A couple factors of greatness (and the generations)

[El Dude]

Here's a random thought that was inspired by the World Tour Finals. @Kieran might appreciate it because it goes a bit against my usual stats-leaning orientation, and relates to our ongoing conversation in the Tennis Abstract thread.

We usually think of "greatness" as a combination of peak level and career accumulation - especially the "gold tier" stats like Slam titles and the #1 ranking. We cite Slam counts, weeks at #1, and eyeball impressions of the relative greatness of different players.

There are a couple other factors, though, that I'd like to put forward - that came to mind when I saw that Tsitsipas lost to Novak, and contrasted that with the recent rise of Alcaraz and Rune. The two factors:

1. Wrestling the top spot from the prior generation of greats.
2. Being king of the hill of your peer group.

These, I think, symbolically represent greatness in a way that statistics cannot. The first has an almost mythic quality, like the Greek gods defeating the titans, ending Hesiod's Golden Age and ushering in the Silver Age. The latter seems a requirement for a true all-time great: That he stands above his peers, at least for a time.

Lost Gen failed utterly on both accounts. If you follow my five-year cohorts, Lost Gen includes players roughly born in the years 1989-93. Or, more specifically, I would say born after Marin Cilic and Juan Martin Del Potro in September of 1988, but before Dominic Thiem in September of 1993 (Cilic/Del Potro being more part of the Novak/Rafa gen, and Thiem being the first true Next Genner). Those players were in their prime in the 2012-20 range....meaning, we're already a couple years out of the prime years of Lost Gen, who are fading out of the rankings--Pablo Carreno Busta being the top ranked member of Lost Gen at #13--even as older greats like Nadal and Djokovic hold on, and more than half (11) of the top 20 are Next Genners, and a quarter being Millenial Gen.

As to the second point, no single Lost Genner separated himself from the pack and dominated his own peer group. Grigor Dimitrov, almost ironically, is the most accomplished with three big titles, including a World Tour Finals; no Slams, and only two other Masters winners (Jack Sock and, just this year, Carreno Busta).

If we say that Thiem is the first Next Genner, than I would say Stefanos Tsitsipas--born in August of 1998 is the last, with Casper Ruud (b. Dec, 1998) signaling the beginning of the Millenial Gen. Next Gen is much stronger, but still fails the first litmus test above: They never truly vanquished the Big Three, especially Rafa and Novak, except for that lone win by Medvedev over Novak. And we haven't seen one guy truly separate from the others...it looked like it would be Thiem, then Medvedev, and of course the "dynamic disappointments" Zverev and Tsitsipas showed promise but failed to meet it.

That said, it is a solid cohort of second tier types - those four, plus Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berretini, Hubert Hurkacz, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Karen Khachanov, Borna Coric, Nick Kyrgios, etc. Certainly a much better group than Lost Gen, and somewhat reminiscent of the Kuerten group between Sampras/Agassi and Federer: probably a bunch of Slams forthcoming, even a multi-Slam winner or two, but unlikely any true all-time greats.

But we might be seeing a true coup by the Millenial Gen, led by its youngest members, Carlos Alcaraz and Holger Rune, but also with Jannik Sinner and Felix Auger-Aliassime as wing-men -- players that, it seems, will surpass the Next Genners, at least. Notably, Alcaraz defeated both Novak and Rafa in Madrid, signaling his arrival; and Rune just beat Novak in the Paris Masters final.

Now of course to truly seal the deal, we'll need to see one of them win a Slam final against Rafa or Novak. All of the previous generations have failed thus far: Versus the Big Three in Slam finals, Lost Gen is 0-2, Next Gen is 1-9, with Medvedev's defeat of Novak in the 2021 US Open being the lone win.

Now let's consider: Who has beaten one of the Big Three in a big title final - other than members of the Big Three + One (Murray)?

2022: Indian Wells - Fritz d. Nadal; Paris - Rune d. Djokovic
2021: US Open - Medvedev d. Djokovic
2019: Indian Wells - Thiem d. Federer
2018: Indian Wells - Del Potro d. Federer; Paris - Khachanov d. Djokovic; WTF - Zverev d. Djokovic
2017: Rome - Zverev d. Djokovic; Montreal - Zverev d. Federer
2016: US Open - Wawrinka d. Djokovic
2015: Roland Garros - Wawrinka d. Djokovic
2014: Australian Open - Wawrinka d. Nadal; Monte Carlo - Wawrinka d. Federer; Montreal - Tsonga d. Federer
2009: US Open - Del Potro d. Federer; Shanghai - Davydenko d. Nadal
2008: Miami - Davydenko d. Nadal
2006: Madrid - Nalbandian d. Federer; Paris - Nalbandian d. Nadal
2005: WTF - Nalbandian d. Federer
2003: Rome - Mantilla d. Federer
2002: Miami - Agassi d. Federer

As you can see, the Big Three have lost big title finals to other players all along, except for a four-year gap in 2010-13 when Novak and Rafa were arguably at their shared peak. 2014-16 saw three Slams by Stanimal, two at the expense of Novak; after 2016, one of the Big Three didn't lose a Slam final to a non-member until 2021 -- five years later.

In other words, only three players (other than the Big Four) have defeated a member of the Big Three in a Slam final: Wawrinka three times, Del Potro and Medvedev once each.

So on one hand, the Alcaraz and Rune victories this year don't imply the kind of mythic narrative that I want them too. Certainly, we can see how Zverev in 2017-18 seemed to be on the cusp - defeating Roger once and Novak twice in big finals. And then Medvedev over Novak in 2021, but then he lost to Rafa at the 2022 AO and slipped back. The full coup just never happened....until now? Well, another thing we'll look for in 2023...

 

[Moxie]

We usually think of "greatness" as a combination of peak level and career accumulation - especially the "gold tier" stats like Slam titles and the #1 ranking. We cite Slam counts, weeks at #1, and eyeball impressions of the relative greatness of different players.

I know you always put weeks at #1 right up there, and now the eye-test comes in.

There are a couple other factors, though, that I'd like to put forward - that came to mind when I saw that Tsitsipas lost to Novak, and contrasted that with the recent rise of Alcaraz and Rune. The two factors:

1. Wrestling the top spot from the prior generation of greats.
2. Being king of the hill of your peer group.

These, I think, symbolically represent greatness in a way that statistics cannot. The first has an almost mythic quality, like the Greek gods defeating the titans, ending Hesiod's Golden Age and ushering in the Silver Age. The latter seems a requirement for a true all-time great: That he stands above his peers, at least for a time.

Just to bring this back to the Fedalovic debate, before we move on, since you're calling these factors in terms of "greatness,"
1. Who did a more impressive job of wrestling the top spot from his prior great than Rafa over Roger? Literally in epic and comprehensive fashion.
2. Rafa was king of the hill of his peer group for at least 7 years?

Just wanted to put that out there, if these are part of the new criteria for greatness.

1. Novak had a good 2011 for wresting control of Rafa, but then leveled off and got more into a 3-way battle. It took him several more years, even from there, to lead the h2h with either.
2. Here is where the question with Novak is: what is his peer group? He basically led the pack all around, even Roger and Rafa, but still lost big moments to both. But surely he did in 2011, 2015-16, and more.

Lost Gen failed utterly on both accounts. If you follow my five-year cohorts, Lost Gen includes players roughly born in the years 1989-93. Or, more specifically, I would say born after Marin Cilic and Juan Martin Del Potro in September of 1988, but before Dominic Thiem in September of 1993 (Cilic/Del Potro being more part of the Novak/Rafa gen, and Thiem being the first true Next Genner). Those players were in their prime in the 2012-20 range....meaning, we're already a couple years out of the prime years of Lost Gen, who are fading out of the rankings--Pablo Carreno Busta being the top ranked member of Lost Gen at #13--even as older greats like Nadal and Djokovic hold on, and more than half (11) of the top 20 are Next Genners, and a quarter being Millenial Gen.

As to the second point, no single Lost Genner separated himself from the pack and dominated his own peer group. Grigor Dimitrov, almost ironically, is the most accomplished with three big titles, including a World Tour Finals; no Slams, and only two other Masters winners (Jack Sock and, just this year, Carreno Busta).

If we say that Thiem is the first Next Genner, than I would say Stefanos Tsitsipas--born in August of 1998 is the last, with Casper Ruud (b. Dec, 1998) signaling the beginning of the Millenial Gen. Next Gen is much stronger, but still fails the first litmus test above: They never truly vanquished the Big Three, especially Rafa and Novak, except for that lone win by Medvedev over Novak. And we haven't seen one guy truly separate from the others...it looked like it would be Thiem, then Medvedev, and of course the "dynamic disappointments" Zverev and Tsitsipas showed promise but failed to meet it.

That said, it is a solid cohort of second tier types - those four, plus Andrey Rublev, Matteo Berretini, Hubert Hurkacz, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Karen Khachanov, Borna Coric, Nick Kyrgios, etc. Certainly a much better group than Lost Gen, and somewhat reminiscent of the Kuerten group between Sampras/Agassi and Federer: probably a bunch of Slams forthcoming, even a multi-Slam winner or two, but unlikely any true all-time greats.

But we might be seeing a true coup by the Millenial Gen, led by its youngest members, Carlos Alcaraz and Holger Rune, but also with Jannik Sinner and Felix Auger-Aliassime as wing-men -- players that, it seems, will surpass the Next Genners, at least. Notably, Alcaraz defeated both Novak and Rafa in Madrid, signaling his arrival; and Rune just beat Novak in the Paris Masters final.

Now of course to truly seal the deal, we'll need to see one of them win a Slam final against Rafa or Novak. All of the previous generations have failed thus far: Versus the Big Three in Slam finals, Lost Gen is 0-2, Next Gen is 1-9, with Medvedev's defeat of Novak in the 2021 US Open being the lone win.

Now let's consider: Who has beaten one of the Big Three in a big title final - other than members of the Big Three + One (Murray)?

2022: Indian Wells - Fritz d. Nadal; Paris - Rune d. Djokovic
2021: US Open - Medvedev d. Djokovic
2019: Indian Wells - Thiem d. Federer
2018: Indian Wells - Del Potro d. Federer; Paris - Khachanov d. Djokovic; WTF - Zverev d. Djokovic
2017: Rome - Zverev d. Djokovic; Montreal - Zverev d. Federer
2016: US Open - Wawrinka d. Djokovic
2015: Roland Garros - Wawrinka d. Djokovic
2014: Australian Open - Wawrinka d. Nadal; Monte Carlo - Wawrinka d. Federer; Montreal - Tsonga d. Federer
2009: US Open - Del Potro d. Federer; Shanghai - Davydenko d. Nadal
2008: Miami - Davydenko d. Nadal
2006: Madrid - Nalbandian d. Federer; Paris - Nalbandian d. Nadal
2005: WTF - Nalbandian d. Federer
2003: Rome - Mantilla d. Federer
2002: Miami - Agassi d. Federer

As you can see, the Big Three have lost big title finals to other players all along, except for a four-year gap in 2010-13 when Novak and Rafa were arguably at their shared peak. 2014-16 saw three Slams by Stanimal, two at the expense of Novak; after 2016, one of the Big Three didn't lose a Slam final to a non-member until 2021 -- five years later.

In other words, only three players (other than the Big Four) have defeated a member of the Big Three in a Slam final: Wawrinka three times, Del Potro and Medvedev once each.

So on one hand, the Alcaraz and Rune victories this year don't imply the kind of mythic narrative that I want them too. Certainly, we can see how Zverev in 2017-18 seemed to be on the cusp - defeating Roger once and Novak twice in big finals. And then Medvedev over Novak in 2021, but then he lost to Rafa at the 2022 AO and slipped back. The full coup just never happened....until now? Well, another thing we'll look for in 2023...

From here, you're wondering how the next group will do in your 1 & 2 of new criteria. I'll leave off commenting on the Lost Gen, as you already did it.

Isn't one problem for the ones coming up that their chances of mythic patricide becomes increasingly reduced? Alcaraz may have come as close as any one of them ever will, having beaten Rafa in the SF in Madrid this year, and Novak, the following day, in the final. Chances for those kinds of wins will become increasingly reduced. And, let's face it, they'll mean increasingly less, as the greats wane. The problem with your #1, for this generation, is also pointed out by your above: Roger is retired, Rafa has one foot in the tennis grave, and even Novak won't last forever. These kids will soon have no "prior generation of greats" to beat. Two generations above them have little to say for themselves. So they'll just have to make their own greatness.

 

[El Dude]

I know you always put weeks at #1 right up there, and now the eye-test comes in.

Just to bring this back to the Fedalovic debate, before we move on, since you're calling these factors in terms of "greatness,"
1. Who did a more impressive job of wrestling the top spot from his prior great than Rafa over Roger? Literally in epic and comprehensive fashion.
2. Rafa was king of the hill of his peer group for at least 7 years?

Just wanted to put that out there, if these are part of the new criteria for greatness.

1. Novak had a good 2011 for wresting control of Rafa, but then leveled off and got more into a 3-way battle. It took him several more years, even from there, to lead the h2h with either.
2. Here is where the question with Novak is: what is his peer group? He basically led the pack all around, even Roger and Rafa, but still lost big moments to both. But surely he did in 2011, 2015-16, and more.


From here, you're wondering how the next group will do in your 1 & 2 of new criteria. I'll leave off commenting on the Lost Gen, as you already did it.

Isn't one problem for the ones coming up that their chances of mythic patricide becomes increasingly reduced? Alcaraz may have come as close as any one of them ever will, having beaten Rafa in the SF in Madrid this year, and Novak, the following day, in the final. Chances for those kinds of wins will become increasingly reduced. And, let's face it, they'll mean increasingly less, as the greats wane. The problem with your #1, for this generation, is also pointed out by your above: Roger is retired, Rafa has one foot in the tennis grave, and even Novak won't last forever. These kids will soon have no "prior generation of greats" to beat. Two generations above them have little to say for themselves. So they'll just have to make their own greatness.

Well, I'm hoping we see one or two of them assert themselves this year.

Oh, I don't want to retread the Big Three GOAT debate. Rafa's great too, ok? ;-)

 

[Moxie]

Well, I'm hoping we see one or two of them assert themselves this year.

Oh, I don't want to retread the Big Three GOAT debate. Rafa's great too, ok? ;-)

I think you're being coy. You call these qualities of "greatness." That debate is in play across the board. You certainly don't mind a complete retread of the Lost Gen. If you're going to add a new set of criteria, then why can't we apply them to all? Plus, you ignore the point I make about most any of the younger ones having the chance at your #1 on the list. So who was it aimed at then? The small percentage chance that a few might yet make a big show against Nadal and Djokovic while their still around? It can't be just a bit of picking them off here and there, right? That's not the mythic changing of the guard you're looking for. Well, let's see how this YEC finishes, too, but I'm not expecting a new outcome.

 

[Kieran]

. The two factors:

1. Wrestling the top spot from the prior generation of greats.
2. Being king of the hill of your peer group.

I saw this the other day but have been flat out, but it’s a great post and the essence is in the factors you mentioned above. It was a bugbear and meme of mine going back to the old tennis.com days, that in nature, the young devour the old. And this just hasn’t been happening since Federer beat Sampras, then Rafa beat Federer, Novak beat Rafa - then we reached the strange glorious stasis of the Big 3, where they beat each other but the following generations seemed okay with waiting until the Big 3 dropped dead, rather than pushing them aside.

But the main ingredient for pushing them aside is greatness itself and nobody has had enough of it, until maybe now. Carlos has shown definitely that he can deliver on his promise - he already has. He’s won a slam, he’s beaten Rafa and Novak in masters series matches, he’s won on different surfaces. He fulfills the two criteria, but he’ll obviously have to rubberstamp them with some durability too, to show it’s not a one-off.

But it’s a huge talking point for future tennis historians, as to why their peers were unwilling or unable to nudge the Big 3 aside more often. I know you think it was easier for Sampras but actually back then every loudmouth arrived at slams promising madness and batterings, and this was the norm going back into the 80’s. The field were greedy and disrespectful. They were more volatile. Now they hug and cuddle at the net after the match, tickling each others chins and gurning for the camera.

I think del Potro was a lost opportunity for greatness, through injuries. And he might have been a natural segue into a more competitive noughties. Remember, old greats hang around longer because they know they have a chance. Roger was no mug to survey the field and keep going until 40, Rafa probably will stay another year or two, Novak likewise. They need to be snuffed out but nobody has done it yet, so why not play on? Believe me, if Carlos, Sinner, and other youngsters dominate all the slams next year, Rafa and probably Novak won’t be back in 2024 - and tennis will be much better off…

 

[El Dude]

I think you're being coy. You call these qualities of "greatness." That debate is in play across the board. You certainly don't mind a complete retread of the Lost Gen. If you're going to add a new set of criteria, then why can't we apply them to all? Plus, you ignore the point I make about most any of the younger ones having the chance at your #1 on the list. So who was it aimed at then? The small percentage chance that a few might yet make a big show against Nadal and Djokovic while their still around? It can't be just a bit of picking them off here and there, right? That's not the mythic changing of the guard you're looking for. Well, let's see how this YEC finishes, too, but I'm not expecting a new outcome.

I'm not being coy, I'm just sick of "all roads lead back to the Big Three GOAT debate/oh, and Rafa is the greatest" shtick that conversing with "certain people" here inevitably leads to.

I was trying to highlight certain aspects of greatness that aren't easily statistically quantifiable, as a spin-off from a conversation with Kieran in another thread. It doesn't always lead back to Rafa, either a slight on him by others or an opportunity to rave about him by "Rafa MAGA."

 

[El Dude]

I saw this the other day but have been flat out, but it’s a great post and the essence is in the factors you mentioned above. It was a bugbear and meme of mine going back to the old tennis.com days, that in nature, the young devour the old. And this just hasn’t been happening since Federer beat Sampras, then Rafa beat Federer, Novak beat Rafa - then we reached the strange glorious stasis of the Big 3, where they beat each other but the following generations seemed okay with waiting until the Big 3 dropped dead, rather than pushing them aside.

But the main ingredient for pushing them aside is greatness itself and nobody has had enough of it, until maybe now. Carlos has shown definitely that he can deliver on his promise - he already has. He’s won a slam, he’s beaten Rafa and Novak in masters series matches, he’s won on different surfaces. He fulfills the two criteria, but he’ll obviously have to rubberstamp them with some durability too, to show it’s not a one-off.

But it’s a huge talking point for future tennis historians, as to why their peers were unwilling or unable to nudge the Big 3 aside more often. I know you think it was easier for Sampras but actually back then every loudmouth arrived at slams promising madness and batterings, and this was the norm going back into the 80’s. The field were greedy and disrespectful. They were more volatile. Now they hug and cuddle at the net after the match, tickling each others chins and gurning for the camera.

I think del Potro was a lost opportunity for greatness, through injuries. And he might have been a natural segue into a more competitive noughties. Remember, old greats hang around longer because they know they have a chance. Roger was no mug to survey the field and keep going until 40, Rafa probably will stay another year or two, Novak likewise. They need to be snuffed out but nobody has done it yet, so why not play on? Believe me, if Carlos, Sinner, and other youngsters dominate all the slams next year, Rafa and probably Novak won’t be back in 2024 - and tennis will be much better off…

Del Potro is the guy that should have made it a "Big Five." Probably the most "what could have been" player of the last 10-15 years. And of course we lost Robin Soderling to mono, and even Mario Ancic looked promising for a bit there.

But I agree...I'm really hoping that we see the young guys take over, but I've been hoping that for 5+ years. Lost Gen should have taken over in 2013ish...that's around the time that they were collectively entering their peak. Their best years were in the 2014-17ish range. In my generations model, they're the only generation that's peak was in the Open Era that didn't have a single year-end #1; even the "transitional generation" born in the late 70s had Kuerten one year. And then, of course, there's that gap in Slam winners, from 1989-92 births...I think that's the longest gap, but will have to double-check. There's 1997-2002, but I suspect that will be filled in by a few players.

Oh, as an aside, in reference to Pete, I don't as much believe in weak eras, as in strong ones. I don't think that Pete's era was weak - actually, his generation was overall quite strong, with some good depth, but more comparing it to Lendl's peak, which was packed with some great players in or near their peaks. I mean, consider the top 6 players in 1985: Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Edberg, Becker. 1987, 88, and 90 all had top 5s filled out exclusively with 6+ Slam winners. A brutal era. Lendl's prime overlapped with prime versions of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, and Sampras. I'm not sure any player in the Open Era overlapped with more ATGs in or near their prime.

 

[tented]

Del Potro is the guy that should have made it a "Big Five." Probably the most "what could have been" player of the last 10-15 years. And of course we lost Robin Soderling to mono, and even Mario Ancic looked promising for a bit there.

Soderling? Really? He had one memorable match, beating an out-of-form Rafa at RG, yet some think he was the second coming. The 2010 RG final demonstrated what an in-form Rafa could do to Soderling. He was absolutely not on the same level as del Potro, who, I agree, could have been a huge problem for the Big Three had he remained healthy.

 

[El Dude]

Here's the info....

Birth years without Slam winners:

2004-on - Don't even know what to call this next group. Generation Apocalypse? There's a Chinese kid born in 2005, Juncheng Shang, who just snuck into the top 200. Arthur Fils (b. 2004) is a French kid I've had my eye on, and Belgian Luca Van Assche...but way too early to get a sense of this group.
1997-2002 Late Next Gen, early Millenials...we'll see some Slams here.
1994-95 - Early Next Gen...unless Kyrgios can pull one off, this is a weak group that is sort of the younger sibling to Lost Gen.
1989-92 - The heart of Lost Gen. We've only seen a few big titles and no Slams. These guys are in or entering their 30s, and on their way out.
1983-84 - The end of Gen Federer and beginning of Djokodal. Verdasco, Soderling, Ancic, Tipsarevic, Simon, etc.
1979 - First year of Gen Fed, sort of transitional from the earlier Gen. Ljubicic, Blake, Srichaphan, Massu.
1977 - A weak year, with Canas probably the best player. Also Clement and Kiefer.
1973 - End of Sampras' Gen. Rusedski, Portas, Berasategui.
1969 - The bookend of the Sampras gen. Wheaton, Pioline, Mancini.
1961-63 - After Lendl and McEnroe, the 1959-63 gen was relatively weak, with Noah the third best player and Gomez the only other Slam winner. Players include Leconte, Nystrom, Pernfors, Gilbert.
1957 - Borg gen's was even weaker. No big title winners born this year, or any players worth mentioning.
1955 - Borg gen again. McNamara, Fleming, Pecci.
1953 -End of Connors gen. Higueras and Ramirez were very good second tier types.
1947-48 - End of the Newcombe-Nastase group. No one worth mentioning.

Before that we go back to players who peaked before the Open Era started. Ashe's group (b. 1939-43) was very weak, almost as weak as Lost Gen if not for Ashe, but even then there were three guys who won single Amateur Slams. And of course the 1934-38 group is probably the strongest generation in tennis history, with Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson, Santana, Cooper, Stolle, Gimeno, Osuna, and Anderson all winning Slams; the first six won 4 or more.

Anyhow, there have been other weak periods, but 1989-92 stands out.

 

[El Dude]

Soderling? Really? He had one memorable match, beating an out-of-form Rafa at RG, yet some think he was the second coming. The 2010 RG final demonstrated what an in-form Rafa could do to Soderling. He was absolutely not on the same level as del Potro, who, I agree, could have been a huge problem for the Big Three had he remained healthy.

I didn't say he was on the same level as Del Potro. I mentioned him and Ancic as promising players of that cohort that were lost to injury/illness, like Del Potro.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't say he was on the same level as Del Potro. I mentioned him and Ancic as promising players of that cohort that were lost to injury/illness, like Del Potro.

Well Ancic is a bloke who we’ll never killed how good he might have been but I think we’re see the best of Sod. Good spiteful player though, had the right attitude. No selfies and big grins at the net from him…

 

[Kieran]

Del Potro is the guy that should have made it a "Big Five." Probably the most "what could have been" player of the last 10-15 years. And of course we lost Robin Soderling to mono, and even Mario Ancic looked promising for a bit there.

But I agree...I'm really hoping that we see the young guys take over, but I've been hoping that for 5+ years. Lost Gen should have taken over in 2013ish...that's around the time that they were collectively entering their peak. Their best years were in the 2014-17ish range. In my generations model, they're the only generation that's peak was in the Open Era that didn't have a single year-end #1; even the "transitional generation" born in the late 70s had Kuerten one year. And then, of course, there's that gap in Slam winners, from 1989-92 births...I think that's the longest gap, but will have to double-check. There's 1997-2002, but I suspect that will be filled in by a few players.

Oh, as an aside, in reference to Pete, I don't as much believe in weak eras, as in strong ones. I don't think that Pete's era was weak - actually, his generation was overall quite strong, with some good depth, but more comparing it to Lendl's peak, which was packed with some great players in or near their peaks. I mean, consider the top 6 players in 1985: Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, Edberg, Becker. 1987, 88, and 90 all had top 5s filled out exclusively with 6+ Slam winners. A brutal era. Lendl's prime overlapped with prime versions of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, and Sampras. I'm not sure any player in the Open Era overlapped with more ATGs in or near their prime.

The 80’s were great for tennis. In a way with Pete, it’s like the arguments about Roger dominating chump change until Rafa came along. Were they too good? Or were the opposition simpletons who write text messages using green crayon? Probably a mix. Del Potro certainly had the mental strength and confidence to stand his ground against anyone, and I think he swiftly became everybody’s favourite second best player. Terribly sad loss to tennis…

 

[El Dude]

Well Ancic is a bloke who we’ll never killed how good he might have been but I think we’re see the best of Sod. Good spiteful player though, had the right attitude. No selfies and big grins at the net from him…

I like Soderling, because I think he would have had a nice string in which he at least challenged for Masters and made things more difficult at Slams. He was a half step better than the Tsonga/Berdych types. Maybe a Dayvdenko-level player, if he had been healthy.

 

[Kieran]

I like Soderling, because I think he would have had a nice string in which he at least challenged for Masters and made things more difficult at Slams. He was a half step better than the Tsonga/Berdych types. Maybe a Dayvdenko-level player, if he had been healthy.

He definitely was a disruptive player, he wasn’t like the rest of them back then. I think he was more like a throwback to the 80’s and 90’s, an individualist, an outsider, a crank when it came to his opponent. I actually liked him, and I think he showed what rewards are there for honest effort.

Berdych was a top 8 sticky. Don’t know how he managed it, never seemed to win anything but must have made a lot of quarter finals

 

[El Dude]

The 80’s were great for tennis. In a way with Pete, it’s like the arguments about Roger dominating chump change until Rafa came along. Were they too good? Or were the opposition simpletons who write text messages using green crayon? Probably a mix. Del Potro certainly had the mental strength and confidence to stand his ground against anyone, and I think he swiftly became everybody’s favourite second best player. Terribly sad loss to tennis…

Yeah, I think it's both. There was a fair amount of talent in Roger's generation, but also some head-cases.

Actually, if we compare GOAT points of Roger's and Rafa/Novak's generations, or all players born between 1979-88, we get the following order (bold = Roger's gen, 79-83):

1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Murray
5. Hewitt
6. Roddick
7. Ferrer
8. Del Potro
9. Wawrinka
10. Safin
11. Ferrero
12. Berdych
13. Davydenko
14. Cilic
15. Tsonga
16. Nalbandian
17. Coria
18. Isner
19. Monfils
20. Soderling
21. Gonzalez
22. Ljubicic
23. Gasquet
24. Robredo
25. Blake

The 84-88 group is more top-heavy, with three of the top four, but then Roger's gen has 8 of the next 13. We can quibble about GOAT points, but that's not the point I'm making. Roger's gen had a strong "middle," just no one that could be considered an ATG.

 

[El Dude]

He definitely was a disruptive player, he wasn’t like the rest of them back then. I think he was more like a throwback to the 80’s and 90’s, an individualist, an outsider, a crank when it came to his opponent. I actually liked him, and I think he showed what rewards are there for honest effort.

Berdych was a top 8 sticky. Don’t know how he managed it, never seemed to win anything but must have made a lot of quarter finals

It is crazy to think that Berdych won a Masters way back in 2005 - the same year Rafa went ballistic. Just think how disappointed he'd have been if you told him at the end of the year that he'd never win another big title. He was 20 years old. But yeah, he was a fixture in Slam QF/SFs for almost a decade...between 2010-18, he reached a QF or better 16 times. He beat Roger and Novak at 2010 Wimbledon, losing to Rafa in the final. That was the first time Roger didn't reach the final since 2002.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not being coy, I'm just sick of "all roads lead back to the Big Three GOAT debate/oh, and Rafa is the greatest" shtick that conversing with "certain people" here inevitably leads to.

I was trying to highlight certain aspects of greatness that aren't easily statistically quantifiable, as a spin-off from a conversation with Kieran in another thread. It doesn't always lead back to Rafa, either a slight on him by others or an opportunity to rave about him by "Rafa MAGA."

You're talking about greatness issues, and I was illustrating how it worked with Roger, Rafa and Novak. Kieran said the same thing, only added Pete, and we both ended with Alcaraz.

I still think it's going to be hard for the youngsters to get much time to pick off Rafa and Novak, unless they do a lot of it in 2023. Curious if it will be one guy, or the pack of them. Or none, in the big moments.

 

[Jelenafan]

It is crazy to think that Berdych won a Masters way back in 2005 - the same year Rafa went ballistic. Just think how disappointed he'd have been if you told him at the end of the year that he'd never win another big title. He was 20 years old. But yeah, he was a fixture in Slam QF/SFs for almost a decade...between 2010-18, he reached a QF or better 16 times. He beat Roger and Novak at 2010 Wimbledon, losing to Rafa in the final. That was the first time Roger didn't reach the final since 2002.

Don’t forget Berdych also beat Federer at the Olympics in 2004 amidst Federer’s arguably most dominant year.

 

[El Dude]

Don’t forget Berdych also beat Federer at the Olympics in 2004 amidst Federer’s arguably most dominant year.

As a quibble, I think 2006 was a bit more dominant, with 2004 being his second best year.

But yeah, Berdych has given Roger a bit of trouble at times, most of it between 2010-13 when Berdych was 5-3 against him. Other than that, he was 1-15, including 9 losses in a row from 2014-18.

 

[Moxie]

As a quibble, I think 2006 was a bit more dominant, with 2004 being his second best year.

But yeah, Berdych has given Roger a bit of trouble at times, most of it between 2010-13 when Berdych was 5-3 against him. Other than that, he was 1-15, including 9 losses in a row from 2014-18.

I agree on 2006, btw. Berdych is a funny one. He was a stalwart in the top 10, but I was actually shocked to read your post that he'd won one lone MS1000. I never cared for his game. He didn't beat Roger much, but just spoiled some big moments for him. That Olympics, W in 2010 (eventually his one Major final,) and USO in 2012. He also spoiled an AO for Nadal, and 2x @ W for Novak. Not a giant-killer, just a spoiler.