Hail Rafa, the Emperor of Clay

of course todays are guys are better athletes. Greatness is measured on how dominate you were in your era most of time. Sometimes variables like sport more popular today than say in Ken Rosewells time is a valid argument or Rod Laver's to.

STATS From 1983-90, Ivan Lendl never lost before the fourth-round of a Grand Slam. For the first 17 years of her career, Chris Evert failed to make the semifinals of a Slam just once. (Once!) Steffi Graf went 10 years with only one loss before the quarterfinals. Outside of Roland Garros, Pete Sampras never lost before the third round in his prime.

Also in Borg's favor was that his groundies were more consistent, he was more athletic than Lendl or most anyone else in his era at that tracking down many more balls, and he had easier competition than Lendl overall.

Lendl was not a good volleyer and was very uncomfortable at the net. Hence he couldn't quite nab a wimbledon in an era when grasscourts were faster. Borg for example won his wimbledons from the baseline but could volley when called upon. Lendl coudn't, in general his grasscourt courtcraft wasn't brilliant but he simply had such fantastic, relentlessly powerful groundstrokes, along with a big serve, that he was able to do well on any surface. His final against Cash was basically Cash's volleys vs Lendl's groundstrokes. Tony Roche was brought in to lift him but they didn't quite get there.

Johnno, I don't know anyone who says Lendl was crap on grass, though it was his worst surface. Lendl was very good on every surface. With that said, I don't know any era that wouldn't have at least one all-time great playing that was awesome on grass. I think Lendl probably had one of the easier eras to break through. McEnroe/Connors were great on grass, but I can't see either coming that close to winning Wimby today. Lendl lost to Henri Leconte in 4th round in 1985. He then lost to 18yo Becker in 1986. Becker peaked at a younger age than most, but that's a great chance for Lendl vs an 18yo. Becker won Wimby at 17, 18, and 21. Maybe he wins at 21 today, but that's it. Then, he loses to Cash in 1987. Cash only made it to the QF 4x at Wimby, and SF just 2x. All these guys were solid players, but he Lendl had some golden chances he failed on. Sampras and/or Fed have played a Wimby every year since 1989. Before Lendl's era, it was McEnroe, Borg, and Connors. That's the last 40-45 years. 1991-1992 seem like down years, but Becker, Edberg, etc. couldn't keep it going either. Lendl certainly could've broken through in 2002 like Hewitt vs that field, but these types of years are rare. Lendl better on grass than Hewitt, though.

I'd agree with Lendl, pretty unlucky really - running into McEnroe, Becker and Edberg at their peak and also facing Cash playing the tournament of his life - he blitzed through every round. I just wouldn't put Connors in the 'greatest grass court players of all time' category, although he did win a GS 3 times on grass and wasn't at his peak in the Lendl era, although he had some good wins against him.

Same applies to Monica Seles, she made a wimbledon final, your no mug on grass if you make a wimbeldon final and 4 quarter finals on grass. She wasn't best ever womb on grass not remotely but she wasn't rubbish on grass.

Also he had to deal with playing an era that included some of the greatest grass-court players of all time, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, and Stefan Edberg, Connors—at the peak of their careers! And guys like Pat Cash who were grass court specialists.

Anindaya/express/clipper, I think it's also unfair when people say Ivan Lendl was crap on grass. He made 2 finals and 5 semi finals a better record than say Pat Rafter or Tim Henman or Mark Phillipousous at wimbeldon, yet he is seen as crap on grass, I don't get it.

Not sure about that. I've played on green clay a few times, and it's remarkably different than any hardcourt I've ever played again. Maybe the differences are less dramatic today, and not sure about that either, but they're still big differences. And I'm sure if guys like Wilander/Agassi, who were both phenomenal players, could win all on surfaces, then guys like Fed, Djoker, and Nadal, who are much better athletes and more skilled overall certainly could've and highly likely would've, too. Also, back in the 80s/90s or whenever, all the players had to deal with the differences in surfaces, not just 1-2 guys. There were all in the same boat. Still impressive to be able to win on all surfaces-only 6 have been able to do so. Just looking at clay, Nadal has won 51 of his 71 tourneys on that surface. One would expect him to be able to win more tourneys on non-clay if the surfaces were so similar.

One thing say modern era 1990-onwards when measuring greatness can be a valid point is tennis player numbers globally at a junior level are higher, so in that way it becomes a more competitive sport. But equally in the past I'd say up until year 2000, courts from 2001-onwards have been more sterilised and the same, unlike the past where the surfaces were really specialised. Playing on clay vs grass vs hardcourts in the old days was like in cricket differences e.g. playing in Asian dustbowl pitches in India etc vs playing at the WACA in Perth, so so different in every way. That's why what Andre Agassi did was awesome effort in 90s to win on every surface. Mats Wilander won a Grand slam on every surface as he won OZ open when it was on grass.

Connors did play until he was 43, but his career effectively ended after the 1992 USO at age 40. He played just 8 matches in 1993, 4 in 1994, 4 in 1995, and 1 in 1996. Haas is doing something similar this year. He's effectively retired, but playing a few tourneys here and there on special exemptions or wild cards. Connors: 1256-279 109 titles Federer: 1099-246 91 titles Fed is within reach. And no idea why he's not playing any clay tourneys. It's not like he's playing every week or almost every week like Nadal and others are doing. He must not be 100%. Can't imagine him missing a GS if he's healthy or going into it without a warmup clay tourney. Hopefully, Rome is on his schedule. Connors is a hard one to evaluate, especially since he missed so many AO/FOs.

He did hold the record until Lendl, then Sampras, then Federer. His record of 1535 matches played with 1256 won will take some beating.

express and Clipper Jimmy Connor's longevity is awesome and remarkable. He didn't drop out of the top-20 until Feb-1990, at aged 37-years 5 months. I think he holds the record for longest length at world no 1 him or Lendl or Fed. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/jimmy-connors/c044/rankings-history

Connor''s longevity was quite remarkable - even more so that he managed to keep his winning % at 82% when he played until he was 43. Had 16 years in the top 10 and could play on all surfaces, even beating McEnroe in his prime at Wimbledon, who was 6 years younger and played in a very competitive era.

You're changing my thoughts on Connors some. I've heard some Borg's supporters still claim he's the best ever, and I'm having a hard time not putting Connors over Borg now. Connors' whole body of work probably looks better. I'm not seeing the dominance from Connors like we see from Borg, Fed, Nadal, but he was only playing 2 GS events for several prime years. Longevity should mean something as well, and Connors has the most wins/tourneys won ever, including nearly an 82% winning pct. I like his consistency, too. He made 26 consecutive GS QF in which he played, and 33 of 34 at one point. Actually, the USO was played on clay from 1975-1977, only 3 years. Connors won the USO on grass, clay, and hard. Borg only made one final at the USO when it was on clay. The 1977 USO only had best of 5's starting in the QF.

It should be noted that the US open was on Clay (although, as you say green clay) from 1974-77 with Connors winning once and finalist twice, losing to clay court players, so he may have had a shot at the FO in the prime 5 years - he did get the the QF and SF on a regular basis.

Huh, interesting, didn't know Connors was banned from FO for 5 years. And those were his prime years. Not sure if he would've won any though, but worth pointing out. Borg won the FO in 3 of those 5 years. I see Borg was banned in 1977 for same reason-played WTT. Weird French. Maybe the speed of Wimby hurt Sampras on slower courts, not sure. Though the 3-4 week short season of grass is played after the FO, not before. If you'd think the quickness of the grass would affect a player on clay, you'd think the transition would be from grass to clay, which wasn't the case. I'd say it has more to do with Sampras just not being as good on clay as he was on grass/fast hard, which is obvious from his career record. He was a power player, not a finesse player. And most Americans, even the greats, play their worse tennis on clay. There's almost no clay in the USA, and where there is, it's usually green clay, not the red clay at most clay ATP tourneys. Someone like Fed grew up playing on red clay a lot. Yes, he's a power player, but he has all the skills and can flourish on any surface. Someone like Wawrinka is a power player, but he also grew up on red clay and understands how to play on it a lot better than Sampras ever did.