The fact that some people have been cheering on Roger Federer’s fall from the number one ranking is a little puzzling to me. I realise that familiarity breeds contempt, and all that sort of thing. But Federer is not exactly John Howard.
Nevertheless, after a little over four and a half years, Rafael Nadal has provided us with the other bookend to one of sports great achievements. And we can now look back on it, size it up, opine on its worth, and surmise as to what happens from here.
But before we go too far down that road, let’s get a bit of background.
Nobody doubts Federer’s achievements, but the done-to-death topic of contention is Federer’s place in the pantheon of the tennis greats. Less discussed is exactly what he is up against in his quest for the big chair. What are the other outstanding claims on this title that some of us are so keen to bestow of “The Greatest of All Time?”
Let’s start with a long list and see if it can be worked down. It works for the Booker Prize so why not here.
There have been plenty of great players in the Open era (1968 on), but I think it’s a safe bet to narrow it down to four: Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras and Federer.
Of course, this leaves out the likes of Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker and Andre Agassi.
But they can’t all be there.
Then, of course, we throw in Rod Laver, who straddled the Amateur/Open era and spent a number of pre-Open years in the pro ranks. This enabled Roy Emerson, who remained amateur through the sixties, to stock up on Grand Slams.
But, alas, Emmo doesn’t make the cut either.
Nor, but only by a whisker, does Australia’s archetypal little battler of this period – Ken Rosewall.
Same goes with old froth-on-the-mo. Sorry, Newk.
One more of our own makes it, though: Lew Hoad, the athletic man’s man with the power game who fell agonisingly short of taking out a genuine Grand Slam in 1956 when, having won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles, he was upset in the final of the US by Rosewall.
He was also Pancho Gonzales’ pick as the greatest ever.
Gonzales, the brooding loner who turned pro very young and so has barely a grand slam to his name, makes it in as our seventh finalist.
Then we’ll nominate Jack Kramer, the great American post-war player who in 1947 was the first to win Wimbledon with a pair of knees on display, and who went on to dominate the ensuing years whilst running and winning the renegade pro tour of one night stands.
Before the war, in 1938, Don Budge became the first man to take a genuine Grand Slam and remains the only one to do so apart from Laver’s two.
Reputed to have had possibly the greatest backhand of all time, he’s in.
Our last candidate is the man who dominated the 1920s, another American, Bill Tilden.
He led the US to six consecutive Davis Cup victories and collected ten Grand Slam titles before turning pro and then eventually sliding into ignominy on charges relating to his late blooming homosexuality.
So there you have the longlist of ten: Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer. Six Americans, two Australians, a Swede and a Swiss.
And although my bones are starting to creak in unforseen places, I have to declare that prior to Laver, I’m working sight unseen with this mob.
I caught the end of Laver’s career as a kid and I’ve seen the odd TV grab of Hoad in action, but that’s all. So it’s by reputation and the opinions of those older and wiser than me that this list is constructed.
To be honest I think you could swim around in statistics for years and not be able to conclusively separate these guys. Then there are the obvious points to be made about the differences in racquets and fitness levels and how it is therefore impossible to compare eras.
Then there are other criteria that could be considered.
Should it be based on a player’s influence on the game, such as Borg’s mainstreaming of heavy topspin off both sides, now the dominant approach?
Or the level a player reached at his peak, even if it was brief, as in Hoad’s case?
Or should longevity be the key?
Gonzales played the first ever “Open” Grand Slam, the 1968 French, and at the age of 40 lost in the semi-final to Laver. Then, at the age of 41, he actually chalked up a win against him.
If that’s impressive, how does Bill Tilden’s effort stack up?
In need of cash, at the age of 48 in 1941 he was still playing pro matches against then number one Budge. He was mostly beaten but was competitive and still managed to pick up the odd win.
Interestingly, this longevity of some of the great players reveals a leveling trait if we follow each to his chronological successor.
Tilden beat Budge at the age of 48. At age 40, just before retiring from the pro tour, Budge beat undisputed world no.1 Gonzales. Gonzales over Laver at 41. Laver, at 36, beat Borg a couple of times in 1974, the year of Borg’s first French title, and was beaten in a tie breaker in the decider in 1976.
Borg retired early and broke the chain, but it picked up again recently with Sampras’ exhibition victory over Federer.
By this logic you could make a case that Tilden was the greatest.
Obviously many prefer Laver’s two Grand Slams separated by seven years in which he couldn’t play.
Some like Sampras’ seven Wimbledons. Or McEnroe’s artistry. Many old timers who have seen the lot insist Gonzales was peerless. Gonzales said the only one better than him was Hoad. Kramer says it was Budge.
Now there’s Roger Federer, more than aware of all of this, and now facing the biggest challenge of his career.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Rory
Guest
Thanks for the comments David. Your point about the game moving towards a greater reliance strength and power is spot on. The wooden racquet, smaller head, compared with todays weapons - no comparison. They were heavier, weighted differently, had a tiny sweet spot and no surface area for getting much topspin, and so they created a different type of player. This is certainly where Federer's versatility makes him outstanding. It's intruiging that Federer has stalled just as he seemed on the verge of confirming his status as the best in the eyes of most. Will he fight for his fifth U.S. Open in a row or should he just write this year off now and focus on rebuilding for next year?
David Sygall
Guest
Rory, Great article and congrats for winning the Roar's article of the week. I think some of the criteria you propose as the basis by which to judge the greatest of the greats are good. I'm no big tennis fan but I always wonder if tennis, more than any other sport, has become more a game of physical strength than clever touches and judgement, as it used to be. Would a precocious talent like McEnroe succeed today against the power of Nadal et al? Don't think so. Would Sampras have succeeded in the 60s and 70s when finess was more a key to victory than powerhitting? Don't think so. Federer, in my opinion, is the first player in several years that could have mixed it with the trickery of McEnroe, yet still possesses the brut power that is necessary to succeed today. That's why I think Federer is the greatest of the greats.
Rory
Guest
Darkierob, You are, of course, on the money with your sentiments. They are all greats, and trying to separate them is in a sense pointless. However on the positive side, discussing their various merits gives us a chance to give some credit to those players, pre open era and especially pre war, whose names are fading out of currency. Another side to it is that I do think Federer himself is aware of his place among the greats and when this discussion comes up in the future, after his time, he will be hoping his name is one of the first mentioned. I think he thinks about tennis tradition more than most players and these are the guys he will be comparing himself to. On the Booker, I'm afraid they have in fact done exactly what I have done here and taken it further by declaring a winner. The Best of the Booker was recently held (after 40 years) and after declaring a short list a public vote was held and Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children got the nod.
Darkierob
Guest
A well written article Rory and as it should, it has generated debate, discussion and comparison. However, in my very simple analysis, I prefer to stay with "greats" rather than "the greatest of all time". Too little basis for objective comparison; too many variables over time; too much emotion. Even the Booker Prize doesn't attempt to reflect the position beyond books written over a one year period. Thjey are all greats - celebrate them all. Not everything has to have one winner!
Rory
Guest
You're right OJ, unless he does that it will always be debatable. Something else about Newcombe. He didn't play Wimbledon in 72/73 when he would have been close to favourite, yet he still won three. Another (outside) contender for the Aussies list - Mervyn Rose, French open winner '58 and one of the few claycourt specialists we have produced.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
If Federer is to lay any claim to being the greatest ever, then the challenge has pretty much been set: Regain the number one ranking in the world and break Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slams. Even if he wins a solitary title at Roland Garros, it won't solidify his place atop the all-time pantheon if he doesn't accomplish those two things.
sheek
Guest
Rory, When I first started following sport (late 60s), Hoad was often spoken off in reverent tones. Not so much today. I'm a big fan of Newc, who like Hoad, played good tennis while still being a 'lad'. Could either have been better had they taken their tennis more seriously? Or was this just part of their personality. Although Emmo benefitted from so many key players absent on the prop circuit, he was still a good player in his own right. Rochey suffered 'tennis elbow' at 23-24, & this seemed to inhibit his development. Shouldn't let personalities influence, but am not a fan of Hewitt at all. In his younger days, when he seemed to have limitless energy, his court coverage papered over technical deficiencies. Now he's slower around the court, he can't hide those deficiencies. Finally, a generalisation. The number of GS wins tells you some things about players. But often its the opinion of peers that really counts. Although the drawback here is that players are inclined to talk up other players from their own era, naturally. Same with us fans. For example, you say o & so from when I was in my 20s was the best ever, therefore corollary is, the era of my 20s is the best ever, etc. We all like to think we lived in the best of times.
Rory
Guest
Sheek, I think that match between Gonzales and Pasarell shows why the tie breaker is such a good idea. Or is it? I remember Pasarell went on to be a decent player. You've dug up some interesting stuff, and I must admit I've been doing a bit of reading myself. Gonzales is an enigmatic case. I was surprised at how strong his case for being all time no. 1 is, especially the opinion of those who saw him at his peak. Hard to gauge when we are used to judging players on Grand Slam wins. Kramer apparently dominated him when he first joined the pro ranks, but as Kramer declined Gonzales matured and took over as no. 1. He had the wood on Sedgman, and later Rosewall. Hoad seems to have been his first real challenge in the late fifties. Indeed by all accounts Hoad seems to be the only player Gonzales both feared and respected. “He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best ever, better than mine,” said Gonzales. You can’t ignore that. If you look at Hoad’s year in ‘56, just missing the Grand Slam at the U.S. and also winning all the major clay tournaments (French, Italian, German) when he was essentially an attacking serve volleyer, then winning Wimbledon again in ‘57 before turning pro, it’s pretty impressive. He also dominated Laver in the early ‘60’s. Inconsistency and laziness seems to be the cross against Hoad’s name. He always remained the lad from Glebe. There seems to be an extra factor involved with any player who was able to achieve world no.1 for any significant period of time. These guys have more than just their shots to play with. Mental toughness and the ability to find a way to win against any other player is a huge part of it. I have a feeling that most people would rate Connors higher than Newcombe, but I remember Newcombe could beat Connors before he retired. The great players find a way to play their strengths to their opponents weakness, and that is the challenge Federer now faces with Nadal and Djokovic. Interesting that the AP list rates Emerson so highly. Without meaning to slight him I have always felt that his GS wins were due to all the best players being pro and him having free reign. I guess the sixties will always be a contentious period in tennis because of the amateur/pro divide. The list of Aussies is a talking point in itself. I think I’d go along with it for the most part. I’d be tempted to swap Newk and Emmo around and of course I can’t really gauge Brooks. Would Hewitt make it now? He was no.1 for longer than Rafter. Tony Roche and Pat Cash are probably the only others who would have a claim, but they would probably be correct at 12 and 13. I’d go along with the top 5 in the AP womens list, too. But the Williams sisters would have strong claims now.
sheek
Guest
Rory, Your article encouraged me to chase up some scraps I had. In December 1999, Associated Press came up with the following top men & women tennis players of the 1900s. The number of 1st votes is in brackets. Men: Women: 1. Laver (47) 1. Graf (52) 2. Sampras (39) 2. Navratilova (51) 3. Tilden (38) 3. Court (40) 4. Borg (29) 4. King (39) 5. Budge (28) 5. Evert (38) 6. Hoad (19) 6. Lenglen (30) 7. McEnroe (19) 7. Moody (29) 8. Emerson (18) 8. Connolly (18) 9. Rosewell (18) 9. Seles (7) 10. Kramer (16) 10. Goolagong (5) 11. Connors (13) 11. Gibson (4) 12. Gonzales (12) 12. Bueno (4) 13. Agassi (10) Not to be outdone Tennis magazine issue Dec 99/Jan 00 came up with the following lists. 1. Sampras & Graf 2. Agassi & Seles 3. Laver & Navratilova 4. Borg & Moody 5. McEnroe & King 6. Lendl & Evert 7. Emerson & Court 8. Ashe & Lenglen 9. Becker & Austin 10. Connors & Dupont I'm inclined to think AP were more accurate in their assessment. Note this is all pre-Federer. The final list is provided by Australian Tennis' highly respected journalist/writer/historian Alan Tengrove. In the early 2000s, he nominated the following 10 greatest Aussie male tennis players. 1. Rod Laver 2. Lew Hoad 3. Ken Rosewell 4. Norman Brookes 5. Roy Emerson 6. John Newcombe 7. Frank Sedgman 8. Jack Crawford 9. Pat Rafter 10. Neale Fraser A final word or a few on Pancho Gonzales. Born 1928. US singles 1948-49. Wimbledon & French doubles 1949. Davis Cup winner 1949. Wembly pro singles champion 1950, 51, 52, 58. Wembly pro doubles champion 1950, 51, 52, 56, 58. Champion's champion pro round robin tournament 1954, 56, 57, 58 & 59, drew 23-23 (matches) with Hoad. He was ranked #1 amateur in 1948-49, & when tennis went open in 1968, was ranked #9 at age 40. In a Wimbledon round match of 1969, he beat the much younger fellow American Charlie Pasarell in a monumental 112 game marathon: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. Over to you, Rory!
sheek
Guest
Rory, It's possible we're still waiting to see the greatest tennis player of all time. There's an argument that a player who wins all 4 majors more than once can claim bagging rights because he will have won on 4 different surfaces (since we moved to 4 different surfaces). I accept the arguments against Agassi. Yes, he won all 4 majors on different surfaces, but perhaps not enough to be acclaimed the greatest ever. But I for one, am a huge fan of his. My personal favourite is Laver, however I have read several different sources that argue Gonzales might have been the greatest ever, although you wouldn't know from his GS records. During his professional career, he pretty well dusted Kramer, Hoad, Rosewell & Laver, etc. I think I would pick Gonzales to play for my life. It would be interesting to dig up the one on one career stats here. Great article, BTW.
Rory
Guest
Agassi is a tough one to leave out, but this is based partly on his great rival, Sampras, having his measure the majority of the time, though certainly not always. The French Open is always a bone of contention - how much stock should we put in the fact that some never win it? Yes, Agassi won it and Federer hasn't but on the other hand Agassi didn't have to face Nadal in the final as Federer has the last three years, and the one before that in the semi. Sampras was at a loss on clay, as Lendl was on grass. McEnroe over Connors and Lendl is also a tough call, but I'm making it based on my feeling that McEnroe was a more gifted player than either and at his best was better, certainly not in the sportsmanship department, though Connors had his moments too. It's a personal judgement but nice point about doubles - McEnroe was also one of the great doubles players. I've left Fred Perry out on the basis that as far as I can see from the history books, he had an ongoing rivalry with Budge and Ellsworth Vines, but it seems to be Budge who edged out the other two, just. Emerson was obviously a very good player but he benefitted from Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall et al all playing in the pro ranks. He would not have snagged all those Grand Slams if he had to face them.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
What puts McEnroe above Conners, Lendl or Agassi? Conners and Lendl not only won 8 Grand Slams to McEnroe's 7, they also won significantly more singles titles. According to the ATP, Conners won 109, Lendl 94 and McEnroe 74. You can argue yourself into the ground over tennis. For example, Agassi is the only player to win all 4 Grand Slams on at least three different playing surfaces. Is that a more impressive accomplishment than Laver winning all 4 in the same year?? Granted Laver won the two most important hardcourt tournaments that year as well as the leading indoor tournaments, but you can see why people fix the 15 Grand Slams as Federer's mark.
old goalie
Guest
Interesting no Agassi, who won all 4 grand slams, something Federer, Lendl, Sampras, and countless others have failed to do (the only two career grand slam winners in your top ten are Budge and Laver) The sheer difficulty of winning all 4, and the fact there are only 5 men in the history of tennis to have done so, has to count for something in this argument (they are Perry, Budge, Emerson, Laver and Agassi) Also Agassi and Laver are the only two to win all 4 grand slams in the open era. I feel one very important factor neglected these days in ranking the tennis greats also has to be doubles play. Most of your list won quite a few, excepting Gonzales, Borg, Sampras and Federer. Davis Cup should be taken into account too
swifty
Guest
great article - this is the stuff that makes the roar good