Does Pete’s 7-0 record out pace Roger’s slightly deeper run on grass? Does Borg’s success on grass despite not being an all-court player or serve an volley player boost him to the lead? Are Roger’s 12 titles on grass too much to overcome?
A Trip Inside my Unofficial Historical Tennis Rankings
The 2012 French Open is in the books. Sadly, the quick transition to grass rarely allows for the full impact of this event to be appreciated until later in the year. Still, Rafael Nadal and Maria Sharapova made a great deal of history. Here is a quick look at what I think each player’s win meant to each player’s legacy.
Rafael Nadal is At Worst the 3rd Most Decorated Post-Laver Champion
*
Certainly Nadal can be reasonably argued to be ahead of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer in terms of his legacy. I think one can reasonably argue that Sampras and Federer are ahead of Nadal’s legacy. I do not think Bjorn Borg is still in this mix. I already felt Nadal was ahead of Borg due to his 2009 Australian Open title, 2010 US Open title and 2008 Olympic Gold Medal victories all being achieved on hard courts. Borg did reach 6 consecutive Wimbledon final matches and did win 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles. Rafa has won 2 Wimbledon titles, been a Wimbledon runner-up 3 times and won the 2008 Queen’s Club title. Rafa is behind Borg in terms of grass court accomplishments, but he is distinctly ahead on clay and quite far ahead on hard courts. Admittedly, more hard court opportunities exist today, but I would argue that Nadal’s tennis legacy is now ahead of Borg’s.
Beyond that, Nadal joins Pete Sampras as the only male players of the Open Era to win the same major 7 times. Nadal’s clay court dominance surpasses’ Sampras’ mastery of grass due to Sampras losing matches at Wimbledon to Goran Ivanisevic and Richard Krajicek during his prime as well as losses at various Queen’s Club outings. Nadal has owned Paris, Rome, Monte Carlo and Barcelona.
Maria Sharapova Wins a Career Grand Slam
*
The career Grand Slam is slightly more common in women’s tennis than in men’s, but Sharapova winning all 4 majors in her career is big for her legacy. Her comeback from being ranked outside of the top 100 is more impressive to me than Agassi’s comeback from his 1997 implosion because falling out of the top 100 in the women’s game is harder to do. Can she win at the rate Agassi did from 1999-2005? Who knows, but the act of coming back to number 1 after such a long break is a testament to hard work. Maria’s career slam places her legacy ahead of players such as Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Kim Clijsters, and Martina Hingis. Sharapova is in the mix of the best players in the Post-Graf-Seles Era behind Serena Williams, Venus Williams and Justine Henin. I think Maria could reasonably pass Venus and Justine’s legacies. It just depends on how long she plays and how healthy she remains.
* We also find out what Fred Stolle is doing these days
This match is what every tennis fan has been wanting since the conclusion of the 2012 Australian Open. Nadal pushed Djokovic for nearly 6 hours (6 hours!) in Melbourne. Can Rafa reverse the tide of 3 consecutive Grand Slam final losses to Novak? If Monte Carlo and Rome’s results are to be taken seriously, the answer is yes. If Nadal’s history in Paris is considered, the answer is yes. In fact, Nadal is the clear favorite in this match despite Nole’s 27 consecutive Grand Slam match wins and 3-0 record versus Rafa in slams during that stretch.
History: Rafa vs. Borg & Nole vs. Laver
Eclipsed? A commentator on NBC mentioned Rafa having a chance to eclipse Bjorn Borg if he wins the French Open. This seems kind of like saying a Siberian Tiger eclipses a Bengal Tiger in size. Still, Nadal owning the most French Open crowns is a unique opportunity for Rafa.
I think Novak Djokovic being the reigning champion at all 4 majors would be there greatest accomplishment in tennis history. That is all Nole has on the line during the final.
Beyond all of this, Novak can complete a career Grand Slam. Novak has joined Rod Laver and Andre Agassi for stringing together 4 consecutive Grand Slam finals. Rafael Nadal is in sole possession of the 3rd best streak of Grand Slam finals with 5 consecutive. Roger Federer still owns the best streak of 10 and second best streak of 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals.
Why Novak Could Win: Does He Have an Oxygen Destroyer?
I tweeted this at the outset of the French Open, ”Beating Nadal on clay is like beating Godzilla. Sure someone might invent an oxygen destroyer, but the odds are against it.” If anyone has the tennis equivalent of an oxygen destroyer it is Novak. I think Nole can win if he serves bigger than Rafa and then is willing to pay the price and play a lot of long points. The reason I say this is that Novak is still the best returner of serve in the world. This is an edge he could exploit and break serve often enough to win the match.
Why Rafa Could Win: Clay Court GOAT
I am not sure I need to answer this. Rafa destroyed Juan Monaco who is a top flight clay court player. Rafa dominated David Ferrer the #6 player in the world. Rafa is dismantling people on clay this year. He is also the greatest clay court player of all time.
Who Wins?
I am going out on a limb here and picking Novak Djokovic. If he is willing to pay the price, he can win this match. I think Novak has been pointing toward this opportunity since winning the Australian Open. I am not going to read anything into Novak’s 2012 losses to Andy Murray and John Isner. I think Rafa soundly beat Novak in Monte Carlo and Rome. My pick is based upon the idea that Novak knew he only has one clay court war in his body. I think he has saved it for this match. That does not mean Novak will win, but I do think this will be more of a war than Rome or Monte Carlo were. Logic says that Rafa wins, but I am a nut for tennis history and may be clouded by my desire for seeing something sublime occur.
Why Rafael Nadal Might be the GOAT – Rafa’s claim to the GOAT title revolves around three areas of excellence. I’ll begin with clay. First, no one has dominated any surface in the manner that Nadal has dominated clay. Rafa is Borg’s equal in French Open titles, but his ownership of Monte Carlo, the Italian Open and Barcelona along with titles at the Hamburg/Madrid clay court Masters 1000 events is unreal. Rafa being so far out in front of everyone on that surface gives him a cushion to work with on other surfaces when he is compared to other players.
However, Rafa does not really need that cushion as his second attribute will attest. Rafa owns big titles on hard courts and grass courts and won his career Grand Slam much earlier in his career than Andre Agassi or Roger Federer did. Nadal won the 2008 Olympic Gold medal on a hard court. He won the 2009 Australian Open and 2010 US Open titles. Throw in multiple titles at Indian Wells and at the Canadian Open along with his runner-up finishes in New York and Melbourne, and no one can say Rafa is not a great hard court champion. On grass, Rafa’s case is even stronger. Rafa owns two Wimbledon titles as well as a title at the Queen’s Club. Rafa is a three time Wimbledon runner-up. Nadal has reached more Wimbledon championship matches than Stefan Edberg did! Rafa knows grass.
Finally, Rafael Nadal holds an 18-10 head-to-head edge over Roger Federer. A lot has been made of this fact. I think their age gap along with the surface gap has some implications here, but the numbers are there. Rafa has beaten Roger in many big matches. This means something.
Why Rafael Nadal is not the GOAT - The French Open specifically and clay court tennis in general did not gain equal footing with events on faster surfaces until the mid 1980′s. Rafael Nadal has never won a season ending title and has only reached the season ending event’s final round one time. Rafael Nadal still trails Bjorn Borg’s 11 majors, Pete Sampras’ 14 majors and Roger Federer’s 16 majors.
You Decide - Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer are still moving targets as they keep adding to their career accomplishments. Consider that Federer and Nadal have combined to win seven titles in 2012 alone (and it is only May!). Rafa being younger than Roger makes it even harder to know where his career will lead. I can say with a lot of confidence that Rafa should equal and pass Bjorn Borg’s major totals. The Spaniard’s hard court wins already have Nadal ahead of Borg in my all-time lists. Will Rafa get to fourteen or sixteen majors? That is harder to predict. If his health holds up and he solves the Djokovic riddle, Nadal has a very good chance of laying claim to the title of GOAT. If Rafa’s knees go and/or he cannot beat Nole on surfaces other than clay, in my mind he’ll likely end up somewhere among the top three post-Laver players.
Rafael Nadal won nearly everything of importance from the onset of the clay court season of 2010 through the conclusion of the US Open 2010. Nadal’s 2011 did not feature the same level of success. The same could be said for Nadal’s 2008 French Open, Wimbledon, and Olympic Gold trifecta was followed by an Australian Open title in 2009 and not much else from Nadal. Jim Courier first launched himself into the top tier of tennis by winning both Indian Wells and Miami in 1991. After winning the 1992 Australian Open, Courier claimed the number one ranking right as he had many points to defend. Courier stumbled at both hard court events and lost the number one ranking. Courier of course rebounded winning two indoor events in a now defunct Asian indoor swing that followed Miami, winning the Italian Open and winning the French Open to reclaim the number one ranking. Still, Courier admitted that the computer had impacted his play in Miami and California. For the remainder of 1992 and 1993, Courier would simply say a player cannot beat the computer and therefore should simply ignore it.
Different Approaches
John Feinstein’s 1991 book Hard Courts explored how at that time U.S. born players such as Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe viewed the number one ranking as something to claim and defend. He noted that European players such as Boris Becker and Mats Wilander looked at the number one ranking like an honor to attain, but did not view it as something akin to a boxing heavy weight title that requires defense. Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg were already exceptions to Feinstein’s observation. The presence of these exceptions throws some doubt onto the notion in the first place. Undoubtedly, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic all take pride in holding the number one ranking as well.
Still, if one considers that Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg had pretty similar levels of success with the lone exception of their time at number one. Becker never finished a single season ranked number one and held the ranking for a total of twelve weeks. Edberg finished 1990 and 1991 ranked number one and spent seventy-two total weeks atop of the rankings. A sixty week difference implies to me that Becker did not care a great deal about holding the number one ranking. This counter-intuitive approach would save a player from any stresses associated with fears of losing the top spot. If a player does not care where he is ranked, he may be free to play better tennis in any given situation.
The approach of holding the number one ranking and defending it resonates more with my gut than the idea of keeping the ranking at arms length. Jimmy Connors held the number one ranking for many weeks when most tennis pundits considered Bjorn Borg to be the top player in the world. John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl locked horns over the number one ranking and a changing of the guard occurred in 1985 from which McEnroe never really recovered.
Today’s players seem to be somewhere in-between Feinstein’s two approaches to the number one ranking. Roger Federer clearly wanted to hold the top spot in 2008, but when he lost the number one ranking it did not stop him from winning the 2008 US Open or having a successful 2009. Rafael Nadal philosophically says that he seeks to be the best he can be and if that is behind someone else being number two is not bad. He however says he will always seek to improve making a return to number one plausible. Even Pete Sampras gracefully gave up defending number one in 1999 only to win Wimbledon in 1999 and 2000 while also winning the US Open in 2002.
Hunter versus Hunted
To get to my point, I think Novak Djokovic will need to come to some sort of solution that works for him. From January 2011 through September 2011, Djokovic won nearly every big tournament. He piled up enough computer points that the need to defend points from March through June 2012 should be minimal. To paraphrase a comment on this week’s power rankings, Novak does not need to win everything in 2012, but he does need to win more than anyone else does. His Australian Open title is a great start to carving out a 2012 that will keep him atop of the rankings. Djokovic is a smart guy and seems to be taking all of this in stride.
Roger Federer, despite being thirty and having finished each season starting in 2001 among the top eight players in the world, seems to be relishing a chance to build his rankings up toward a tangible goal rather than defending territory earned in the previous seasons. To this point, Federer’s three consecutive titles place him in a clear second slot for 2012. At both Indian Wells and Dubai, Federer has gained on Djokovic relative to last year’s results. 2012 is shaping up to be a season in which the old man may get one last run at the top while Novak methodically puts together a year that leaves him number one when the season finishes. Given the wrinkles added by the Olympic games, some positive signs in Andy Murray’s game, and Rafa’s iron will, 2012 may be a most interesting year in terms of tennis psychology.
Why Roger Federer might be the GOAT - Roger Federer has a compelling case to make on both fronts of the GOAT argument. He holds many of tennis’ most important records and is close to the leader in the records that he does not (yet?) hold. He fills Sampras’ requirement for GOAT by holding the most Grand Slam singles titles. Therefore, he has probably the strongest answer to the question of who has accomplished the most as a male tennis player. Federer’s sixteen Grand Slam singles titles and career Grand Slam seem to separate him from even the great Pete Sampras.
In terms of who has played the best tennis ever, Federer’s game is quite adaptable to all surfaces. His style of play has an aesthetic quality to it that may turn off some but has won the allegiance of many fans. Federer’s success indoors and stroke mechanics make it easy to envision adapting his game to previous eras with faster courts and less advanced string technology. Rafael Nadal is an incredible competitor and athlete so he likely would have had success in other eras as well, but his game would need to be radically rebuilt to succeed in the past.
Federer’s strongest argument comes from his streaks. He has not only set records, but he has generally obliterated the previous or second place marks. Here are a few of the highlights:
Federer reached Ten consecutive Grand Slam Finals (a record) followed by his own a streak of eight consecutive Grand Slam Finals (Agassi, Laver and Nadal are in third place with four consecutive Grand Slam final appearances)
Federer won eight consecutive non-clay court Grand Slam titles from Wimbledon 2005 through the US Open 2007
Federer has reached the final round of each Grand Slam event at least five times (His record in these finals: Wimbledon 6-1, US Open 5-1, Australian Open 4-1, French Open 1-4)
Federer has won a record sixteen Grand Slam singles titles and reached a record twenty-three Grand Slam singles final rounds
Federer made twenty-three consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances. That translates to 5.75 years of placing no worse than the top four at tennis’ biggest events. I bolded this because I think this is his greatest achievement.
Federer has an active streak of thirty-one consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances. That translates 7.75 years of finishing no worse than the top eight at tennis’ biggest events.
Federer, like Bjorn Borg, won five consecutive Wimbledon titles and reached six consecutive Wimbledon finals. Unlike Borg, Federer added a sixth title and seventh consecutive championship appearance to his collection in 2009.
Federer also won a record twenty-four consecutive championship matches when reaching the final of a tournament.
One could go on, but beyond Federer now holding the most season ending championships, I think the biggest accomplishments have been named. These records are so gaudy that it may take a decade or two after Federer’s retirement to fully grasp what they represent.
Why Roger Federer is not the GOAT – Two arguments are frequently cited in debating Federer’s status. The first is that Federer did not face stiff competition in setting his records. This seems like a hollow argument as Rafael Nadal first became a credible Grand Slam threat in June 2005 and Federer won twelve of his sixteen majors after this point. Also, consider the 2004 Australian Open in which Federer defeated Lleyton Hewitt, David Nalbandian, Juan-Carlos Ferrero and Marat Safin in succession.
The other typical argument against Federer’s GOAT status has more heft. Roger Federer has a poor head-to-head record against his main rival in Rafael Nadal. Federer is 9-18 versus Nadal. This feeds into the second question relevant to GOAT debates regarding who has played the best tennis or held the highest standard of tennis. Some of this can be contextualized. Namely, during Federer’s best years he was reaching the final round of clay court events only to face Nadal, but Nadal did not often return the favor on faster hard courts and indoor courts. Still, Federer’s head-to-head record versus Nadal is a real number that impacts this debate.
You Decide - Federer has unquestionably been more consistently excellent than any other player in the Open era. Outside of Novak Djokovic, Federer has handed Nadal his biggest defeats by topping Nadal twice in the Wimbledon final, four times at the Masters Cup/World Tour Finals, and in the final round of three Masters 1000 events. Federer still leads his non-clay court head-to-head with Nadal seven to five. To be sure, Nadal has more frequently inflicted big losses on Federer, but it is not as if Roger has never drawn blood in this rivalry. Is Federer’s preternatural talent and consistent excellence enough to earn GOAT status or does Nadal’s record over Federer throw the debate into chaos?
In part 1, I asserted that the GOAT question is hard to answer, but that two separate but related questions contribute to the process of naming a GOAT. Who played tennis at the highest level and who accomplished the most in his or her career are rarely the same thing. No one would doubt that Mats Wilander’s 1988 was a better year than any single calendar year posted by Andre Agassi or even Pete Sampras. However, across their career accomplishments Wilander had a respectable career, but not one that rivals Agassi or Sampras’ in total. Novak Djokovic is still a moving target but as of now the same could be said for Nole’s 2011 and overall body of work.
Beyond the two questions listed in part 1, there are difficulties in comparing accomplishments. Is Roscoe Tanner’s 1977 Australian Open title worth as much as Rafael Nadal’s 2009 Australian Open title? Tanner won the Australian Open in a year that the event was held twice (!?!) (Vitas Gerulaitas winning the other 1977 title Down Under). I also hate to keep bringing up Johan Kriek, but his two Australian Open titles don’t seem to be as prestigious as Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, or Jim Courier’s two titles down under. The Australian Open took on added importance when it moved to a hard court to start the tennis season in 1988. Also consider:
Super 9/Masters Series/Masters 1000 events have morphed from events that generally required three out of five set finals and six matches in one week to events where top seeds receive byes and the championship match is only two out of three sets.
Super 9 Events only Emerged in 1990 whereas key events such as the WCT Finals in Dallas have faded away.
The Year End Championship shifted the championship match from a three out of five set format to a two out of three sets format.
The US and Australian Opens have both changed surfaces since the Open Era began whereas the French Open and Wimbledon have substantially modified the speed of their surfaces. (i.e. The French Open used to use pressure free tennis balls that were quite heavy and used to water the courts between sets)
Tennis Became a Medal Sport at the 1988 Olympics
Two Grand Slam events now have the potential for matches to be played indoors
Racquet, string, and shoe technology is always shifting
Sports medicine has rendered formerly career threatening injuries less daunting
Travel has become both easier and harder as private jets may offset some wear and tear, but the tour has become far more global since 1988
Slower courts have made it harder for young players to simply ride a hot streak to a major title due to increased physical demands
Having said all of that four candidates for the GOAT in a post-Rod Laver world emerge without too much quibbling. I will look at each in chronological order
Why Bjorn Borg might be the GOAT – Bjorn Borg accumulated six French Open titles while also winning five consecutive Wimbledon titles. At this time, Wimbledon and the French Open played quite differently so his three “channel doubles” are more impressive in my mind than Nadal’s two or Federer’s one. Borg had a mystique. He innovated the sport by using a great deal of topspin to control his error total while also being freakishly fit and quick. Borg retired at the age of 26 when he probably had another two French Open titles left in him. Despite retiring early, Borg tallied eleven major titles in an era when the Australian Open was not really a major. Borg had a heavy top spin forehand, a strong serve for his time and a two handed backhand. Borg was the first top player to completely ignore doubles. He was a trend setter and negotiated the transition from slow clay to fast grass better than anyone in history.
Why Bjorn Borg is not the GOAT – Total majors aside, had Bjorn Borg won the US Open his GOAT candidacy would be much stronger. Bjorn Borg was a four time US Open runner-up. His best chances at victory came in 1976 and 1980. Borg lost to Jimmy Connors in four sets in the 1976 US Open final. This match was held on green clay and could have been a signature win for Borg. Instead, Connors bounced back from an injury influenced Wimbledon defeat at the hands of Borg. Borg lost to Connors in straight sets in 1978 on the inaugural hard court final of the US Open. Borg lost to John McEnroe in the 1980 US Open final. Borg lost in five sets after beating McEnroe in an epic five set Wimbledon final. In 1981, Borg lost to McEnroe in the US Open final again, but this time it was a four set loss. Skipping the Australian Open does not impact my view of Borg’s success. Borg winning the 1974 French Open when then runaway world number one Jimmy Connors was barred from the tournament does not impact Borg’s success either. However, not winning the US Open does hurt Borg. He, like Lendl at Wimbledon, deserves credit for coming close in an environment that never quite suited his personality. Still, a win over McEnroe or Connors in the U.S. would have been a career capping achievement.
You Decide – Winning five straight Wimbledon titles and six French Open titles places Borg above just about everyone. Borg initiated a great number of changes in the sport that are still in full effect today. Still, the US Open stands out as a missing piece. Bjorn Borg is in the top pantheon of tennis players, but did he do enough to be the top player?
The Remaining Usual Suspects Will Be Examined Tomorrow
Tomorrow – Part 3 – Pete Sampras
Future Men Who Stare at Tennis Goats entries - TheTop 25 Players of the Open Era, Who Would You Bet Your Retirement On?, and What to do about Rod Laver?
My earliest tennis memories involve my father playing on Saturdays with a friend of his and Jimmy Connors winning the 1982 Wimbledon final over John McEnroe in 5 sets. I was 6 years old when Connors won his second Wimbledon title and had no idea how big of a tournament it was. I just remember enjoying watching that match. After the match ended, I recall finding an old aluminum racket in my parents’ closet and hitting tennis balls against the wall of my family’s basement. My father, Jimmy Connors and Boris Becker’s 1985 Wimbledon title are the three biggest reasons I learned to play tennis. Therefore, I obviously hold Jimmy’s career in high regard.
Mr. US Open
Before I spend time recalling Connors’ 1991 run in New York, I want to look at Connors’ ridiculous record at the US Open. My earliest clear US Open memory was Connors’ 5 set loss to McEnroe in the semifinal round of 1984. I was sad to see my favorite player lose, but I do remember seeing his son come on court after the match. At 8 years of age, I did not grasp what his son coming on court meant, but now that I have 2 children of my own, I am very glad to have watched that match.
Connors reached the quarterfinal round of the 1973 US Open. Jimmy won the 1974 US Open on grass. He reached 5 consecutive finals winning the title in 1976 on green clay over Bjorn Borg and in 1978 in the first hard court grand slam event beating McEnroe and Borg successively in straight sets. Connors went on to win the title in 1982 and 1983 beating Ivan Lendl in both championship matches. In addition to the 5 titles on 3 surfaces, Jimmy reached at least the semifinal round for 12 consecutive years. Imagine an NCAA basketball team having to play an extra game and reaching 12 Final Fours in 12 years. This is no easy task.
Connors’ success in New York did not simply end in 1985. He reached the 1987 semifinal round, and the quarterfinal round in 1988 and 1989. The 1989 run was highlighted by a straight set drubbing of Stefan Edberg in the round of 16 and a 5 set loss to Andre Agassi in the quarterfinal round.
Connors and the Fans
Connors missed the 1990 US Open with wrist issues, but we all know he had more to do as a force at the US Open. That however is a topic for part 2. What I want to conclude with today is not that Jimmy won the title 5 times on 3 surfaces or that he reached at least the quarterfinal round at the US Open 17 times. I want to conclude with the idea that Jimmy Connors has a skill that few athletes in any sport posses. Connors has the ability to draw people into his matches. I say has, because if Jimmy is playing an exhibition match or just hitting a few balls with a current player I am sure he can pull fans in now as well.
In 1982 and 1984, I did not know much about tennis, but I was drawn into two five set wars with John McEnroe. The fact that they are memorable to me is a testament to Connors and his manner of competing. He always gave the fans his best attempt at winning. Both a casual fan and tennis expert could see his hustle and see the wheels turning in his head as he tried to figure out how to defeat his opponent. That ability to draw a fan into his craft is the reason Jimmy Connors is the legend he is today. That ability to connect as he played, even the ability to utilize the crowd as he played, is uniquely Jimmy Connors. He was asked in 1991 if Jim Courier reminded him of himself. While Connors went on to say some things about Courier were similar, his first retort summed it up best, “Nobody reminds me of me.”
