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)

Sampras got outdone miserably by the skinny midget Hewitt in his first ever slam final yet Fed has the audacity to bring up match points, against a far better all rounder at exactly the same age as Faust's idol!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

The French Open was on grass? When was that?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

Must have been grass, probably at the very beginning, but I feel it was clay since the concept of "grand slam" was created.

Looks like it was never grass actually.

The only other mention of a surface other than clay, on any site, is on Wikipedia - in the early days (before it was open to non-French residents) it was sometimes played on "sand laid out on bed of rubble" - the mind boggles!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Please can you state your source for saying that Roland Garros (i.e. the French Championships/Open) has ever been on grass?

The US Open was on US har-tru clay briefly during the mid 1970's, when Chris Evert cleaned up. At least one of Borg's final losses was on clay.

Leff wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

The French open was played on grass until 1920 circa. yes it may be before the concept of grand slam was born, my mistake. But yes, it was on grass in the beginning.....

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

The French open was played on grass until 1920 circa. yes it may be before the concept of grand slam was born, my mistake. But yes, it was on grass in the biginning.....

That's an assertion, it may be right, but can you give us a source please?

Emancipator Nadal played with Federer 25 times.
Younger yes differrnt era no. And if Nadal and Djoko
are different era then you make my point
of a weak era even stronger.Because who then was
his competition?Andy?And let me ask your opinion?
If in 2000 and 2001 Sampras played the ten years younger
Hewit Safin with a day rest as Fed did with Murray and Potro
could he possibly win two extra US Opens? I remind you
that he defeated both of them in the semifinals in straight
sets each year.Federer is clearly better than Sampras on clay.
Borg never won the US Open but by the time he retired he
won 11 GS without playing Australian Open (once at 17 only)wich at the time
was played on grass.Between the age of 18 and 24 he won
11 to federer's four?five?at the same age span.
All I am saying is that the only idisputable fact
is that Federer won more GS than anybody.Everything else is debatable.
And by those standars one can claim that Connors is the GOAT
sonce he won 40 more tournaments than Federer.

barrystar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

The French open was played on grass until 1920 circa. yes it may be before the concept of grand slam was born, my mistake. But yes, it was on grass in the biginning.....

That's an assertion, it may be right, but can you give us a source please?

From: "History of Lawn Tennis"

"The original French Championships, played from 1891 to 1924, were closed events, and for many years played on grass some miles from the current Roland Garros complex. Frenchmen were playing the event, but just like other big tournaments on grass, nothing unique. The first defining moment came in the 1920s, after Suzanne Lenglen put French tennis on the map, with her unbeaten and flamboyant style at Wimbledon. Following her wave of popularity as the first recognizable female tennis star, the Four Musketeers came and conquered all foes on their new home of slow red clay".

Faust wrote:Emancipator Nadal played with Federer 25 times.
Younger yes differrnt era no. And if Nadal and Djoko
are different era then you make my point
of a weak era even stronger.Because who then was
his competition?Andy?And let me ask your opinion?
If in 2000 and 2001 Sampras played the ten years younger
Hewit Safin with a day rest as Fed did with Murray and Potro
could he possibly win two extra US Opens? I remind you
that he defeated both of them in the semifinals in straight
sets each year.Federer is clearly better than Sampras on clay.
Borg never won the US Open but by the time he retired he
won 11 GS without playing Australian Open (once at 17 only)wich at the time
was played on grass.Between the age of 18 and 24 he won
11 to federer's four?five?at the same age span.
All I am saying is that the only idisputable fact
is that Federer won more GS than anybody.Everything else is debatable.
And by those standars one can claim that Connors is the GOAT
sonce he won 40 more tournaments than Federer.

But Fed still dominated like no other player everything but clay for the last 8 years. Nadal will never take that away from him even if he wins the next 8 wimbledons.

Interesting J_K - is that a book, or a web-site?
In any event, those early French Championships were 'closed' i.e. only open to French residents.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

The French open was played on grass until 1920 circa. yes it may be before the concept of grand slam was born, my mistake. But yes, it was on grass in the biginning.....

That's an assertion, it may be right, but can you give us a source please?

From: "History of Lawn Tennis"

"The original French Championships, played from 1891 to 1924, were closed events, and for many years played on grass some miles from the current Roland Garros complex. Frenchmen were playing the event, but just like other big tournaments on grass, nothing unique. The first defining moment came in the 1920s, after Suzanne Lenglen put French tennis on the map, with her unbeaten and flamboyant style at Wimbledon. Following her wave of popularity as the first recognizable female tennis star, the Four Musketeers came and conquered all foes on their new home of slow red clay".

This? http://www.driftwaycollection.com/history_3.html

I guess it's a question of who's more reliable, Mr. McCready or Wikipedia, or maybe which tournament was the true pre-cursor to the modern-day Roland Garros.

this is an estract from the following article:

http://www.driftwaycollection.com/history_3.html

In 100 years of history the tournament has changed location, name and many others features, but the fact remains: in the origins it was played on grass.

barrystar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Leff wrote:
Are you sure about this statement?

I thought that Roland Garros was always on clay. US open switched from grass to hard in the mid-seventies, and Australian from grass to hard in the eighties, and what I read, the French was always the odd one.

Yes, my friend. The four of them.

Hi Jeremy, Is there an article that states that the French Open was once played on grass. From what I have gathered, the French Open has been played at Roland Garros since 1928 and it has always been clay. The concept of a grand slam in a calendar year started in 1925, and between 1925 and 1927, the French Open was played on other courts in the Paris area, but those were clay surfaces too. This information may be found in the Wikipedia main article on the history of the French Open. Sorry, I can't post the link to that article because new members of this forum are not allowed to post links for about two weeks.

The French open was played on grass until 1920 circa. yes it may be before the concept of grand slam was born, my mistake. But yes, it was on grass in the biginning.....

That's an assertion, it may be right, but can you give us a source please?

From: "History of Lawn Tennis"

"The original French Championships, played from 1891 to 1924, were closed events, and for many years played on grass some miles from the current Roland Garros complex. Frenchmen were playing the event, but just like other big tournaments on grass, nothing unique. The first defining moment came in the 1920s, after Suzanne Lenglen put French tennis on the map, with her unbeaten and flamboyant style at Wimbledon. Following her wave of popularity as the first recognizable female tennis star, the Four Musketeers came and conquered all foes on their new home of slow red clay".

This? http://www.driftwaycollection.com/history_3.html

I guess it's a question of who's more reliable, Mr. McCready or Wikipedia, or maybe which tournament was the true pre-cursor to the modern-day Roland Garros.

actually in first instance I heard this from Peter Flaming who was discussing the period when AO and USO were played on grass. As for the reliability of the source: Wikipedia is good for getting a grasp of things but it's also made by amateurs......

I can easily understand that grass was the original surface at the French cause the game (dimensions etc....) was obviously borrowed from England. I however believe grass was not the choice for long.

Tenez wrote:I can easily understand that grass was the original surface at the French cause the game (dimensions etc....) was obviously borrowed from England. I however believe grass was not the choice for long.

that's correct, according to the source it was on grass until the 1920 circa....

Well I'm surprised but I've got nothing to gainsay Mr. McCready's article.

Well found that man.

I have e-mailed Mr. McCready - let's see if I get a reply.

Thanks for the new information about the early history of French tennis.

Is it safe to say then that the French OPEN was never played on grass, since the years prior to 1925 were not open?

To bring this to the proper perspective, we were discussing this in the context of a comment that the major titles of some of the great players came during a time when all major were played on grass. But, from what I see, the great players of yesteryears that won the French OPEN, won on clay.

When Laver won two true grandslams (4 majors in a calendar year), he played 3 on grass and 1 on clay; right?

Not contesting any comments, just asking if I am right.

Is it harder now to win a true grandslam because we have two events on hard courts, one on grass, and one on clay? Or, is it because the field (128) is much larger during the 50's?

Leff, you are correct about Laver re: the surfaces.

Leff wrote:When Laver won two true grandslams (4 majors in a calendar year), he played 3 on grass and 1 on clay; right?

Not contesting any comments, just asking if I am right.

Is it harder now to win a true grandslam because we have two events on hard courts, one on grass, and one on clay? Or, is it because the field (128) is much larger during the 50's?

If it is harder I suspect it's chiefly because the fields are deeper and stronger - in relation to pure numbers I only know for sure that the Aus Open had smaller fields earlier.

For my part I think it was probably hardest to win a true calender slam between 1988 and about 2002, 1988 being the year that the Aus Open went to hard and had a 128-man draw and 2002 being admittedly a less specific choice. This era had huge extremes between grass and clay due to the development of the power game during the 1980's with steel and then carbon raquets. With wooden racquets before the 1980's the extremes due to surface were probably less significant (the number of players, professional and amateur, having Wimbledon/RG wins in their resume tends to support this). The surface differences have narrowed during the last decade for various reasons, including ball and string development as well, perhaps, as much-debated changes in the surfaces at Wimbledon (said to have been made higher bouncing, more regular, less slick) and RG (said to have been made faster).

That means for me that Agassi's different wins at a slick Wimbledon in 1992 and a slow RG in 1999 are pretty extraordinary.

Well themain thing is that grass or clay there was not a huge difference at the time cause the racquets and conditions were not exacerbating the difference of surfaces like larger graphite racquets did.

barrystar wrote:
If it is harder I suspect it's chiefly because the fields are deeper and stronger - in relation to pure numbers I only know for sure that the Aus Open had smaller fields earlier.

For my part I think it was probably hardest to win a true calender slam between 1988 and about 2002, 1988 being the year that the Aus Open went to hard and had a 128-man draw and 2002 being admittedly a less specific choice. This era had huge extremes between grass and clay due to the development of the power game during the 1980's with steel and then carbon raquets. With wooden racquets before the 1980's the extremes due to surface were probably less significant (the number of players, professional and amateur, having Wimbledon/RG wins in their resume tends to support this). The surface differences have narrowed during the last decade for various reasons, including ball and string development as well, perhaps, as much-debated changes in the surfaces at Wimbledon (said to have been made higher bouncing, more regular, less slick) and RG (said to have been made faster).

That means for me that Agassi's different wins at a slick Wimbledon in 1992 and a slow RG in 1999 are pretty extraordinary.

Excellent post. Very thoughtful and analytical.

Mind you - 1988 was the first year since 1974 when someone won three slams in a year! However, Wilander had managed to win Aus on Grass before so I don't think the change to hard necessarily helped him there.

Greatness?

How about winning on all the following:

grass/astroturf/clay- red,grey,maroon,blue,yellow/artificial clay/hard - rebound ace, decoturf/plexicushion,macadam/school playground concrete/wood/cow dung (dried)- yes there really are courts made of the stuff...etc

Come on newballs they never played on cow dung, I have heard of wood courts before but cow dung. I have played on red clay, green clay, asphalt, decoturf, and artificial grass.

I had never heard of this!
http://www.mslta.org/CourtCowDung.aspx

Ok now I have heard everything, I love tennis but I aint playing on cow dung.

There was a big contrast in the fields of 1962 and 1969 when Laver won grandslams, first an an amateur and later in the open era.

Laver was the top seed for all 4 majors in 62 and 69, and it was incredible that he won them all.

1962: The top dozen or so players were Emerson, Neale Fraser, R Krishnan, Chuck McKinley, Santana, Pietrangeli, Bob Hewitt, Rafael Osuna, Fred Stolle, Lundquist and Froehling.

Wimbledon final: bt unseeded Martin Mulligan
US, French, Australian: bt Emerson in all three finals

1969: Roche, Tom Okker, Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe, Drysdale, Graebner, Andres Gimeno.

Wimbledon final: bt Nuke
US: bt Roche
French: bt Rosewall
Aus: bt Gimeno

Greatness should be measured on and off the court. Its not just records, stats etc.

Laver won the Grand Slam but was that not a time when everything was played on grass? Surely this would be a huge advantage in that there was no need to 'adjust' to a particular surface unlike today where you have extremes i.e clay to h/c? Plus the field was not as strong today.

Longevity is important. You have to be able to also maintain and back up those major wins. Sampras' 7 Wimbledon comes to mind but Federer's 6 Wimbledons of 7 finals and his USO 5 streak is more impressive. Nadal has not been able to defend a slam outside the FO successfully in his career so far.

Ability to win on all surfaces is sort of a given these days. All the guys in the top 10 can do that. Take out the top 4 and 5-10 could easily win majors on all surfaces.

Opposition is important but you cannot 'rubbish' a players achievements because their opponents were not considered tough. In hindsight you can say Sampras won all he did against lesser opponents because the comparison is between say Federer and Nadal/Djoko now. In light of these guys everyone seems lesser opponents. If you had a bogeyman and you didn't face that person to win that's no ones fault. I think this is referring to Fed and the FO without Nadal being in the final yes?

No of titles is probably what really defines it. Sampras was thought to be great even though Agassi had the career slam. But looking at the list it was Pete at 14 and Agassi at 8. Therefore at the moment Fed is the man. Though Nadal has the career slam and 10 slams 6 of those are on clay. He needs to win more on the others to be considered in my opinion. What's the point of having 15 FOs or 10 Wimbledons and 1 or 2 of the others and being the all time slam leader?

It also depends on skill and style and who you consider plays a more complete game. That is subjective so you are never going to agree on it.

May I ask what list had Pete at 14 and Andre at 8?

Tennis was pretty competitive during the Borg years. His main opponents were Connors, MacEnroe, Vitas Gerulitis, Vilas, and Lendl.

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?!

barrystar wrote:That means for me that Agassi's different wins at a slick Wimbledon in 1992 and a slow RG in 1999 are pretty extraordinary.

Well yes....except that in all honesty he should have lost those 2 matches. He was helped by a very nervous Goran and a Medvedev who lost his edge after the crowd got involved. But it still scores point for having reached teh final of those tournaments twice or more.

That 1999 French Open final was an odd one. Medvedev won the first two sets 6-1 and 6-2, and then appeared to have realised that everybody wanted Agassi to win and that he didn't want to be the spoiler, and started hitting into the net or wide. If Davydenko did that, well you know..

Leff wrote:That 1999 French Open final was an odd one. Medvedev won the first two sets 6-1 and 6-2, and then appeared to have realised that everybody wanted Agassi to win and that he didn't want to be the spoiler, and started hitting into the net or wide. If Davydenko did that, well you know..

Yes, looks like you remember too.

It was a bit like Connors v. Pernfors at Wimbledon 1987 - anyone who loses from 2-0 up like that has got to look at himself, but Agassi played his part.

I'm sure every great champion has had a few slam matches they should have lost, but since they won them, I don't see that it really matters.

It's worth remembering that in the early 1990's Courier made the finals of all the slams between 1991-1993 winning Aus x2 and RG x2, but losing USO and Wimbledon against Edberg and Sampras; whilst Agassi made the RG final x2, and USO and Wimbledon once each, winning Wimbledon, but did not play Aus (what a fool - he could really have cleaned up there).

Conforming to my theory Courier was very much a slow-surface man and lost out at the final hurdle on faster surfaces to specialists - his star shone brightly for a short period too.

Agassi, as ever, defies attempts to define him (beyond being a consistent loser to Sampras at USO) and was pretty ridiculous at the beginning of his career. He should have had one RG title and perhaps he was lucky to face a jittery Goran at Wimbledon in 1992.

That is why we value longevity - as JHM says, if a player stays there or thereabouts for long enough he's going to pick up a slam that maybe he should have lost to sit alongside those that maybe he should have won - it's once you've seen how all the ups and downs come out of the wash that you can form a view.

Courier is a guy that for some reason on this site is not viewed as a particularly great player and is sort of the forgotten man. In my mind he was a guy that had 2 or 3 great years and was lost in the shadows of Pete and Andre. He played in my opinion in one of the toughest periods of tennis talent against a still relevant lendl, becker, edberg, Pete, and Andre. And for a couple of years was the best of the bunch out of this murder's row of talent. If he came up lets in the late 90s and early 2000s I think he would have had even a bigger haul of titles and accomplishments.

Federer is the king of losing slams he could have won. he lost 3 slams matches despite having MPs.

AO 09, USO 09, FO 11 are also a bit difficult to explain!

FO 11 - are you sure? If you are going to say that, what about FO 2007 when he missed a whole host of BP's?

I would add Wimby 08 to that list he most of blown 20 some odd break points in that match against Rafa. But then again he did fight back from a big deficit to be in a position to win.

I disagree with the 2011 FO, I never thought that match was in doubt, as soon as Roger lost his break advantage to RAfa I knew Rafa was going to win and it wouldn't be that close.

Perhaps Fed was a bit lucky in a couple of slams too.

At Wimbledon 2007 Nadal choked a little, and the rain delay at Wimbledon 2004 certainly helped him get his head together when he was finding answers difficult to come by vs. Roddick. Also, Wimbledon 2009 might have turned out different if Roddick hadn't muffed that shot....

RG 2009 went very close vs. Haas and Del Boy too, but at least Fed just about kept those on his racquet.

Like Socal I don't see 2011 RG as one that got away.

barrystar wrote:FO 11 - are you sure? If you are going to say that, what about FO 2007 when he missed a whole host of BP's?

Well he should have won that first set. Either by winning that set point...or simply serving it out. And yes I agree with FO 2007 and in fact 2006...too but a bit more far fetched I agree. But in FO11...it's the only FO match where there are 3 close sets. One which he shoudl have clearly won, one that he actually won and the middle ste is a TB .

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:FO 11 - are you sure? If you are going to say that, what about FO 2007 when he missed a whole host of BP's?

Well he should have won that first set. Either by winning that set point...or simply serving it out. And yes I agree with FO 2007 and in fact 2006...too but a bit more far fetched I agree. But in FO11...it's the only FO match where there are 3 close sets. One which he should have clearly won, one that he actually won and the middle ste is a TB .

I had forgotten about the agony of that 1st set, probably tried to erase it from my mind. Failure to serve out was a real shame I agree. Likewise failing to convert 3bp's at 0-40 early in the 2nd set at RG 2006 seemed to have taken all the steam out of the Federer express there too. Even so, that's the trouble vs. Nadal - the way the guy plays vs. Fed make the pinch points so enormously loaded and the line so difficult to cross over the best of 5 that you expect Fed to need to make an absolute hatful of "opportunities" to win, because he's always going to miss a lot. Their matches are very often 'close' in that they seem to turn on a few crucial missed opportunities like that, but given the general pattern of their play and the repetition of such results I am reluctant to view matches that go like that as ones which got away from Fed save exceptional ones that go right down to the end like Rome 2006, Aus Open 2009 and, perhaps, Wimbledon 2008. However, in the latter I never expected Fed to win that final set because he did not seem to be able to get a break from anywhere as the match went on.

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.