 - QF - Bruguera
1994 - QF - Courier
1995 - 1st round - Schaller
1996 - SF - Kafelnikov
1997 - 3rd round - Norman
1998 - 2nd round - Delgado
1999 - 2nd round - Medvedev
2000 - 1st round - Philippoussis
2001 - 2nd round - G Blanco
2002 - 1st round - A Gaudenzi

Tenez wrote:Sampras had the huge advantage to play at home with the crowd behind him. And you coudl win matches just by serving your way out of it like versus Corretja.

What Federer did is simply out of this world.

Sampras beat Agassi four times in the Usopen! Who do you think
was the crowd favorite?And tell me one final Federer played when he
was not the crowd favorite?Cherry picking Corretja?Sampras
at 18 he beat defending Us Open champion Wilander.At 19 he beat
two US Open champions McEnroe and Lendl.In 2001 he beat Rafter Agassi
and Hewitt (three USOpen champions-a record I believe Emancipator) on his
way to the final.

DO you think they were supporting Federer when he played v Roddick and Agassi in final?

Federer had to play Agassi in semis as well when he was pretty young.

In a similar situation when Pete played an old Leconte in France ...he lost.

Crowd is teh big factor, especially in the biggest tennis stadium in the world.

Leff wrote:One of the most impressive runs for title at Wimbledon was in 1987. The top 8 seeds were Becker, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Mecir, Noah, Connors, and Gomez.

Unseeded Pat Cash knocked out Guy Forget in the 4th round, Wilander in QF, Connors in SF, and Lendl in the Final, ALL IN STRAIGHT SETS. That was his only major title.

Yeah but wilander never did well at wimby was always knocked out early, Connors was way passed it although very nice run to get to the semis. 1987 was definetly one of the strongest periods of tennis in terms of competition at the top.

Tenez wrote:Sampras had the huge advantage to play at home with the crowd behind him. And you coudl win matches just by serving your way out of it like versus Corretja.

What Federer did is simply out of this world.

Roger has basically had the home crowd advantage in every USO match he has played in the last few years that he hasn't faced an American. He basically has a home crowd advantage over Novak and the other top guys in every single match they have ever played.

socal1976 wrote:Roger has basically had the home crowd advantage in every USO match he has played in the last few years that he hasn't faced an American. He basically has a home crowd advantage over Novak and the other top guys in every single match they have ever played.

That's not the point. He is Swiss, not American like Sampras. He earned his crowd advantage.

Scampras should not even be in discussion of greatness.. every point he won took 1-3 strokes max, that is like saying winning on penalties in soccer makes you a great player rather than what happened for the other 90-120 minutes of the game.

That logic is completely wrong JM. You dont win ALL soccer matches by penalties....doh! Yes Sampras had great serves (partic 2nd serve) but he backed it up with loads of other great elements too, e.g. is commonly acknowledged as having best running FH. Otherwise, Karlovic would be on 14 slams and not zero! Sampras was an uber-aggressive tennis player...he raison-d'etre was to win points quickly! That's a skill, not a shortcoming.
But overall to say a 14 slam winner shouldnt be in a discussion about greatness is ridiculous when the guy was probably one of the mentally toughest the game has seen.

Like in boxing. You shouldn't disable your opponent until the 12th round. If you finished in 3 rounds, it's poor ticket value for the spectators.

So when Mohammed Ali was boasting about knocking out boxers as he did in Round 3, etc, and he did...that made him poor value for the crowd and less great? Yeah right.

Lydian, My comment above and those made by Josiah on this page are not meant to be taken at face value. It's our dry sense of humour, or at least something we think it is.

lol.....very dry Leff.....fair enough

Sampras five set record 33-15(a 69 winning percentage)
Agassi's five set record 27-22(55 winning percentage)
Federer's record 18-16(53 winning percentage)

 

Faust wrote:
Sampras five set record 33-15(a 69 winning percentage)
Agassi's five set record 27-22(55 winning percentage)
Federer's record 18-16(53 winning percentage)

Federer faced much tougher opposition, and much of his 5 set losses came when he was past his best

Josiah, have you really checked every opponent in all those 5 set matches for all three players?

Pillars of the game, that first statistic by which "greatness" can be measured, are the Four Majors. These are what are indelibly "marked" into the history of tennis. Whatever time passes, the winners of these Major tournaments, are long referred to, recognised as the hallmarks of the sport.

It is only when two or more players, have won a similar number of these Majors, that other factors come into play. 16 Majors beats 10 Majors, whatever else is brought into the equation. 4 Majors is, as 4 Majors does, whatever else may have come along with them, in terms of titles, a winner of only 4 Majors does not rank with the "All Time Greats;" it may well come to pass that these first 4 Majors were the beginning of a much larger haul of Majors, but until that haul is reached, 4 is 4, and doesn't begin to "touch" 10, 11, 12, 14 or 16 Majors.

I remember reading an article back in the early 90's in World Tennis, or some such publication. The write divided that quantification into "Greatest Ever across:

One Match
One Season
5 years
Career

...and the "winners" of these categories were not all the same. McEnroe's victory against Connors 6-1, 6-1, 6-2 in the 1984 Wimbledon Final was hailed as the GREATEST MATCH - the playing of a singluar match. Then on down through the other categories.

It is somewhat subjective when a person considering these "grandiosements" has seen only a small, time-based "niche" of the players that most pundits of the game, would consider in the conversation of greatest of all time. One can read whatever one wants, but without seeing it, there is little relevant opinion that can be offered by someone, say, on Laver's 1969 Grand Slam, if they are say 24 at this point.

When one has seen the "best" years of Federer, the career of Nadal to date, and the last year of Djokovic's play - they are all superlative, and stand as benchmarks of success in the modern game. However, the distance of time, makes harder this subjective comparison.

Those comments by Ted Tingling on the womens' game, and the greatest of that sex within the sport, carried great weight, as Tinling had begun back in the time of Lenglen, umpiring many of her matches on the French Riviera, right through to the apex of the career of Martina Navratilova. One of the last "opinions" of Tingling's was that in early 1990, Martina would win Wimbledon that year, along with his reasons why he felt so. And it came to pass. Only to say that we don't have someone in a similar position with that depth of first hand experience, in the Men's game.

There are at most times, a focus with each player, that might appear to be a "glaring weakness" when put alongside that players other accomplishments in the game.

Sampras - incredibly poor results at FO...
Wimlander/Connors/Lendl - never a Wimbledon Champion
McEnroe - collapse at FO (though compared to Sampras, made the final and should have won it)
Becker - never a single clay court title in his career (match points one year at Monte Carlo and hit a 200km 2nd serve, then lost it!)

Some pointed out a "lack" in the game of a Top Player - Edberg for example who many said had a "weak" forehand. Yet this was relative to his serve, volley and backhand. At the time, there were probably 90 out of the Top 100 players, who would have dearly loved to have the forehand of Edberg. It's all relative.

Once a player has, say, reached double digits in winning Major Singles, then they can be compared with other paremetres of the game, and winning, or not winning, certain "big" tournaments. Thinking of Rome, Monte Carlo, Year End Champ'ships, etc., and the winning of combinations of these "greatest" titles in tennis.

Lastly, most great players have had a "bete noire" during their playing careers - an opponent who might have been far lesser ranked, but because of their playing style, seemed to "have the number" of that more highly ranked player. Then we also had the example of Mecir who seemed to have the number of any player who was from Sweden. Either way, a top player having a "bete noire," doesn't take away from the greater legacy of that player's game, unless it was at the highest level of the game, in winning the greatest titles.

Suffice to say that there are many players whose skills, talents, win v loss, titles won, would lead some to put their name and careers into the coversation of greatest player - but it comes simply down to number of Major Singles titles won - the highest accolade measured within tennis.

At last count, Federer stands with 16, including all four of the Majors.

14 - Sampras - Frenchless, though that count is (someone who were to win perhaps 12 or 13, WITH ALL FOUR, could best him in that "greatest list."

Nadal with 10 Majors at 24, upon winning last year's US Open is a tremendous accomplishment, but 6 Majors behind Federer is too far a gap.

Djokovic with 4 Majors, 3 in 2011, is again, a huge achievment but does not allow at THIS POINT, for him to be elevated to one of the greatest ever.

Watch this space though, it is possible we will yet see some things that speak to both Nadal and Djokovic's place in that list, and even, Federer. Stranger things have happened, and always will!

Djokovic with 4 Majors, 3 in 2011, is again, a huge achievment but does not allow at THIS POINT, for him to be elevated to one of the greatest ever.

He'll never be regarded as a great anyway, as he'll never win that elusive French open... semi's at best am afraid

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Djokovic with 4 Majors, 3 in 2011, is again, a huge achievment but does not allow at THIS POINT, for him to be elevated to one of the greatest ever.

He'll never be regarded as a great anyway, as he'll never win that elusive French open... semi's at best am afraid

In the same way that Sampras isn't regarded as a great for the same reason?

Scam-artist-pras could never handle slow surfaces as proven with consistent poor results (only 1 semi final appearance)! Old buffalo legs went dizzy following a rally over 5 strokes

But he's regarded as a great nevertheless.

That's why he quit the game as soon as hardcourts started to slow down....

Josiah, you're starting to sound like Simple_Analyst!

Exactly...someone has to fill in for him during his mourning of that Nadull hammering

Well, don't forget to put every now and then!

yloponom68 wrote:

Wimlander/Connors/Lendl - never a Wimbledon Champion

The above was probably a typo when written a hurry. Connors won Wimbledon twice.

Made several well-informed comments in that lengthy post. Concur with most.

Faust wrote:

FedsFan wrote:

Faust wrote:Fedsfan you are saying that Fed's
6 wimbledons and 5 USOs are more
impressive than Sampras 7 wimbledons
and 5 USOs because ...spin spin spin.
Is getting a bit surreal here?!

No, I am not saying that. Federer needed to surpass Sampras' Wimbledon titles to be considered the all time great there. As for the USO, its tied but which is more impressive? 5 consecutive titles or 5 over a career of 12 years?

Who says that to win five consecutive USOs
in your prime is more impressive than winning one
at 19 years and 28 days ( youngest USOpen ever)
and then one at 32?

I do lol! I see your point but if you look at it from a consistency point of view 5 in a row is more impressive. How much more pressure is that on one person to cope with? To come back year after year and defend? Not taking anything away from Sampras and his achievements but I think Fed's run is more impressive and he was winning other slams at the same time too and reaching finals in clay events including RG.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Roger has basically had the home crowd advantage in every USO match he has played in the last few years that he hasn't faced an American. He basically has a home crowd advantage over Novak and the other top guys in every single match they have ever played.

That's not the point. He is Swiss, not American like Sampras. He earned his crowd advantage.

That is true. The Americans LOVE him big time and I think the US and France are probably the two slam countries that really love Fed. They will cheer their home player but at the end of the day they will always respect Federer as Tenez says respect needs to be earned and he has done that.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Faust wrote:
Sampras five set record 33-15(a 69 winning percentage)
Agassi's five set record 27-22(55 winning percentage)
Federer's record 18-16(53 winning percentage)

Federer faced much tougher opposition, and much of his 5 set losses came when he was past his best

Yes, JM fed's competition of ferrero, safin, hewitt, fat dave Nalbandian, tommy robredo, james, and ivan ljubicic blew away anything Pete had to face. I mean who could ever confuse Ivan lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, and Agassi with with the murder's row of talent represented by Fat Dave and Marat "I'd rather go to the nightclub than practice" Safin.

But to a certain extent I do agree that the later period of Agassi and Sampras' careers the very tail end they did benefit from the big stars going away and being replaced by the weak era players.

Feds fan, I agree, fed has earned it, but if having homecourt advantage is somewhat of an advantage for pete, then Fed has also enjoyed that advantage I can't remember in any country the last time someone cheered against him. Maybe when he plays madrid against Nadal and even then they give the guy a lot of respect.

I rarely see the top players getting booed or 'cheered against', these days.

Occasionally at RG, but not at other majors.

USO and Wimbledon spectators are generally appreciative of good play.

Aussies drink beer.

Leff wrote:I rarely see the top players getting booed or 'cheered against', these days.

Occasionally at RG, but not at other majors.

USO and Wimbledon spectators are generally appreciative of good play.

Aussies drink beer.

WHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT????????????? And I believe you have been attending the USO this year, right? The crowd must have turned you deaf cause many of us could hear it loud thousands miles away!

I watched matches at Ashe for 9 days this year. Plenty of wine and food in our corporate booth.

With 20K+ spectators, noise is inevitable, but it was an appreciative crowd.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Djokovic with 4 Majors, 3 in 2011, is again, a huge achievment but does not allow at THIS POINT, for him to be elevated to one of the greatest ever.

He'll never be regarded as a great anyway, as he'll never win that elusive French open... semi's at best am afraid

JM when he wins that RG title I'd like you to come in here and say that you heard it here first from me socal. Novak is going to win RG, no doubt, I think in fact that RG suits his game very nicely.