How many slams to be considered "a great"?

On a tedious commute today, I was pondering at what point a player goes from being merely successful to being considered one of "the greats".

If their careers ended tomorrow, Federer and Nadal will be seen as all-time greats. I think Djokovic though would be seen just as very good.

As my tennis thoughts often have a Djokovic slant, I wondered what more he needs to do be considered great. More slams is the obvious answer but how many more? One more would see him reach 6, which would equal Becker and Edberg. I think both of those players are seen as greats, so would 6 be enough?

Also, what are the other intangibles? Mats Wilanders for instance won more slams than Becker or Edberg (7) but doesn't seem to have the same level as public sentiment. John Mcenroe also won 7 yet seems to have a much larger repuation and standing in the game than that number would suggest.

So what do you all think it takes to be a great? My personal judgement would be 8 slams makes it definite. If the number is less than that, then the player has a to have a special story or charisma.

It's not always what you do it's the way that you do it...

hawkeye wrote:It's not always what you do it's the way that you do it...

True but it's also fair to say that Gasquet, for example, will never be seen as a great. There has to be some level of accomplishment behind the style.

Good question.

I think it's quantity and quality, as discussed above. For example, I don't consider Wilander a "great", merely a "very good". I consider Becker an almost great, a very very good - I would be recptive to an argument either way. What does Boris for me is the very few weeks at #1.

Lendl, McEnroe - these are true greats even though John only won one more than Boris.

So for me it's quantity as a pre-requisite, period of dominance (weeks @#1) plus impact, the subjective tough to pin down one.

Nadal is a great, no question. I agree with your assessment of Djokovic but I could see that if he got another 3 Slams but never regained #1 he may struggle still to be called a true great because he didn't really "run" the game. I think he will regain the #1 though for a good while and get his great credentials in the end.

If he gets a decent hairstyle.

Yep good question. There are greats...and then there are legends.

I'd go along with the 6+ territory for a "great"...although I think winning slams at 3 of the 4 slams is also important. If you win slams on all surfaces then clearly this separates the players further.

Yes weeks at 1, years at 1, titles, spread of titles, H2H vs other top players, impact on the game, charisma (ie. reach outside the game, or to the public), and also being part of great rivalries.

Djokovic isnt quite a great yet for me...has "only" dominated 1 season...whereas greats of today and the past have tended to have more than just 1 good year, or they have defended the really big titles successfully...i.e. slams.

Re: "legends" of the game, I'd say this probably starts around 10+ slams...that demonstrates success over a long period which is so hard to do in tennis. Clearly Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal have shown this. But its not a clear metric.

A footnote for Agassi...I think he "should" have been amonst the Big 5 above but for messing around earlier in his career - he didnt even go to AO routinely for a long time (but then neither did Borg - which kind of renders counting slams a little arbitary). Their loss I guess....but I do see Agassi as almost a legend of the game (lets not forget he won all slams across all true as they were surfaces across a 7 year period), along with McEnroe to a slight lesser extent despite his 7 slams (which we know was lower than his potential but he struggled with sustaining his career). Guys like Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg probably achieved what they should have done, perhaps even overachieved in some instances such as Wilander.

BB, Lydian, thanks for the well made points. I would agree with your sentiments.

I think Lendl is a good yardstick of the level of achievement needed for greatness, because, as I see it, his reputation rests solely upon achievement! Charisma and sentiment don't really play a part in how his legacy is viewed. His greatness is in the cold hard numbers.

The other end of the scale is perhaps Agassi? The raw figures of 7 slams and 101 weeks at #1 are arguably on the low side for greatness but I think the narrative of his career (slams across all surfaces, a late career return to form) and his rivalry with Sampras just about edge him into that category.

8 slams for Andre
In mitigation he had to compete alongside Sampras his whole career (they were close in age)...and they were both hardcourt demons. I think the fact Andre gave Federer such a tough match as a 35 yr old at USO'05 speaks to his quality too.

Yes Lendl is tended to be seen in cold hard numbers...of which they say 8 slams out of 19 finals...so not that "great" against the very top players perhaps...

Lydian, not only do you pick me up on my statistical blunder, you also systematically unpick my Lendl theory!

Back to the drawing board for me I think! (Although back to bed may be a better idea!)

lol...no worries HM...as they say "the pedants are revolting".

Lendl is a true great no doubt...but he did have some issues against top players for sure. And he arguably shouldnt have won that 1 slam against Mac at FO84 (must haunt Mac to this day)...it changed both their careers really.

I agree with Lydian that it's more than just slam wins, but I'd say that from 6 upwards you can be a 'great' of the game and from 8 upwards it's unavoidable, you are a great of the game.

McEnroe is undoubtedly a great well beyond his 7 singles slams. I also have Becker as a great although he was relatively inconsistent and spent very little time at No. 1 for all his titles.

It's difficult to exclude Wilander and Edberg and I don't, but to me somehow they are of less stature than the other two.

Djoko will finish his career as a great, of that I am sure;to have bust through the duopoly and have had a banner year like 2011 as well as having had some absolutely brilliant matches against two of the best players there have ever been says a lot, and there's more to come from him too - quite possibly within the next 6 weeks or so.

As for legends of the pure Open Era I have Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Nadal, Sampras, and Federer because either they have masses of slams or other achievements/contributions towards the game that outstrip the pure slam tally (think of Mac as a doubles player, Lendl as the agent of so much change and the huge rival of so many greats).

Connors is a great but not a legend in my view.

I think Lendl is definitely amongst the legends.

He has a relatively poor record in slam finals but his other achievements make up for it.

A huge number of weeks at number one, 94 tour titles, multiple YEC's and YE number one's, as well as some phenomenal streaks. He accomplished all of this against Connors, Borg, Mac, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and was even competitive against Sampras, Agassi and Courier.

That's a fair shout emancipator

I think that setting the 'greatness' bar at eight Slams is setting it a bit too high, I must say!

Djokovic, if he retired today, would be one of the 'greats' and I'm surprised that so many (seemingly) deem him unworthy of that right now. He's won his five Slams in an era containing perhaps (please note, I said 'perhaps, no hysteria needed) the two greatest players of all time. His Slam successes have been split across three of the four tournaments and he has an exemplary record at the only to have thus far eluded him, with one runner up and a small handful of semi final appearances to his name there.

His 2011 stands as one of the single greatest individual years in history, too. He shouldn't be marked down for not 'running' the game for a sustained period all that much, in my mind. Hewitt's eighty successive weeks as world number one between late 2001 and early 2003 is one of the longest in ATP history - I'm pretty sure that Djokovic would have sailed to that figure with something to spare had he been faced with the opposition that Hewitt was at the time.

I'd say that three Slams or so, provided they haven't all been accumulated at a single Slam tournament, is enough to be considered a 'great' tennis player in the professional ranks. Of course, there are different levels of greatness which seems to be an unpopular idea here, hence the "Federer is great, Becker wasn't" arguments above, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Djokovic's career thus far clearly makes him a legitimate 'great.' Just not AS great as a Borg, Laver or Federer.

Incidentally, as far as Slam "greatness" is concerned, no man in the Open era has won all the slams at least twice, which I find quite interesting.
Obviously it's the French that causes all the trouble, with some finding it hard to win even once, let alone twice.
Fed has clearly been the closest to this each-Slam-twice achievement but doubt he can do it with Rafa around. Rafa, in fact, probably has the best chance to do it.
For the women, Graf won each slam at least four times - quite incredible. (not to mention her Golden slam in 1988 Olympic year which is a little pocket record of hers that should survive for all time).

sirfredperry wrote:Incidentally, as far as Slam "greatness" is concerned, no man in the Open era has won all the slams at least twice, which I find quite interesting.
Obviously it's the French that causes all the trouble, with some finding it hard to win even once, let alone twice.
Fed has clearly been the closest to this each-Slam-twice achievement but doubt he can do it with Rafa around. Rafa, in fact, probably has the best chance to do it.
For the women, Graf won each slam at least four times - quite incredible. (not to mention her Golden slam in 1988 Olympic year which is a little pocket record of hers that should survive for all time).

Yeah.

I know 5 times in the final of each by you-know-who is the best, but what's the 2nd best at coming close (and let's do Open era only)? I know Nadal is on 2.

Agassi, I think, got to all the finals at least twice (am doing this off the top of my head). Lendl probably did, too. Not sure if Becker ever got to the French final and Sampras never did. Djoko has got to each final at least once. Probably loads of people I've missed out who at least got to all four finals.

Lendl has an impressive record of finals appearances - 2 losing finals at Wimbledon, then 4 finals at the AO, 5 at RG and 7 at the USO (winning 2, 3 and 3 respectively). So matches Nadal's record of at least 2 appearances in each slam final, but having been in more overall

Doubt anyone else manages to match that - Sampras obviously didn't make the RG final, while Edberg and McEnroe only made 1 each

Courier made all four slam finals - he lost the USO and Wimbledon.

I think only Lendl and Federer have the career slam loser title, having lost at least one of each of the four slam finals - poor old Lendl has lost at least 2 of each.

Another stat I like is that Connors and Wilander have won slam titles on clay, grass, and hard despite the fact that they have only won 3/4 slams.

Gosh, Lendl's record is heartbreaking, but at least he did have some wins among the defeats. His (11 is it?) GS final losses is a record, no? In some ways a "good" bad record to have.

I think the posts so far underline just how difficult it is base 'greatness' on an arbitrary number of Slam wins. Once these sort of debates get going it's inevitable - and understandable - that so many other factors creep into the picture.

You could, for instance, hit on a figure of six as the benchmark. But if all those six came at the same Slam (which, AFAIK, has never actually happened ...?), and hence the one surface, would that not weaken the case for greatness ? So on that I'd certainly agree with mod Chris above.

Age can also be a key factor in the eyes of some - at whichever end of a career. Hewitt's two Slam wins came pretty early, after which he only rarely challenged at the business end of subsequent Slams during the vast majority of his career, and so could never qualify for greatness. But against that he was the youngest-ever player to make World Number One, quite an achievement in itself and one which led many to assume that he would become a great.

Incidentally, Hewitt's 80 weeks as number one were not in fact successive (his 'run' was briefly interrupted by Agassi). Nonetheless, it still puts him at a very respectable 7th in the all-time list, but as regards the bigger picture I imagine his total career tally of 28 titles wouldn't get him a place inside even the top 20.

As for more recent times .....when you consider the oft-quoted stat of 28 out of the last 29 (have I got that right...?) Slams being shared by just 3 players it shows just how tough it is for any of today's also-rans to even get started on the road to greatness....

Winning all four of the Slams would be another criteria and would obviously narrow the list somewhat. But that would exclude - along with many other big names of course - Bjorn Borg. And I'm not having that

sirfredperry wrote:Gosh, Lendl's record is heartbreaking, but at least he did have some wins among the defeats. His (11 is it?) GS final losses is a record, no? In some ways a "good" bad record to have.

Yes, it is incredible that a player with 8 slam titles is statistically more likely to lose a final than win!

HM M - well if you take out his first four final losses, he went 8-7 in finals after that, which aint too bad. His first win, incidentally, was the one that Johnny Mac always regretted the most, as he went down in five to Ivan at the French in 84 after being two sets to love up.

Well Lendl may have won all those slam trophies but I was way too bored to watch Zzzzz... So if I didn't watch it's impossible for me to describe him as great. Of course there's nothing to stop those that stayed awake from doing so.

H'eye. I admit Ivan was never one of my favourites. I respected his guts and his fitness, though.

sirfredperry wrote:Incidentally, as far as Slam "greatness" is concerned, no man in the Open era has won all the slams at least twice, which I find quite interesting.
Obviously it's the French that causes all the trouble, with some finding it hard to win even once, let alone twice.
Fed has clearly been the closest to this each-Slam-twice achievement but doubt he can do it with Rafa around. Rafa, in fact, probably has the best chance to do it.
For the women, Graf won each slam at least four times - quite incredible. (not to mention her Golden slam in 1988 Olympic year which is a little pocket record of hers that should survive for all time).

Graf did profit a lot from the Seles stabbing by a Graf obsessed nut job. Not her fault of course but Seles was OWNING her before that happened.

hawkeye wrote:Well Lendl may have won all those slam trophies but I was way too bored to watch Zzzzz... So if I didn't watch it's impossible for me to describe him as great. Of course there's nothing to stop those that stayed awake from doing so.

You love Nadal yet dislike Lendl?? Nadal is twice as boring. Lendl had a certain methodical beauty to his play.

lags72 wrote:Incidentally, Hewitt's 80 weeks as number one .....puts him at a very respectable 7th in the all-time list

Interesting how there is a disconnect between #1 weeks ranking overall ranking in terms of slams and titles. No way is Hewitt #7 best player ever...maybe top 20. Likewise there is Lendl with 3 highest #1 weeks but again he's not #3 best player. Shows that although the #1 week achievement can be a metric to consider for greatness its not a particularly priority one.

Re Djoko - I was fiddling around on Wikipedia and found this interesting page about Great Tennis Rivalries and see that although they only started 6 years ago in 2006, already Djoko's rivalries with Fed and Nadal are getting close to decade-long epics such as Connors - McEnroe, or McEnroe - Lendl.

Djoko has played a total of 60 matches against Nadal (33) and Federer (27), which is more than 10% of the 550 odd matches he's played, and just less than half (21) of all the finals he's reached (47). He won 11 of those finals, namely just over a third of all the finals he's won (30). Those stats really go to show how hard he's had it to achieve what he has in the game.

This'll be unpopular, but I see Djokovic as a bit like Edberg. what I mean is that both are super players, both capable of beating all their peers, but there's something missing in terms of profile or charisma, or even just looking like the player who defines their period.

It's not any sort of attack on the guy or his tennis but even when #1 and winning shedloads I just don't see him owning the sport.

You mean the Sharapova wig didn't win you over?!

He doesn't have the same charisma as Federer or Nadal. Plus there is that patriotic element to him that doesn't lend itself to global appeal. Rather than Edberg I'd he's more like Lendl...great achievements but he leaves many people cold.

bogbrush wrote:This'll be unpopular, but I see Djokovic as a bit like Edberg. what I mean is that both are super players, both capable of beating all their peers, but there's something missing in terms of profile or charisma, or even just looking like the player who defines their period.

It's not any sort of attack on the guy or his tennis but even when #1 and winning shedloads I just don't see him owning the sport.

I personally feel very different about this but I do recognise that many (even a majority) feel the same.

I think he lacks the big rivalry. He's had great, even classic, matches against Federer and Nadal but they are both already defined as each other's rival. Nor do I think the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry will surpass the Nadal-Federer rivalry once Fed retires. Nadal-Fed is a rivalry of very different styles. Nadal and Djokovic are not different enough to have the same aesthetic appeal.

He's only 25 though, so things may change. He'll be part of plenty more dramas in years to come!

How many slams to be considered a "great"?

18

bogbrush wrote:This'll be unpopular, but I see Djokovic as a bit like Edberg. what I mean is that both are super players, both capable of beating all their peers, but there's something missing in terms of profile or charisma, or even just looking like the player who defines their period.

It's not any sort of attack on the guy or his tennis but even when #1 and winning shedloads I just don't see him owning the sport.

bb I see what you're trying to point out with this comparison, but I somehow can't picture myself Edberg tearing off his shirt after converting match point in a Slam final :-)

To be considered a great factors to consider:
Duration of success (e.g. time between first GS win and last).
Duration at No1 in the rankings.
Total number of GS won.
Total number of GS won away from most successful GS tournament.
Total number of weeks in top 5.
Total number of Master tournaments won.
Total number of end of year tournaments won.
Career grand slams.
Total number of GS finals.
H2H match-ups (taking into account age differences).

NS
While all of those are relevant, there are a few issues that can push one player up and another down, some of which are objective but others are more subjective.

John McEnroe for one wouldn't necessarily score that highly on your list, but you can factor in as positives his doubles record (Peter Fleming's comment about JM and anyone being the best doubles partnership) and the dominance of his best season. Also, the more intangible is the effect that his personality (love or loathe) had on increasing the popularity of the sport.

As for Djokovic, I can understand where BB and Lydian are coming from - for all his quality as a player, there is something that just leaves me a bit cold about him.

Okay, I would add:
Innovators (e.g. technique, a new shot, a new approach to training that feeds in to performance) that change the game as it is played - that others immitate and add to their game.
Something associated with developing tennis as a sport. That when the history of tennis is written their names appear as having made a difference (e.g. popularity, globalising, sponsorship, tournaments).
Flash in the pans would be those having an incredible one or two years then fading out.

Although Nadal appears to be boring, I think there is no denying he and his team were innovators. Extreme top spin, extreme fitness, extreme belief. Devising a tactic to nullify Federer.

Nore Staat wrote: Although Nadal appears to be boring, I think there is no denying he and his team were innovators. Extreme top spin, extreme fitness, extreme belief. Devising a tactic to nullify Federer.

To some posters.
It seems we go round the constant "talent" merry-go-round where Nadal is concerned...its become de rigeur in many quarters to merely label him as a lung-machine but innovation does takes talent in moving the game forwards. I've never seen a great of the game attacked as much as Nadal - would he have been attacked this much had he not played at the same time as Federer?

I have often viewed 5-6 Slams to be the minimum to be considered a great. Given that there are only 29 players to have won 5 or more Slams makes it a very elite list.

When considering greats many would have about 20% favourtism to their favourite player when judging their status within the game. When Sampras made 14 Slams and considered the greatest by some, the lack of FO success was a gap that made his true claim to the greatest as 'temporary' as someone could match or surpass the achievements with a career Grand Slam.

Some may use the innovations or impacts of how the game is played and where it stands now in the field of sport. See for me Djokovic is a great given the effort needed to win Slams in the Fedal duopoly. Almost like when McEnroe came in and broke the Connors/Borg stranglehold on the game.

Some will always point to the cold hard fact of Slams and titles won, that is true measure for greatness, but some might just go for players not so achievement heavy, out of sticking up for the little guy who may not have the same support or respect for their achievements.

I agree with those saying it's not possible to nominate a player as a great based on the number of slams won alone.

If we're talking about a player that is a bit of a one trick pony (say Sampras) then a very high number of slams pushes them into contention based on being a high achiever.

However other players like Nastase could be considered great because of intangibles like on-court personality even though they have a relatively low slam count.

lydian wrote:He doesn't have the same charisma as Federer or Nadal. Plus there is that patriotic element to him that doesn't lend itself to global appeal. Rather than Edberg I'd he's more like Lendl...great achievements but he leaves many people cold.

Time to admit Djoker's wins on Nadal have hit you in the stomach!

Hey? What are you on about?
At times you really are a true WUM, and a negative one at that.

I've said this about Djokovic from Day 1.
At the end of the day he just doesnt have the same following as the others.
As a straw poll, this forum is hardly awash with Novak 'fans' is it...

Maybe with Djokovic it's just circumstances or marketing because I can see no reason for him not to be as popular as those before. He has more 'charisma' than Fed and Nadal put together and his game is more aesthetic than Nadal's in my view. The reason I never saw him ruling the world of tennis was because I had a feeling it was just temporary and was never really convinced by his wins over Nadal.

[quote="lydian"]At the end of the day he just doesnt have the same following as the others.
[quote]
This is more because he arrived at the party late rather than a shortfall in charisma, marketing etc.
People basically support winners in tennis. By the time Novak hit his top level, Fed had 16 slams, Nadal had 9 and they had already earned most of the support.
If we could take today's Novak back to 2005 and let him become Fed's rival, I reckon his popularity would comparable to Nadal.

[quote="HM Murdoch"][quote="lydian"]At the end of the day he just doesnt have the same following as the others.

This is more because he arrived at the party late rather than a shortfall in charisma, marketing etc.
People basically support winners in tennis. By the time Novak hit his top level, Fed had 16 slams, Nadal had 9 and they had already earned most of the support.
If we could take today's Novak back to 2005 and let him become Fed's rival, I reckon his popularity would comparable to Nadal.

HM M

A good point, although I suspect that Djokovic would not be as popular with the female fans as Rafa is...

I dont agree with that. I just think there is something about Novak that many people dont warm to even though he's quite a funny guy. For me he lacks a definable image compared to the "swashbuckling" Nadal and sophicated Federer...he was also a bit of a moaner early in his career oncourt and used to seemingly retire quite easily in matches...these sorts of things stick in people's minds. Also, agree he's not as popular with women but then neither is Federer I suspect.

I don't think Nadal is more popular with women per se - he just has an additional coterie of hysterical fangirls that the other players don't have.

I think the early career retirements and moaning are remembered only by fairly avid tennis fans. I doubt the casual sports fan or the public at large is even aware it happened.

There was a question on BBC's 'Pointless' a few weeks ago (if anyone doesn't watch it, people are surveyed on certain questions and then contestants have pick answers they think are the least common) to name men's and women's slam finalists of 2011. Djokovic had a really low score and not one person had said Kvitova or Stosur!

If the wider public aren't even aware who was making the slam finals, their judgement on who is their favourite really boils down to "who have I heard of?". And the people they would have heard of are the guys who have been winning things for years and have filtered through into the public consciousness.

I think Federer is pretty popular with women too - in fact it is possible that he is probably the most popular with women as he seems to win the fans' favourite year in, year out and women are, allegedly ( ) far more likely to vote on such matters than men.

Rafa certainly has appeal but he is far too boyish and seemingly under the tight control of his father and his uncle which does tend to blunt the edge of his attractiveness. It doesn't matter how much he flexes his biceps on court and postures like Freddie Mercury - a man in control of his own life and his own pay packet tends to give off more alpha male vibes imvho!

I'm not sure how much lust Fed brings out in women other than Sue Barker (and presumably Mirka!).

Remember that chocolate advert where two female airport customs officers find Roger so irresistable the decide they want to have him strip searched? Didn't really work did it? (incidentally, don't get me going about the double standards in that advert. Can you imagine the outcry if it were two male staff doing that to Sharapova?).

I suspect both he and Rafa are ahead of Novak in the female desirability stakes though.