In January 2023, Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open for a record 10th time, in the process tying Rafael Nadal's record for most career Grand Slam singles titles (22). Yesterday, Djokovic won his third French Open title, and he now is the sole record-holder for career Grand Slam singles titles. When Roger Federer, who now ranks third on that list, held the record he was almost universally declared to be the greatest tennis player of all-time, so it would be hypocritical for his fans and media supporters to not acknowledge that Djokovic and Nadal have both surpassed Federer in the category that they claimed matters the most. Djokovic has missed two of the past six Grand Slam singles events due to his refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and had he been able to play in those tournaments his lead over Nadal, Federer, and the rest of the pack would likely be even larger.
When Nadal passed Federer on the career Grand Slam singles titles list, Federer's fans and media supporters diminished Nadal's accomplishment by noting that 14 of Nadal's 22 Grand Slam wins are from the French Open. That is an odd critique--to say the least--considering that the French Open is one of the two most prestigious Grand Slams (alongside Wimbledon), not to mention that Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles alone would rank him tied for eighth on the all-time list with (among others) Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. It is also worth noting that Nadal beat Federer head to head in Federer's best Grand Slam event (Wimbledon) but Federer has never defeated Nadal in the French Open, and that Nadal enjoys a 24-16 head to head advantage over Federer, including 10-4 in Grand Slams and 12-7 in ATP Masters Series/ATP Tour Masters 1000.
Djokovic's best Grand Slam event (the Australian Open) is by far the least historically significant of the four Grand Slams, but he also has won seven Wimbledons (tied for second all-time with Pete Sampras and William Renshaw behind Federer's eight), and he is the only player who has won each Grand Slam singles title at least three times. Djokovic leads Federer 27-23 in their head to head matches, including 11-6 in Grand Slams.
Djokovic's Grand Slam winning percentage is .329 (23 titles in 70 events played), while Nadal's is .328 (22/67), and Federer's is .247 (20/81). It requires torturing logic to the breaking point to rank Federer ahead of either Djokovic or Nadal at this point.
Bjorn Borg should be mentioned in this discussion as well. By the time Borg played his final Grand Slam event in 1981, many knowledgeable observers ranked him as the greatest player of the Open Era, if not of all-time. Borg's simultaneous dominance of the French Open clay and the Wimbledon grass remains unmatched four decades later; for three straight years (1978-80) he won both events, and by the end of his career he held the modern record for titles won at both venues (six French Opens, five Wimbledons). Nadal broke Borg's French Open record, while Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic surpassed his Wimbledon standard (Renshaw won his Wimbledon titles at a time when the reigning champion did not have to play in the main draw), but Borg remains the only player in tennis history to dominate both events at the same time.
Many of Borg's important records have not been broken, including his Grand Slam winning percentage of .393 (11/28), his match winning percentage against top 10 players (.725), his four straight years with a match winning percentage greater than .900, his 10 consecutive titles won in 1979-80, and his 63 titles won prior to the age of 25. Borg retired at 25, so it is safe to assume that if he had played for even just a few more years he would have not only extended many of the aforementioned records but he would have set some other records that may still be standing.
Unlike Federer, Borg does not have a losing record against any of his main rivals. The only blemish on Borg's resume is that he failed to win the U.S. Open despite reaching the finals four times in 10 tries. Borg reached the U.S. Open finals in back to back years and three times in four years before retiring, so Arthur Ashe is among those who believed that Borg would likely have won a U.S. Open title had he kept playing. Like most of his top ranked contemporaries, Borg routinely skipped the Australian Open, so in essence he won 11 titles in three Grand Slam events while the great players who came after him won their Grand Slam titles in four events.
It is difficult to definitively state that one person is the greatest of all-time in any endeavor, but an objective analysis of tennis history demonstrates (1) there is little basis to put Federer above everyone else and (2) Borg deserves greater appreciation than he receives now. Borg, like many athletes who have been retired for several decades, is facing that battle to avoid being forgotten that William Goldman eloquently described in the classic book that he co-authored with Mike Lupica, Wait Till Next Year. Goldman concluded, "The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware it's begun and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. Stripped of medals, sent to Siberia...It really is a battle to the death."
Djokovic is the man of the hour, and he deserves the praise he is receiving, while Nadal and Federer are all-time greats who also deserve praise--but Borg should be remembered and praised as well.
8 comments:
if Borg gets favorable winning % because retired young (25), then why not compare to Fed's winning % during his early or best years before he'd began losing to Nadal and Djoker? isn't it apples to oranges to compare winning % of player who retired very young to one who didn't?
Anonymous:
Borg started playing elite level tennis at a very young age, and he dominated from the start during a career in which he set a longevity record (since broken by Nadal) by winning at least one Grand Slam singles title in eight straight years (1974-81), a streak ended by his retirement and not by someone beating him.
Borg's official Grand Slam winning percentage was .407 (11/27) for many years after he retired, but recently the ATP record book classified the preliminary round of the 1972 U.S. Open as part of the main event, so Borg's preliminary round loss that year (as a 16 year old) now is counted against his Grand Slam record--but Federer's two qualifying round Grand Slam losses in 1999 (as an 18 year old) are not counted. All that being said, when Federer won his 11th Grand Slam singles title (tying Borg) his Grand Slam winning percentage was .355 (11/31). He then won his 12th Grand Slam to increase his winning percentage to .375, which is his career-high (and short of Borg's record).
When Federer was 25, his Grand Slam singles title record was 9/30 (.300).
So, no, the comparison is not apples to oranges in any way.
.375 or .355 is a lot higher than the .247 you cite. Not sure why peaking early is better than peaking slightly later. Fed kept the peak for longer. I recall that McEnroe's book said Borg said he was quitting because couldn't stay #1, so had no desire. Borg's comeback later failed and could count towards the stats. They're both all-time greats. I prefer Borg to Fed in many ways. But not based on those stats. Peak Fed's best 6-7 years were as good as any male for 6-7 years
Anonymous:
I am not arguing that peaking early or peaking later is better. You assumed that cherry picking the statistics would help Federer pass Borg in terms of Grand Slam winning percentage, and I pointed out that even cherry picking the numbers does not move Federer ahead of Borg.
Borg's career is long enough to be statistically significant, as I pointed out in my previous comment. If we are going to praise Federer for amassing more total Grand Slam titles than Borg, then it is fair to point out that it took Federer many more attempts to accomplish this.
McEnroe is an unreliable narrator regarding Borg. Borg left the Tour because of the ridiculous rule requiring him to play in a minimum number of events or else have to play the qualifying rounds in the Grand Slams. After Borg left the Tour, he was quite successful in so-called exhibition matches/events that often had bigger prize funds than the tour events. Borg often beat McEnroe and Lendl in these events.
To put it mildly, the evidence strongly suggests Borg was more than capable of beating McEnroe and regaining number one status: Check out https://besteversportstalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/debunking-myths-about-bjorn-borg-john.html for my analysis of this, which includes footage of "retired" Borg bludgeoning McEnroe in the big money Gold Akai Challenge.
I agree that Borg and Federer are both all-time greats. I disagree with the notion--not propagated by you, but propagated by many others--that Federer is clearly the greatest tennis player of all-time. I understand why the Tour and many media members promoted this notion for so long: the reasoning is that if the greatest player of all-time retired at 25 four decades ago, then why should fans be excited to watch today's game? I disagree with that reasoning--Federer is worth watching even though he is not the greatest ever--and I disagree with ignoring or diminishing the accomplishments of great players from the past.
anon from earlier:
I think any tennis GOAT discussion would need to devote ample time to selecting the evaluation criteria. Selecting those criteria are more difficult than applying them. Maybe so with other sports too. And there's room for abuse in reverse engineering criteria to fit a result; but it'd be more obvious if the criteria are selected first, as a separate step in the analysis
Anonymous:
I agree that the evaluation criteria should be selected first. In my articles about the greatest players in various sports, I state the criteria that I am using, and then I apply those criteria consistently to each player.
I generally place more weight on peak value than on durability: I would take Jim Brown over Emmitt Smith, and I would take Bjorn Borg over Roger Federer (there is much more to both comparisons than just peak value versus durability, but those are two good examples of how I apply some of the evaluation criteria that I use).
Regarding Borg and Federer's respective peaks, I am not convinced that Federer's peak years were more impressive than Borg's run from 1974-81 when he won five Wimbledons and six French Opens, including an unprecedented three "Channel Slams" (1978-80). Direct comparisons are difficult because of differences in equipment, rules, competition, etc.--not to mention that the Australian Open did not have nearly the same status during Borg's era that it does now, which means that Federer had four opportunities per year to win a Grand Slam title while Borg, for all practical purposes, had three because most of the great non-Australian players during Borg's era skipped the Australian Open.
(same anon)
peak v durability is only the temporal component
in tennis, does "greatest" mean most accomplished in record (which means greatest superiority relative to contemporaries at the same time)? best skill set? if best skill set, how do you control for differences you mention (equipment, rules, etc.)? and how do you factor in different skills on different surfaces -- esp considering that, in tennis history, now it's 2 HC majors, 1 clay, 1 grass, but at other times the numbers have been different?
also your comments re Australian Open point to a larger problem -- i.e., currently the $ dwarves that in prior eras, and fitness/nutrition is much better than in prior eras. So there is much more incentive and ability to have a longer career. This supports Borg.
taking into account all of these difficulties, I think tennis more than bball is suited towards your "Pantheon" approach of identifying a top tier, but not definitively ranking amonsgt them. Djokovic pretty much said the same after winning slam title #23, when he said calling him GOAT wasn't fair to players from prior eras.
IMO think the tennis "Pantheon" would include (in no particular order), at the very least, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and probably Connors; others too, depending on how many you let in. Aside from probably having Connors last in that list, I can't really rank them; and even the Connors ranking isn't that simple, as his peak was remarkable, and he was unfairly banned from playing 1974 Roland Garros
Anonymous:
I think that in general the Pantheon approach makes more sense than arbitrarily selecting one player as the greatest.
My point in this ongoing series of articles focusing mostly on Borg, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic is that there was a premature rush to crown Federer as the greatest despite the fact that very compelling arguments can be made on behalf of others, most notably Borg but also Nadal and Djokovic as well.
I have never formally selected a tennis Pantheon, but the one that you described sounds reasonable.
Post a Comment