Sampras, Agassi Endorse Nadal as Potentially the Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time

Andre Agassi believes that Rafael Nadal has earned serious consideration as the greatest tennis player of all-time. During a recent interview with HuffPost Live, Agassi said, "Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time. If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, 'I'm the best ever,' my first question would be, 'Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].' But at the same token, Federer has separated himself during a few years like nobody else. And he's done it more consistently. To be able to make the argument for both guys playing in the same generation is pretty remarkable."

Agassi's main rival Pete Sampras still picks Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time but Sampras concedes that Nadal is gaining ground and could surpass Federer: "It's always been so clear to me that Roger is the greatest. But I would say that, with Rafa doing what he's been doing, he has an argument to be in the conversation. Rafa isn't done yet. He could win more majors. He's got a winning record against everyone that he has played in his generation. He's won the Davis Cup [with Spain], he's won the Olympics [singles]."

Federer is a great champion and he has been remarkably durable and consistent but Agassi's comment goes right to the heart of the issue: Nadal has won everything--just like Federer--and Nadal has dominated Federer in their head to head encounters. The greatest tennis player of all-time discussion should not be limited to Federer and Nadal--Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg also deserve to be mentioned--but at this point it is not logical to rank Federer ahead of Nadal in tennis' pantheon. As I noted after Nadal won the 2013 U.S. Open to claim his 13th Grand Slam singles title, "While Borg-Nadal is difficult to call, it is very hard to understand how anyone who supported Federer's greatest player of all-time candidacy circa 2006 would not be even more strongly in favor of Nadal now: Nadal has achieved more at a younger age than Federer did, Nadal has a much better Grand Slam winning percentage, Nadal has consistently dominated Federer head to head and Nadal does not have a problematic individual matchup or surface. The only advantage that Federer has ever held over Nadal is that Federer has been healthier/more durable, which will make it even more remarkable if Nadal wins four more Grand Slams to tie Federer's mark."

Why is Rafael Nadal Not Praised Now the Way that Roger Federer Was Praised in 2006?

Rafael Nadal earned his 13th Grand Slam singles title by defeating number one ranked Novak Djokovic 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1 in the U.S. Open final. Nadal is authoring one of the greatest calendar year performances in the Open Era: he has a 60-3 match record in 2013 and he has won 10 titles, including two Grand Slams (French Open, U.S. Open). Nadal is 22-0 on hard courts this year, further refuting the notion that he is just a clay court specialist. Injuries forced Nadal to miss the 2013 Australian Open during a seven month break from competition but, even though his durability is a constant concern, he has won at least one Grand Slam in nine straight years--a remarkable record, surpassing the standard of eight set by Bjorn Borg and later matched by Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

The second ranked Nadal did not officially take over the number one spot but it is obvious that Nadal is the best player in the world. Nadal now needs just one more Grand Slam win to tie Sampras for second place on the all-time list and Roger Federer's record of 17 does not look quite as safe as it did at the start of 2013. The 27 year old Nadal owns a .361 Grand Slam winning percentage, capturing 13 titles in 36 appearances. Borg ranks first all-time in this category (11/27, .407), while Federer (17/58, .293) and Sampras (14/52, .269) are far behind Nadal and Borg. Federer's peak Grand Slam winning percentage--achieved after he won Wimbledon in 2009--was .366 (15/41).

When David Foster Wallace gushed over Roger Federer in an August 2006 essay, the 25 year old Federer had won eight Grand Slam singles titles in 29 appearances (.276 winning percentage) and had amassed six first round losses--yet Wallace and others openly and enthusiastically touted the notion that Federer had already established himself as the greatest tennis player of all-time. The first dubious aspect of such a wide-ranging declaration is that it is unfair--if not impossible--to compare Open Era players with players from earlier eras; the rules, conditions and overall context were just too different. If Rod Laver had been permitted to play in the Grand Slam events during his prime years then he likely would have set unbreakable records--but we cannot know for sure what he would have accomplished, so all that can be intelligently said is that Laver deserves to be prominently placed in any discussion of the greatest tennis players ever: he should not be punished for "only" winning 11 Grand Slams, nor can he be credited with all of the Grand Slams that he almost certainly would have won.

The second dubious aspect about declaring Federer to be the greatest player of all-time is that he has never established the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance displayed by Bjorn Borg. When Borg made his final Grand Slam appearance in 1981--at just 25 years old--he held the modern male record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six) and he had won the "Channel Slam" (capturing Wimbledon and the French Open in the same calendar year) a still-unmatched three times in a row. Sampras and then Federer dominated Wimbledon during their primes and Nadal has dominated the French Open but no one has ever mastered grass and clay at the same time the way that Borg did.

By the time that Sampras broke Roy Emerson's record for most career Grand Slam titles, many commentators touted Sampras as the greatest player of all-time but Sampras' relative ineptitude at the French Open--he only made it to the semifinals once in 13 trips to Roland Garros--disqualifies him from being favorably compared to Borg, Federer and Nadal. Federer won one Channel Slam (2009)--albeit without facing Nadal that year in the French Open--and Nadal has captured two (2008, 2010). Nadal owns a 21-10 head to head advantage over Federer and Nadal built that lead from the beginning of his career, when Federer was at the height of his powers. Nadal and Djokovic have faced each other more often than any other Open Era rivals, with Nadal winning 22 of their 37 matches. Nadal leads Federer 8-2 in head to head Grand Slam matches and Nadal has beaten Djokovic eight times in 11 Grand Slam matches.

The Borg-Nadal comparison is intriguing; Nadal owns more total Grand Slam wins, more French Open wins and a pair of U.S. Open titles (Borg reached four U.S. Open finals but never captured the crown) but Borg has a better career Grand Slam winning percentage and he established himself as his era's best grass court player and best clay court player. It is reasonable to assume that if Borg had kept playing then he would have won at least a couple more French Opens and perhaps even finally bagged the elusive U.S. Open title. Borg and Nadal are very similar in terms of athletic ability and fighting spirit.

While Borg-Nadal is difficult to call, it is very hard to understand how anyone who supported Federer's greatest player of all-time candidacy circa 2006 would not be even more strongly in favor of Nadal now: Nadal has achieved more at a younger age than Federer did, Nadal has a much better Grand Slam winning percentage, Nadal has consistently dominated Federer head to head and Nadal does not have a problematic individual matchup or surface. The only advantage that Federer has ever held over Nadal is that Federer has been healthier/more durable, which will make it even more remarkable if Nadal wins four more Grand Slams to tie Federer's mark.

Does Nadal Belong in the Greatest Ever Conversation? Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui, Oui

Bjorn Borg's career numbers are as impressive and dominant as those of any other Open Era player but if--following current fashion--the "greatest" discussion must be limited to what we have seen in the past 10 years or so then Rafael Nadal must be included very prominently in that conversation. Nadal defeated David Ferrer 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 to capture his eighth French Open title; he has not only shattered Borg's French Open record (six titles) but Nadal now holds the record for most wins at any single Grand Slam event. Nadal is tied with Roy Emerson for third on the all-time list for Grand Slam singles titles (12), trailing only Roger Federer (17) and Pete Sampras (14). Emerson held that record for more than three decades, but he was not particularly dominant (winning 12 Grand Slam titles in 59 appearances, a .203 winning percentage) and he racked up those championships in no small part because tennis' ridiculous rules during the pre-Open Era prevented Rod Laver and other professionals from playing in Grand Slam events. Emerson won 10 of his 12 Grand Slam titles from 1963-67 without having to face Laver even once; Laver won all four Grand Slams in 1962, was not eligible to participate in the Grand Slam events from 1963-67 and then he won all four Grand Slams again in 1969. Laver enjoyed a 49-18 head to head record against Emerson, who was just two years older than Laver, and Laver won seven of the nine Grand Slam matches that they played against each other.

In contrast to Emerson, Nadal has been dominant (12 Grand Slam wins in 34 appearances, a .353 winning percentage) and Nadal owns a 20-10 head to head record against Roger Federer, who was prematurely crowned by many pundits as the greatest player of all-time. Nadal has never trailed in his matchup with Federer, even when he was a young player while Federer was at the height of his considerable powers. Federer has won 17 out of the 56 Grand Slam events that he has entered (.304) and Sampras won 14 of the 52 Grand Slam events that he entered (.269). Borg still holds the all-time record (11 for 27, a stunning .407 winning percentage). Nadal has now won at least one Grand Slam in nine straight years, breaking the record of eight shared by Borg (1974-81), Sampras (1993-2000) and Federer (2003-10).

Nadal's 2013 season could end up being one of the greatest ever; he has a 43-2 match record this year, including 22 wins in a row. He has won 21 of his 22 matches against top 10 players. It was hilarious to hear some people suggest in 2011 that Nadal had some kind of "Djokovic problem." While Djokovic won all six of his matches against Nadal in 2011, that was clearly an aberration; Djokovic had one great year during which he pretty much beat everybody--including Nadal--but after his five set win over Djokovic in the French Open semifinals Nadal leads Djokovic 20-15 in their head to head encounters and he has never trailed in his head to head matchup with Djokovic. Anyone who thinks that owning a 20-15 advantage over Djokovic is a "problem" for Nadal should explain why Nadal's 20-10 lead over Federer is not a "crisis" for Federer.

Tennis' official ranking system sheds little light on who should be considered the greatest player right now, let alone who is the greatest player of a particular era or the greatest player of all-time; all you need to know about tennis' official ranking system is that, even after Nadal's straight set victory over Ferrer, Ferrer passed Nadal and is now ranked fourth while Nadal drops to fifth. That is why I do not put much credence into who is ranked number one and/or how many weeks a player has been ranked number one during his career; the most relevant tennis statistics are Grand Slam titles won divided by Grand Slam appearances, match winning percentages in Grand Slam events and head to head results against elite players (provided the sample size is large enough), followed by those same statistics in ATP Masters events, followed by those same statistics in all Tour events.

Another important factor to consider is multi-surface dominance; the three most amazing statistics about Borg are that he won over 40% of the Grand Slam events that he entered, that he at one time held the modern record both for career French Open titles (six) and career Wimbledon titles (five) and that he won both of those events in the same year a record three straight times (1978-80). Nadal now owns the French Open record and both Sampras and Federer broke Borg's Wimbledon record but no one has come close to Borg's winning percentage, his French Open/Wimbledon "three-peat" or achieving simultaneous career dominance of both events. If Nadal can stay healthy, he is the one player who could perhaps approach Borg's standards in all of those categories.

Fun With Tennis Numbers

Here are some of the statistics compiled by one of the Open Era's finest male tennis players:

1. Best career overall match winning percentage (.827)
2. Best career Grand Slam match winning percentage (.898)
3. Best career Wimbledon match winning percentage (.927)
4. Best career match winning percentage against top 10 players (.725)
5. Best career Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (.407)
6. Won at least one Grand Slam singles title for eight straight years
7. Only man to win three Grand Slam singles titles without losing a set
8. Only man to reach four Grand Slam singles finals without losing a set
9. Only man to defeat six previous Grand Slam winners in a Grand Slam final
10. Holds the record for most consecutive Davis Cup singles match wins (33)
11. Holds the record for most singles titles won before his 25th birthday (59)
12. Reached the finals in 11 of 12 Grand Slams entered during a four year stretch

Based on how often Roger Federer is referred to as the greatest tennis player of all-time, one might assume that he produced the above numbers--but those statistics in fact belong to Bjorn Borg (who shares the record for eight straight years with a Grand Slam win with Federer and Pete Sampras). Borg did not lose a single set at the French Open in 1978 and 1980 and in 1978 he posted a .799 winning percentage in his French Open games en route to winning nearly two thirds (.665) of his Grand Slam games that year, the best such single season winning percentage ever. Rafael Nadal has tied some of Borg's French Open records (including six titles overall and four straight titles) but--except for one year--Nadal has not approached Borg's simultaneous mastery of Roland Garros' clay and Wimbledon's grass; Borg is the only man to win both the French Open and Wimbledon for three straight years (1978-80) and the only man who won both six French Opens and five Wimbledons.

While it is certainly true that Federer has posted some gaudy statistics and Sampras displayed amazing consistency by finishing first in the year-end rankings a record six straight times, Borg's dominance is far too often overlooked; no sensible discussion of the greatest Open Era male players can omit his name.

Federer Claims Seventh Wimbledon Crown with a Virtuoso Performance

Andy Murray, the fourth ranked tennis player in the world, played the best that he has ever played in a Grand Slam final--and he took just one set from Roger Federer, who claimed his 17th Grand Slam singles title (extending his own record) and seventh Wimbledon crown. Federer's virtuoso performance against Murray provided a classic demonstration of the difference--mentally, physically and emotionally--between an all-time great player and a very, very good player. As ESPN's Darren Cahill aptly put it, Murray did not do anything wrong but Federer just took the match away from him.

Federer's triumph enabled him to equal two modern era records held by Pete Sampras: most Wimbledon singles titles and most weeks as the number one ranked player (286). Federer ended his two year drought without a Grand Slam title, winning his first major since the 2010 Australian Open; prior to this year's Wimbledon, Federer had made it to just one final in his previous nine Grand Slam appearances after advancing to the previous eight finals and winning four of those. During Federer's struggles--by his high standards--it seemed reasonable to wonder if he would ever win another Grand Slam title, just as now it seems reasonable to wonder how many more Grand Slam titles Federer might be able to win despite his relatively advanced age (he turns 31 next month). Sampras had eight winless Grand Slam appearances after winning his 13th Grand Slam title--tying the longest such drought of his career--and he retired at 31 after winning the U.S. Open to claim his 14th major title but Federer believes that he can keep playing at a high level for the foreseeable future. It is too soon to say if this was the last great singular moment of Federer's career or the beginning of some kind of revival.

For several years, it has been popular to acclaim Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time or at least the greatest tennis player of the Open Era; the first claim is virtually impossible to logically prove considering the vast differences (equipment, rules, surfaces, etc.) between the various tennis eras, while the second claim is at the least very debatable considering the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance achieved by Bjorn Borg, not to mention Rafael Nadal's head to head mastery of Federer and the fact that Nadal won more Grand Slams by age 25 than anyone in tennis history other than Borg.

While the greatest of all-time/greatest of the Open Era questions are more complex than most people seem to be willing to acknowledge, on the occasion of Federer's most recent Wimbledon triumph it makes sense to compare Federer's stellar career at tennis' most prestigious Grand Slam with the numbers posted by Borg and Sampras, the two other most distinguished Wimbledon champions of the Open Era:

Federer has played at Wimbledon 14 times, amassing seven titles plus one other finals appearance. He has lost in the first round three times and has a 66-7 match record (.904).

Sampras also played at Wimbledon 14 times, winning seven titles in seven finals appearances. He lost in the first round twice and he posted a 63-7 match record (.900).

Borg played at Wimbledon nine times, winning five titles in six finals appearances. He never lost earlier than the third round and he posted a 51-4 match record (.927).

Federer and Sampras share the modern era record for most Wimbledon titles but Borg still holds (or, in one instance, shares) several other Wimbledon records:

1. Career match winning percentage (.927)
2. 41 consecutive match wins (1976-81)
3. Only player to win Wimbledon without losing a set (1976)
4. 24 consecutive sets won (1976-77)
5. Five consecutive championships won (1976-80; Borg shares this record with Federer, who won five in a row from 2003-07)
   

However, Borg's most impressive Wimbledon record--and one of the reasons that I still consider him to be the greatest player of the Open Era--is that for three years in a row (1978-80) he captured the "Channel Slam," triumphing first on the slow clay at Roland Garros and then prevailing on the fast grass at Wimbledon. When Borg retired, he was the four-time reigning French Open champion and he held the Open Era record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six). Sampras and Federer broke Borg's Wimbledon record and Nadal broke Borg's French Open record but no other player has simultaneously ruled both surfaces the way that Borg did.

Federer's mastery is deservedly lauded but the fact that even a player as gifted, durable and motivated as he is cannot match the multi-surface dominance that Borg accomplished indicates just how much respect and praise that Borg deserves as well.

Another Perspective on Borg/Nadal/Federer

I have written several posts comparing the accomplishments of Bjorn Borg, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer; I most recently offered my take on that subject here. I maintain that Borg should still be considered the greatest Open Era (post 1968) player and that anyone who tried to pass that crown to Federer acted prematurely. I consider Pete Sampras to be the second greatest Open Era player and I think that Nadal and Federer's places in that pantheon are yet to be determined. Nadal's head to head dominance over Federer coupled with the powerful Spaniard's ascension to the top of the ranking list are two strong pieces of evidence that my initial assessment well over a year ago--before Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and took over the number one ranking--was quite correct, although some readers who have posted comments here vigorously disagree.

Raymond Lee has extensively researched Open Era tennis for various articles that he has written for Tennis Week. He recently sent me an email offering his perspective about these issues and he granted me permission to quote some of the contents of that message:

"One of the reasons I wrote some of these tennis articles was because of the misuse of the information given in tennis. For example the reason Sampras is often mentioned as the GOAT is because he holds the official record of 14 majors. That's great and true but it isn't mentioned that he played in over 50 majors, if memory serves I believe it's 52. Borg won 11 in 27, Budge won 6 in 11.

It's like saying I'm a better free throw shooter than Larry Bird because I made 100 free throws in one day. Of course I may have attempted 1000 free throws and shot at a percentage of 10% while Bird made 99 out of 100 for 99%. By their logic, I'm a better free throw shooter because I made one more than Bird."

In a subsequent email, Lee added, "Borg was described by Arthur Ashe as a player without stroke weaknesses. I don't think I can say that about Roger Federer. Don't get me wrong I think Federer is a fabulous player but I try to put things in perspective."

Borg's lack of weaknesses and his Grand Slam dominance over an eight year period (1974-81) are persuasive reasons to still rank him ahead of every other Open Era player. Sampras displayed impressive longevity in setting the record for Grand Slam singles titles won (14, three more than Borg) but Sampras had an Achilles heel on the clay courts of the French Open. Federer has won 13 Grand Slams and perhaps he will match or surpass Sampras' mark but Nadal has clearly established himself as the best active player--and how can Federer be the greatest of all-time when he is not even the greatest of his time while still in his (late) prime years?

Number One Stunner: Federer's Record Reign May be Over

Ivo Karlovic, the 6-10 Croatian who is the 22nd ranked tennis player in the world, defeated number one ranked Roger Federer 7-6 (6), 4-6, 7-6 (5) in the third round of the Cincinnati Masters tournament. Karlovic blasted 21 aces past Federer, including a 140 mph screamer that nearly knocked the racket right out of Federer's hand. Federer has been the top ranked player in the world for a record 235 consecutive weeks (Pete Sampras still holds the all-time mark with 286 total weeks as world's number one player) but the end of his reign is very much in sight; if Rafael Nadal wins the Cincinnati Masters he will officially pass Federer in the rankings.

It seems like Nadal has had to endure the Trials of Hercules to get to this point; Bum Phillips used to say that Don Shula "can take his'n and beat your'n or he can take your'n and beat his'n" and Nadal has done something similar to Federer this year: he beat Federer on Federer's favorite surface--the Wimbledon grass--and Nadal smoked Federer on the French Open clay that Nadal has tamed like no one since the great Bjorn Borg. Despite those victories in the two biggest tournaments of the year and despite an active 31 match winning streak Nadal still has not officially surpassed Federer even as the allegedly best player staggers from one early tournament exit to another throughout the year. Someone needs to take the ATP ranking formula back to the lab, because you don't have to be a tennis expert to figure out that Nadal is clearly the best player in the world and has been for several months at least.

Last year I said that Nadal had a great chance of pulling off the French-Wimbledon double--a feat that had not been accomplished since Borg incredibly did it from 1978-80--and I have repeatedly made the observation that it was extremely premature for people to trumpet Federer as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone the greatest player of all-time. As I mentioned in a January 8, 2008 post, Borg has an edge over Federer in several key areas:

1) Youngest player to win 11 Grand Slams (25).
2) Career Grand Slam winning percentage (.898, first all-time).
3) Winning Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year (Borg did this three straight years; no one else had done this even once until Nadal accomplished the feat this year).
4) Winning three Grand Slam events without losing a single set (only three other players have won a Grand Slam without losing a set and none of them did it more than once).
5) Borg won at least one Grand Slam title in a record eight straight years (Sampras matched this feat).

Borg remains the greatest player of the Open Era; he was king of both the French Open (six titles) and Wimbledon (five titles) in an unprecedented fashion and he achieved that mastery by the age of 25, retiring from active play shortly thereafter following a year in which he made three Grand Slam finals and won one Grand Slam title. Sampras, due to his longevity at the top and the fact that he holds the career Grand Slam singles record (14), ranks second; Sampras did not have Borg's multi-surface versatility and played several years longer than Borg to move past him on the career list of Grand Slam singles winners. For now, Federer is third but Nadal is several years younger than Federer, owns a decisive head to head advantage and has already won five Grand Slam titles at an age when Federer had just claimed one Grand Slam title; Nadal certainly has a chance to surpass Federer not just in the current rankings but in the mythical Open Era rankings. I will not make the mistake that others did with Federer and prematurely crown Nadal but Nadal's achievements are very impressive and he seems more than capable of winning several more Grand Slams in the next few years.