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

[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.

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?

LOL, revising my revision here! My initial count of 7 YEC's must have been due to me not looking closely enough at the Wiki page. and copying the "7" from his doubles YEC's count.

HOWEVER: According to Wiki, McEnroe had 3 "Tour Final"/The Masters wins (1978, 1983, 1984), AND 5 WCT title wins- (1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1989). What makes this all especially headache-y is, if I am remembering this correctly- for some years, the ATP had, basically, two tournaments that were quasi "ATP Championships"-level tournaments- one that went by the name of WCT Finals, and one in Wiki calls the Tour Final (I believe Pepsi was a sponsor of this for awhile?) They were indeed held at different times for each year. From what I recall, these would have been considered as more important (or at least on the same level) than the Roland Garros- and especially the Aussie Open- would have been for at least some of the years that McEnroe won these tournaments. My best guess would be when he won these championships from the late 70's to at least the early '80's.

IN any case, I stick to that, with both tours, there were years when the Roland Garros and especially the Aussie Open were not considered to be at the level of Wimbledon and US Open title wins. (*Albeit, to be VERY clear, I'd never want to detract from all of Borg's Roland Garros wins, especially when Borg won Wimbledon and Roland Garros from 1978- 1980).

Sorry for my confusion here!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEnroe

[ponchi101]

That the Aussie had lean years there's no doubt about it. That it was the least appreciated of the Slams neither. But I would not go to the level of diminishing it. A Slam is a slam and the Aussie has too much history.
The WCT. The WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR was that parallel tour that was directed by Lamar Hunt (of NFL KC Chief's fame) and that ran a series of tournaments, all parallel to what was a true amalgam of tournaments all over the place. It was the early years of the Pro tour, and the players played wherever and whenever. A lot of tournaments were unsanctioned. And the WCT had its finals, which were NOT the same as THE MASTERS, which was the one held in NTC MSG. That is the reason it was so confusing.
Sidenote. The WCT final in 1972 between Rosewall(w) and Laver is usually considered one of the greatest matches of all times. In those days it was not televised outside the USA. But it was one of the truly important matches that fueled the growth of tennis, at least in the USA.

[nelslus]

That the Aussie had lean years there's no doubt about it. That it was the least appreciated of the Slams neither. But I would not go to the level of diminishing it. A Slam is a slam and the Aussie has too much history.
The WCT. The WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR was that parallel tour that was directed by Lamar Hunt (of NFL KC Chief's fame) and that ran a series of tournaments, all parallel to what was a true amalgam of tournaments all over the place. It was the early years of the Pro tour, and the players played wherever and whenever. A lot of tournaments were unsanctioned. And the WCT had its finals, which were NOT the same as THE MASTERS, which was the one held in NTC MSG. That is the reason it was so confusing.
Sidenote. The WCT final in 1972 between Rosewall(w) and Laver is usually considered one of the greatest matches of all times. In those days it was not televised outside the USA. But it was one of the truly important matches that fueled the growth of tennis, at least in the USA.

Again, to be clear, many tennis historians and journalists would agree that the Aussie and Roland Garros tournaments were not considered to be the true biggest tournaments some years. Johan Kriek- an excellent player, but NOT otherwise a true Slam contender- won the Aussie in 1981 and 1982- both against American Steve Denton (who did won a doubles Slam title). Kreik was the #1 seed in 1982 at the Aussie. 1980- Brian Teacher beat Kim Warwick. 1979- Vilas beat American John Sadri. (Vilas was the #1 seed, John Alexander was the #2 seed.) 1978- Vilas beat John Marks. 1977- Gerulaitis beat John Lloyd.

It truly is NOT the case that one can just say "a Slam is a Slam", when, for many years, they had nowhere near the field of Slams. (The Aussie prior to the Open era for man years was mostly Aussies only playing, for example).

[mick1303]

Ok, this is true about Australian Open, but starting the beginning of the 80s the trend changes and it becomes on par with other Slams with regard to the best players present in the draws. So what is your point in the context of G.O.A.T. discussion? Those who benefited most from winning Oz Open were Emerson and Court and this was mostly preceding Open Era. Early AO winners like Gerulaitis, Tanner, etc were never a part of the discussion. IMO if we count those early AOs as legitimate Slams, it does not affect the outcome of determining who is the G.O.A.T. in the meaningful way.

[ashkor87]

RG teaches us, yet again, not to take the warm-up tournaments to a grand slam too seriously . Madrid, Rome, did not foreshadow the French...even W, last year, Rybakina did not win any of the tournaments leading up..
We can speculate and talk about why they is so, but that it is so, is not to be denied ..this year also, I doubt Queens, Eastbourne etc will tell us much about Wimbledon! They are important in their own right, of course.

[ponchi101]

My $0.02.
In the ATP, NOTHING is an indicator of Slam performance as long as Novak is in the mix. He can skip all previous tournaments and it will mean nothing to the outcome of his eventual victory.
In the WTA: I will take that as proof of the equality of talent in the tour. And when everybody is so close to each other, getting into a streak is difficult.

[ashkor87]

Equally, nothing is an indicator with Swiatek in the mix..! Except grass of course

[nelslus]

Ok, this is true about Australian Open, but starting the beginning of the 80s the trend changes and it becomes on par with other Slams with regard to the best players present in the draws. So what is your point in the context of G.O.A.T. discussion? Those who benefited most from winning Oz Open were Emerson and Court and this was mostly preceding Open Era. Early AO winners like Gerulaitis, Tanner, etc were never a part of the discussion. IMO if we count those early AOs as legitimate Slams, it does not affect the outcome of determining who is the G.O.A.T. in the meaningful way.

My bringing all of that up has NOTHING to do with the GOAT discussion. Again- Novak wins. I'd think almost all of would concede this. That debate's over, at least until one of Roger's, Rafa's, Serena's and/or Novak's kids wins 30 majors. We're discussing other tennis concerns here. IMO, a review of the recent discussion in this thread between ponchi and me makes this clear. NOT GOAT-related.

My review was due to ponchi posting that tennis greatness should involve 10-plus Slams, and that "A Slam is a slam and the Aussie has too much history." I've already given examples of when, for example, the Aussie clearly was not a big deal for the ATP tour, at least. Thus, for example, IMO, McEnroe is a great player- especially as, during some of his earlier playing years- Roland Garros and the Australian Open, at least in plenty of folks' views, weren't as big a deal as, say, winning an ATP Championship. McEnroe won plenty of the equivalent ATP Championships. So, in my view. viewing someone as being one of the highest level of greats, including total Slam title wins of course, should also involve how many big tournaments players were won- especially those that were considered at those times as being more of the "majors" of their player careers.

IN any case, I don't think even in this current era that 10 plus Slam titles should be required to be considered as being one of the greats. LOL, not that I can give any definitive magic formula for what should define a tennis great. But, say, someone gets to 8 (7?) Slam titles, they win many tournaments, and have some No. 1 years, etc.- that automatically makes them a tennis great for me.

Mind you- I am also MORE than fine, at least for now, with ending the GOAT and what-makes-a-great-tennis-player debates. I've certainly run this discussion into the ground.

[ponchi101]

As Nelslus says, it is not longer about the GOAT. Case closed (for the men).
Where Nelslus and I disagree is about the "status" of some slams, and for that matter, tournaments. For example: Ashkor, further up the topic, talks about "the warm up tournaments", i.e., the tournaments prior to a Slam. I find that view to be a bit demeaning of a lot of great tournaments that cannot be seen as simply warm ups to any of the slams. The "Canadian Open" has a very rich history and it would be unfair to treat it just as a "warm up" for the USO. Monte Carlo cannot be seen as simply a warm up for RG, and neither should Rome.
So, Nelslus and I disagree on the status of the Aussie during the lean years. I wonder: do we disregard the Aussie during the 60's? Sure, we take away Emerson's 6, but then, do we take away Laver's?
I agree and accept that during the late 70's and 80's the field was super slim; heck, Vilas, who was really helpless at Wimbledon, won it twice. But he is still very proud of those wins (saw it in an interview down here).
About greatness: Ok, I yield. Yes, Connors, Lendl, Andre, Mac and Mats are greats. I guess that I have to admit that I am also affected by these 30 years of GREAT GREATNESS (I'm including Pete).

[nelslus]

As Nelslus says, it is not longer about the GOAT. Case closed (for the men).
Where Nelslus and I disagree is about the "status" of some slams, and for that matter, tournaments. For example: Ashkor, further up the topic, talks about "the warm up tournaments", i.e., the tournaments prior to a Slam. I find that view to be a bit demeaning of a lot of great tournaments that cannot be seen as simply warm ups to any of the slams. The "Canadian Open" has a very rich history and it would be unfair to treat it just as a "warm up" for the USO. Monte Carlo cannot be seen as simply a warm up for RG, and neither should Rome.
So, Nelslus and I disagree on the status of the Aussie during the lean years. I wonder: do we disregard the Aussie during the 60's? Sure, we take away Emerson's 6, but then, do we take away Laver's?
I agree and accept that during the late 70's and 80's the field was super slim; heck, Vilas, who was really helpless at Wimbledon, won it twice. But he is still very proud of those wins (saw it in an interview down here).
About greatness: Ok, I yield. Yes, Connors, Lendl, Andre, Mac and Mats are greats. I guess that I have to admit that I am also affected by these 30 years of GREAT GREATNESS (I'm including Pete).

WELL. At least you can FINALLY be correct about SOME things then....

Indeed, the 10+ Slam greatness standard is just too high for the non-freak monster champions. We'll have to see. But, it IS hard to think we'll ever again have an era like Novak/Rafa/Roger.

[ti-amie]

The era of 20+ slam winners on either tour is done. I think we were lucky to live through and experience it. If any of the current crop win more than/come close to 10 Slams I'll be shocked. Our standards have to be lowered.

[ponchi101]

...

WELL. At least you can FINALLY be correct about SOME things then....

Indeed, the 10+ Slam greatness standard is just too high for the non-freak monster champions. We'll have to see. But, it IS hard to think we'll ever again have an era like Novak/Rafa/Roger.

Oh, you and I are old enough to realize we saw ALL the Golden Eras. The Borg/Jimbo/Mac era. Then, we had the almost immediate overlap of the Mac/Lendl/Stefan/Boris, followed by Pete/Andre, and then these three monsters.
I gather I can't say there won't by anything like this ever again. But the chances that I will be here to see it are slim indeed. This won't happen again.