Open Era Slam GOATS: Fed 1st, Connors 2nd, Sampras 3rd, Rafa 10th [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Open Era Slam GOATS: Fed 1st, Connors 2nd, Sampras 3rd, Rafa 10th

Johnny Groove
06-06-2010, 08:57 PM
Here is a link to the Pre Open Era Slam Kings Thread: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=9926073

This is a follow-up to my Pre Open Era Slam Kings, which featured all of the slam winners and finalists from 1877 Wimbledon to 1968 Australian Open.

This thread encompasses all players who reached the QF or better at each slam from RG 1968 to the recently completed RG 2010.

Enjoy.

Well this is a good idea, and this is what I did:

Total slam points:

Federer- 44,240
Connors- 39,520
Sampras- 38,560
Lendl- 37,840
Agassi- 35,920
Borg- 30,160
Johnny Mac- 27,080
Edberg- 26,280
Becker- 24,360
Rafa- 24,000
Wilander- 23,120

Johnny Groove
07-04-2010, 04:02 PM
Nadal moves up to 7th in the Open Era with his 8th slam.

Pulls even with guys like Lendl, Agassi, and Connors.

TennisOnWood
07-04-2010, 04:05 PM
Nadal moves up to 7th in the Open Era with his 8th slam.

Pulls even with guys like Lendl, Agassi, and Connors.

You can just do some fast check of Rafa,Andre,Ivan and Jimmy to see that he is actually 4th.. in front of this 3 legends and behind of just Borg,Sampras and Federer

Ben.
07-04-2010, 04:09 PM
Nadal moves up to 7th in the Open Era with his 8th slam.

Pulls even with guys like Lendl, Agassi, and Connors.

Isn't he technially tied 4th :shrug:

TennisOnWood
07-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Isn't he technially tied 4th :shrug:

Of course... tied 4th with clear advantage compared to this 3 Giants

CmonAussie
07-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Nadal moves up to 7th in the Open Era with his 8th slam.

Pulls even with guys like Lendl, Agassi, and Connors.

...
Look at my thread mate, Nadal`s equal 4th already;)

Johnny Groove
07-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Yes, he is technically tied with those 3, in terms of slam wins, but Lendl, Connors, and Agassi all have WAY more slam finals, semis, and quarters.

Should Nadal win the USO this year, he'll be alone in 4th behind the big 3 of Federer, Sampras, and Borg.

Johnny Groove
01-30-2011, 02:51 PM
Updated after the AO results.

Djokovic now moves even with Boris Becker in terms of AO results, slightly behind Jim Courier.

In terms of total slams, Djokovic now moves ahead of (I shit you not) Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Pat Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Stan Smith, Sergi Bruguera, and Johan Kriek.

As for Murray, well, he is the only player in the Open Era to compete in 3 slam finals w/o winning one. Tony Roche also played in 3, but he had won a slam in 1966, before the Open Era.

Orka_n
01-30-2011, 03:25 PM
Good stuff, thanks for this.

peribsen
01-30-2011, 04:56 PM
I'd suggest building a ranking by giving 1 point per QF, 3 per SF, 6 per RU and 10 per win.
Good post.

peribsen
01-30-2011, 04:59 PM
Or simply using the present system: 360/720/1200/2000 points, to keep the right proportions between the different results.

Johnny Groove
01-30-2011, 11:29 PM
Or simply using the present system: 360/720/1200/2000 points, to keep the right proportions between the different results.

Well this is a good idea, and this is what I did:

Total slam points:

Federer- 44,240
Connors- 39,520
Sampras- 38,560
Lendl- 37,840
Agassi- 35,920
Borg- 30,160
Johnny Mac- 27,080
Edberg- 26,280
Becker- 24,360
Rafa- 24,000
Wilander- 23,120

I'll do it by slam at some point too :p

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-30-2011, 11:36 PM
great work done

a tennis o holic like myself loves the stats

GlennMirnyi
01-31-2011, 12:25 AM
Stats mean nothing by themselves. Anyone can give any spin he wants.

Connors ahead of Sampras is a joke and Shankerer at the top is even worse.

peribsen
01-31-2011, 12:37 AM
Well this is a good idea, and this is what I did:

Total slam points:

Federer- 44,240
Connors- 39,520
Sampras- 38,560
Lendl- 37,840
Agassi- 35,920
Borg- 30,160
Johnny Mac- 27,080
Edberg- 26,280
Becker- 24,360
Rafa- 24,000
Wilander- 23,120

I'll do it by slam at some point too :p

Thank you!

Rafa around 10 is more like it, I don't want him to hurry up the slope, I want to enjoy the ride! He seems almost certain to end up catching Borg, reaching Agassi is a reasonable goal, Lendl/Sampras may be a bridge too far.

I love posts like these, thanks again!

Jimnik
01-31-2011, 12:37 AM
Thanks. I love stats llike these.

Lendl would probably be 2nd under the old points system (1000/700/450/250).

Henry Kaspar
01-31-2011, 01:33 AM
Solid approach, but it (i) makes no allowances for sub-par attended tournaments, like the AO in the late 70s/early 90s or the FO in the early 70s, and (ii) it disregards or discriminates against players with truncated careers, i.e. players who had part of their career before the open era.

Here is an attempt to correct for both factors, however, the AO 2011 are not yet factored in. With them Djokovic would arguably be #18 or 19.

http://yokozunatennis.blogspot.com/2010/09/top-101-male-and-female-players-of-open.html

Castafiore
01-31-2011, 10:21 AM
As for Murray, well, he is the only player in the Open Era to compete in 3 slam finals w/o winning one. Tony Roche also played in 3, but he had won a slam in 1966, before the Open Era.
Didn't Ivan Lendl reach a number of slam finals before actually winning one?

Topspindoctor
01-31-2011, 10:30 AM
Didn't Ivan Lendl reach a number of slam finals before actually winning one?

Agassi too.

Murray is the only player to lose 3 GS finals and not win a single set.

Machiavelli
01-31-2011, 11:01 AM
As for Murray, well, he is the only player in the Open Era to compete in 3 slam finals w/o winning one. Tony Roche also played in 3, but he had won a slam in 1966, before the Open Era.

Ivanisevic lost 3 Wimy finals(Agassi, Sampras x2) and then won in his fourth attempt def. Rafter in 2001. ;)

Sophocles
01-31-2011, 11:14 AM
Sometimes people count only the best 10 or so results at each slam so dominance is rewarded more than longevity, but I've never understood why: longevity is a factor in greatness & counting all results rewards longevity AND dominance. Good list.

Henry Kaspar
01-31-2011, 01:50 PM
Sometimes people count only the best 10 or so results at each slam so dominance is rewarded more than longevity, but I've never understood why: longevity is a factor in greatness & counting all results rewards longevity AND dominance. Good list.

Agreed. The key issue is how to weigh longevity vs. peak achievement. Jimbo Connors, for example, won "only" 8 slams, but stood 41 times (!) in a grand slam quarterfinal. Compare this to Borg, 11 titles, but only half as many quarterfinals as Connors (21). What is better? Most would tend to say Borg, me too, but there is no clear criterion.

In my view weighing a GS victory about 2 1/2 - 3 times as heavily as a final, and a final 2 1/2 - 3 times as heavily as a semi etc. yields the most plausible results. This said, one still has to make amends for changes in the relative status and attendance of slams in the 70s/80s.

Henry Kaspar
01-31-2011, 02:50 PM
Ivanisevic lost 3 Wimy finals(Agassi, Sampras x2) and then won in his fourth attempt def. Rafter in 2001. ;)

Ivan Lendl lost his first 4 Grand Slam finals.

So there is still hope for Murray.

Johnny Groove
01-31-2011, 04:37 PM
Thanks, all, always nice to know my work is appreciated.

Stats mean nothing by themselves. Anyone can give any spin he wants.

Connors ahead of Sampras is a joke and Shankerer at the top is even worse.

The numbers don't lie.

Thanks. I love stats llike these.

Lendl would probably be 2nd under the old points system (1000/700/450/250).

Oh man, that's a whole other can of worms :p

Sometimes people count only the best 10 or so results at each slam so dominance is rewarded more than longevity, but I've never understood why: longevity is a factor in greatness & counting all results rewards longevity AND dominance. Good list.

Yep. Connors I think doesn't get the just due he deserves. "Only" 8 slams, but longevity that makes Agassi's career look comparatively short.

Here are the breakdowns by slam:

AO:

Federer- 11,360
Edberg- 10,480
Agassi- 9,800
Lendl- 8,920
Wilander- 7,920
Sampras- 7,000

RG:

Borg- 12,360
Nadal- 10,000
Wilander- 9,480
Lendl- 9,180
Federer- 7,040
Guga- 6,720

Interesting to see Federer ahead of Guga.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 15,080
Federer- 13,920
Connors- 13,480
Borg- 11,920
Becker- 11,760
Mcenroe- 10,920
Edberg- 8,920
Ivanisevic- 7,400
Nadal- 6,400
Agassi- 6,080

USO:

Connors- 18,520
Sampras- 14,680
Lendl- 14,160
Agassi- 13,120
Federer- 11,920
McEnroe- 11,720

luie
01-31-2011, 05:08 PM
Thanks, all, always nice to know my work is appreciated.



The numbers don't lie.



Oh man, that's a whole other can of worms :p



Yep. Connors I think doesn't get the just due he deserves. "Only" 8 slams, but longevity that makes Agassi's career look comparatively short.

Here are the breakdowns by slam:

AO:

Federer- 11,360
Edberg- 10,480
Agassi- 9,800
Lendl- 8,920
Wilander- 7,920
Sampras- 7,000

RG:

Borg- 12,360
Nadal- 10,000
Wilander- 9,480
Lendl- 9,180
Federer- 7,040
Guga- 6,720

Interesting to see Federer ahead of Guga.

Wimbledon:

Sampras- 15,080
Federer- 13,920
Connors- 13,480
Borg- 11,920
Becker- 11,760
Mcenroe- 10,920
Edberg- 8,920
Ivanisevic- 7,400
Nadal- 6,400
Agassi- 6,080

USO:

Connors- 18,520
Sampras- 14,680
Lendl- 14,160
Agassi- 13,120
Federer- 11,920
McEnroe- 11,720
I think the weak clay court era helped fed top the list & surpass guga @ FO.
2008 he was lucky to make the finals.Feds good on clay but not great.

Sophocles
01-31-2011, 05:11 PM
It shows how much Fed deserved that F.O. title though. Interesting to see Agassi still ahead of Fed at the U.S.O.

CyBorg
01-31-2011, 08:22 PM
The numbers don't lie.

That's fair. But the way you use your numbers can be deceiving.

The problem with your 'system', if one can call that, is that it is purely quantitative. It puts greater weight on longevity than prime performance in order to evaluate players. Furthermore it uses the wrong data, which I explain below.

As such it severely overrates both Connors and Agassi.

About Connors, one can ask a simple question. Would he be a lesser player if he had retired in 1984? Utilizing your criteria in a vacuum he would be. But I think that most reasonable people would say that he would not be.

I have been posting about tennis history for a while and have proposed a different approach. First of all, I believe that we should avoid a strict numbers-based approach because, unlike sports-like baseball, numbers don't work with tennis as the game lacks consistent tour standards across time. So there's a necessary and maybe even a desirable ambiguity in terms of the way we look at great players in history.

Furthermore, I recommend that when we look at 'greatness' that we focus on both prime and peak values as most important and put less weight on longevity. This allows us to adjust for Connors's 20-some years as a pro, in contrast to Borg's eight. The reality of things is that we know that Borg was the better player. He was player of the year more often. He was more dominant. He won more big events. He dominated Connors head-to-head.

And lastly, for reasons of false standardization, we cannot use solely grand slam data. Again, the pro tour has undergone too much evolution. The events that are big now didn't used to be big in the past. And some big events of the past don't even exist anymore. Looking at the past through the spectacles of today (that is utilizing the contemporary grand slam-weighted context) misrepresents history and paints a false picture of the pros of the past.

SetSampras
01-31-2011, 10:15 PM
Numbers are just numbers.. You got by strictly the numbers in other sports, technically Jordan wouldn't even come close to sniffing any type of GOAT status over guys like Chamberlain, Jabbar, or Russell etc.

You have to take everything into account IMO. , the competition, the threats at the top, polarization and homogenization of surfaces, success against rivals EVERYTHING.. There is NO even playing field even in the Open Era. So comparing someone's numbers today to someones numbers 20-30 years ago.. Not cut and dry IMO

Although personally, I think Nadal may have surpassed Agassi (not by the numbers but) long ago just based on what he did to Fed at 6 slams out of 9, overtaking him twice at the top, domination, consistency etc. While Agassi couldn't get the success over Pete, and had a 3 year MIA session and while Agassi may have had longevity, he never DOMINATED like Nadal anywhere. The true greats dominated at least one surface. Fed dominated hardcourts, Pete dominated grass, Nadal dominated clay and Fed and Pete have the longevity of #1. While Nadal MAY get it that longevity he may not though, hes rapidly approaching top 5 territory in the next season or so barring injury..

Longevity is great, but what u are doing with that longevity is another.. Greats dominate year in year out. So many guys like Connors, Mac, Lendl etc.. Had long lavishing careers, but didn't truly dominate a surface along the tour for 4-6 years on end like Roger, Pete, and Nadal.

Though u can argue as well, in terms of TOP THREATS, there was no bigger era then the 80s so that alot of to do with it. Some all time great talents came out of the 80s

Sophocles
02-01-2011, 09:43 AM
SetSampras - if it's domination year-in, year-out you're looking for, Nadal has "dominated" - been Number One - for um 2 seasons so far. That doesn't really cut it, does it?

CyBorg, you seem to be implying longevity is insignificant. Why? Personally I think Connors would have been a lesser player if he'd retired in 1984. It's genuinely impressive he was still able to win tournaments and go deep in slams beating players such as Edberg well into his late 30s. Even so, I'm inclined to agree Borg was the better player, but it's not cut & dried: Connors has a much more impressive ranking history, for example, & if we're going to discount that we have to go into the ranking system used at the time.

The bottom line is, if Borg hadn't retired so early & had played the Australian Open - & if he had beaten Connors at the U.S.O. -, he might well be ahead of Connors in this list, just as Federer, relying on dominance rather than longevity, is.

Henry Kaspar
02-01-2011, 12:43 PM
SetSampras - if it's domination year-in, year-out you're looking for, Nadal has "dominated" - been Number One - for um 2 seasons so far. That doesn't really cut it, does it?

CyBorg, you seem to be implying longevity is insignificant. Why? Personally I think Connors would have been a lesser player if he'd retired in 1984. It's genuinely impressive he was still able to win tournaments and go deep in slams beating players such as Edberg well into his late 30s. Even so, I'm inclined to agree Borg was the better player, but it's not cut & dried: Connors has a much more impressive ranking history, for example, & if we're going to discount that we have to go into the ranking system used at the time.

The bottom line is, if Borg hadn't retired so early & had played the Australian Open - & if he had beaten Connors at the U.S.O. -, he might well be ahead of Connors in this list, just as Federer, relying on dominance rather than longevity, is.

I reckon if you would do a survey of who was better or greater, Borg or Connors, the vast majority would nonetheless vote Borg, including Connors himself (who was 2-14 vs. Borg 1977-81). This suggests to me that this ranking's way of weighing longevity vs. peak achievement is biased a bit too much in the direction of longevity.

Now this is no rocket science and any weighing can be criticized. I've experimented for my own rankings (http://yokozunatennisarticles.blogspot.com/2010/09/top-101-male-and-female-players-of-open.html) a lot with weights, none gives excatly what would correspond with intution, but closest in my personal view come weights of 27(W)-9(F)-3(SF)-1(QF). They seem perhaps extreme, but correspond quite closely to how, imo, tennis players's achievements are perceived--3 GS finals make a player roughly as "great" as one slam title, 3 lost semis as great as one final participation, and so on. Weights of 2.5 also still work (say, 125, 50, 20, 8), but anything less than that gives longevity--in the form of many SF and QF participatoins, without being truly on top of the game--too much weight.

Another factor are indeed the AO, which during Borg's peak just weren't at the same level as the other slams. In fact far from it, they were barely a top 10 tournament. Given them the same weight as Wimbledon 1974-83 is bound to give biased results--suddenly Johann Kriek is a great player. And of course it biases against Borg or McEnroe. McEnroe's 7 titles carry arguably more weight than Agassi's 8, given that the latter got 4 down under, a tournament McEnroe didn't play during his prime.

luie
02-01-2011, 12:52 PM
I reckon if you would do a survey of who was better or greater, Borg or Connors, the vast majority would nonetheless vote Borg, including Connors himself (who was 2-14 vs. Borg 1977-81). This suggests to me that this ranking's way of weighing longevity vs. peak achievement is biased a bit too much in the direction of longevity.

Now this is no rocket science and any weighing can be criticized. I've experimented for my own rankings a lot with weights, none gives excatly what would correspond with intution, but closest in my personal view come weights of 27(W)-9(F)-3(SF)-1(QF). They seem perhaps extreme, but correspond quite closely to how, imo, tennis players's achievements are perceived--3 GS finals make a player roughly as "great" as one slam title, 3 lost semis as great as one final participation, and so on.

Another factor are indeed the AO, which during Borg's peak just weren't at the same level as the other slams. In fact far from it, they were barely a top 10 tournament. Given them the same weight as Wimbledon 1974-83 is bound to give biased results--suddenly Johann Kriek is a great player. And of course it biases against Borg or McEnroe. McEnroe's 7 titles carry arguably more weight than Agassi's 8, given that the latter got 4 down under, a tournament McEnroe didn't play during his prime.
Kasper,,not relating to the topic but your sig.Not familiar with the japanese sumo system but why do you have berdych ahead of Murray???

Sophocles
02-01-2011, 12:59 PM
I reckon if you would do a survey of who was better or greater, Borg or Connors, the vast majority would nonetheless vote Borg, including Connors himself (who was 2-14 vs. Borg 1977-81). This suggests to me that this ranking's way of weighing longevity vs. peak achievement is biased a bit too much in the direction of longevity.

Now this is no rocket science and any weighing can be criticized. I've experimented for my own rankings a lot with weights, none gives excatly what would correspond with intution, but closest in my personal view come weights of 27(W)-9(F)-3(SF)-1(QF). They seem perhaps extreme, but correspond quite closely to how, imo, tennis players's achievements are perceived--3 GS finals make a player roughly as "great" as one slam title, 3 lost semis as great as one final participation, and so on. Weights of 2.5 also still work (say, 125, 50, 20, 8), but anything less than that gives longevity--in the form of many SF and QF participatoins, without being truly on top of the game--too much weight.

Another factor are indeed the AO, which during Borg's peak just weren't at the same level as the other slams. In fact far from it, they were barely a top 10 tournament. Given them the same weight as Wimbledon 1974-83 is bound to give biased results--suddenly Johann Kriek is a great player. And of course it biases against Borg or McEnroe. McEnroe's 7 titles carry arguably more weight than Agassi's 8, given that the latter got 4 down under, a tournament McEnroe didn't play during his prime.

Yeah okay I take your point. The way we "rank" players' achievements historically is different from the way the A.T.P. ranks them now, so probably some such points system as you've suggested would be better. Also there should be bonus points for the career slam and the Grand Slam.

Henry Kaspar
02-01-2011, 01:10 PM
Kasper,,not relating to the topic but your sig.Not familiar with the japanese sumo system but why do you have berdych ahead of Murray???

Well, ozumo ranings place a premium on repeat performances--two good tournaments in a row are worth more than very good tournaments every now and then. Berdych got Ozeki by reaching the SFs at Roland Garros and the F at Wimbledon back-to-back. Murray never did such a thing, he tends to take tournaments "off" in between succesful ones (an extreme case of this tpe of inconsistency was Goran Ivanisevic, btw).

But I agree with you that in terms of career achievements Murray clearly ranks above Berdych (http://yokozunatennisarticles.blogspot.com/2010/09/top-101-male-and-female-players-of-open.html), even though he hasn't gotten to the same ozumo type rank. All comes down to that no ranking system is perfect, I guess. But if you look at what players would have made it to Yokozuna (=Grand Champion) under the ozumo ranking system, (http://yokozunatennisarticles.blogspot.com/2008/06/male-yokozuna-part-1-promotion-to-gs-y.html) that's quite plausible, isn't it?

Cheers,
HK

luie
02-01-2011, 01:19 PM
Well, ozumo ranings place a premium on repeat performances--two good tournaments in a row are worth more than very good tournaments every now and then. Berdych got Ozeki by reaching the SFs at Roland Garros and the F at Wimbledon back-to-back. Murray never did such a thing, he tends to take tournaments "off" in between succesful ones (an extreme case of this tpe of inconsistency was Goran Ivanisevic, btw).

But I agree with you that in terms of career achievements Murray clearly ranks above Berdych (http://yokozunatennisarticles.blogspot.com/2010/09/top-101-male-and-female-players-of-open.html), even though he hasn't gotten to the same ozumo type rank. All comes down to that no ranking system is perfect, I guess. But if you look at what players would have made it to Yokozuna (=Grand Champion) under the ozumo ranking system, (http://yokozunatennisarticles.blogspot.com/2008/06/male-yokozuna-part-1-promotion-to-gs-y.html) that's quite plausible, isn't it?

Cheers,
HK
Understood,,that particular ranking system places more weight on sustained peak performance.

CyBorg
02-01-2011, 07:57 PM
CyBorg, you seem to be implying longevity is insignificant. Why? Personally I think Connors would have been a lesser player if he'd retired in 1984. It's genuinely impressive he was still able to win tournaments and go deep in slams beating players such as Edberg well into his late 30s. Even so, I'm inclined to agree Borg was the better player, but it's not cut & dried: Connors has a much more impressive ranking history, for example, & if we're going to discount that we have to go into the ranking system used at the time.

No, I didn't mean insignificant. Sorry if I gave that impression. Certainly folks might debate about the ways to weigh the two, but, simply put, the numbers provided here place too much weight on longevity.

As for the ranking system, yes I would discount it. Every historian will tell you that it was seriously flawed; the system has since changed due to the problems inherent.