ATP WTA GS Roland Garros 5/28-6/11 2023

[Woody]

Well, for a few years I could make the argument for Roger with a straight face but no longer. Novak is the GOAT.
If he doesn't get injured I'm confident that he will complete the calendar slam this year.

[jazzyg]

Ruud's topspin forehand is nasty. The level he showed against Rune, Zverev and Djokovic in the first set will get him Roland Garros in the future even without improvement, although he definitely could do without the bouts of depression he suffers during matches. I have underrated him severely in the past, and he seems to have a hard time maintaining his form throughout the year, but I will be surprised if he goes slam-less now. Would not have said that before this Roland Garros.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[nelslus]

He has won as many slams AFTER AGE 30 as Borg and Laver did in their entire career.
I say the case is settled.

I'm going on a Disagree with Ponchi Tour at the moment....

I agree that the case is settled re: GOAT Novak. However- your other point IMO is misplaced. Laver couldn't play Slams for many years, due to going pro. (And, Borg quit at his peak at 26. Which, of course, is on him.)

Also, btw- IF the tennis poo-bahs hadn't been so ignorant for decades with the very long Shamateur Era, when pros could not play Slams, there a number of players I could name who, odds are, would have ended up with far more singles Slam titles. Laver certainly would have gotten to 20+.

[nelslus]

I am still not calling her a great player because I am reserving that for the players with 10+. Sharapova is not a great player to me, despite the fact that she even won a career slam. Osaka had so much promise, and we will have to wait a bit more.
I am trying to cure myself of the biases, and one of them is recency-bias. Sure, Iga won RG, and it is this simple: she had the best clay court season, almost by definition. And she has had a very good year, with three titles already and one of them a slam (every other player in the tour not called Sabalenka would trade for sure) but I want to wait a bit more.
Do I think she ends as a great player? Barring disasters, I say yes; she is well on her way to that 10+ slams (you and I agree that she will get 6-7 RG's alone).
But I also have to admit my bias against her. She is an excellent player, a great ambassador for the sport, seems like a very nice person, but... I just can't get over the strokes. I find them so ugly I can't root for her. Sort of the same thing that happens to me with Medvedev.

....AND now....and the following may be considered to be ironic, as I am usually the person who posts about how low the standards are for players to make the tennis HOF....But, "10+" IMO is too high a standard. This would exclude Connors, Agassi, Lendl, Rosewall, Maureen Connolly, Seles, Goolagong and McEnroe (etc.) from being considered as tennis greats.

So, I'd propose that the total # of Slam titles is of course a factor. But, you have to remember that, for much of the 1970's through the mid 1980's, the French and Aussie Slams were just not factors. No or very few top players played these tournaments during these years. During these years, as examples, winning the Slims and the ATP Championships were much more considered to be "majors" at those times. I also previously posted about how not being able to play the Slams because they went pro impacted the careers of the likes of Rosewall. Thus- I'd factor in the total amount of tournaments won (i.e., Connors), the number of years and weeks a player was #1, and how many of the at-the-time "majors" players won.

[ponchi101]

Touche. It would exclude those players.
But remember, the bar has been raised. When Connors retired, Emerson had the record (12, for men). Since then, that bar has been raised higher and higher.
So, ok. It may be arbitrary, but I still do not consider her great. She is the dominant player, especially on clay, but I will wait a bit more.

[nelslus]

Touche. It would exclude those players.
But remember, the bar has been raised. When Connors retired, Emerson had the record (12, for men). Since then, that bar has been raised higher and higher.
So, ok. It may be arbitrary, but I still do not consider her great. She is the dominant player, especially on clay, but I will wait a bit more.

OH, for sure about Iga.

It would certainly appear that the level of play has increased significantly these days. (While volleying expertise was FAR greater back in the day. Hell, Borg could give lessons on volleying to today's players.) Most definitely, the level of all players in all of the Slams these days has improved a great deal. However, I'd argue about any big increase in the levels of accomplishments- for reasons I've already posted about. The # of tournaments that Connors won. McEnroe won 7 ATP tour finals. The # of pro wins for the likes of Rosewall. Etc.

[ponchi101]

[...

OH, for sure about Iga.

It would certainly appear that the level of play has increased significantly these days. (While volleying expertise was FAR greater back in the day. Hell, Borg could give lessons on volleying to today's players.) Most definitely, the level of all players in all of the Slams these days has improved a great deal. However, I'd argue about any big increase in the levels of accomplishments- for reasons I've already posted about. The # of tournaments that Connors won. McEnroe won 7 ATP tour finals. The # of pro wins for the likes of Rosewall. Etc.

With a 68 SqIn wood racquet, strung at 80 Lbs with catgut.
Yep, us oldies...

[nelslus]

[...

OH, for sure about Iga.

It would certainly appear that the level of play has increased significantly these days. (While volleying expertise was FAR greater back in the day. Hell, Borg could give lessons on volleying to today's players.) Most definitely, the level of all players in all of the Slams these days has improved a great deal. However, I'd argue about any big increase in the levels of accomplishments- for reasons I've already posted about. The # of tournaments that Connors won. McEnroe won 7 ATP tour finals. The # of pro wins for the likes of Rosewall. Etc.

With a 68 SqIn wood racquet, strung at 80 Lbs with catgut.
Yep, us oldies...

LOL, I most definitely played with my wood tiny-framed Jack Kramer racquet back in the day for many years. (I still have the damned thing stored away somewhere- although it finally did break decades ago).

[ashkor87]

Korneeva may be the next big name? She is only 15...haven't seen her play ...what do folks here think, who have seen her?

[ponchi101]

I say Korneeva. By now, Andreeva, all of 16, is washed up
A bit too early.
I will never call any junior the next big thing. My memory is good enough to remind me of Pereira and Kratzmann (three slam wins in their final year of juniors) and how we were sure, absolutely sure, that Cornet was going to rule the pros. The year Pereira won his three slams (1988) Guillame Roux was ranked #2, Goran was ranked #3 (in juniors). We know how many slams they got.

[ashkor87]

'Airplane mode' is how somebody described Swiatek's focus, ability to tune out the noise .good term!

[mick1303]

Touche. It would exclude those players.
But remember, the bar has been raised. When Connors retired, Emerson had the record (12, for men). Since then, that bar has been raised higher and higher.
So, ok. It may be arbitrary, but I still do not consider her great. She is the dominant player, especially on clay, but I will wait a bit more.

OH, for sure about Iga.

It would certainly appear that the level of play has increased significantly these days. (While volleying expertise was FAR greater back in the day. Hell, Borg could give lessons on volleying to today's players.) Most definitely, the level of all players in all of the Slams these days has improved a great deal. However, I'd argue about any big increase in the levels of accomplishments- for reasons I've already posted about. The # of tournaments that Connors won. McEnroe won 7 ATP tour finals. The # of pro wins for the likes of Rosewall. Etc.

How did you came up with 7 YEC for Mac? According to my data he won it in 78, 83 and 84 (they all were held in January of next year). Did you count doubles?