The Tennis GOAT (OT)

Most sports fans don't follow every sport, and not everyone likes sports at all. Even people who don't, though, will pay attention when something really spectacular happens or someone really special comes along—such as, say, Usain Bolt.

Well, it's that time, so perk up. The U.S. Open in tennis starts tomorrow, and one of the very rarest accomplishments in the entire sporting multiverse is, for once in a blue moon, ripe for the plucking...the fabled Grand Slam.

In tennis, there are four major tournaments. Each are played over a two-week period. In calendar order, they are: the Australian Open, on hard courts, in January; the French Open, on clay, from late May to early June; the oldest tennis tournament in the world, The Championships, AKA Wimbledon, still played on grass and universally accepted as the most prestigious tournament in the world, in late June to early July; and the U.S. Open on hard courts in late August to early September (now).

Winning all four in the same year is called the Grand Slam. The Grand Slam, unfortunately, is extremely difficult—perhaps too difficult—and correspondingly rare. Only two men have ever done it: Don Budge of the United States in 1938 (my late brother Scott took tennis lessons from Mr. Budge) and Rod Laver of Australia, who did it twice, in 1962 and 1969. The great German champion Steffi Graf is the only player other than Laver to win a Grand Slam in the open era.

Because the true Grand Slam is so rare, there's a whole tangled history of trying to make it easier to accomplish. For example, when someone holds all four titles simultaneously but not in the same year, it is awkwardly called the "non-calendar grand slam." That was official for a brief time, but no more. And then there's the "career grand slam," meaning a player has won each major at least once in his career. Even that's rare: only five men have done it in singles in the open era.

The switch from the French, on slow and slidey clay, to Wimbledon, on unpredictable fast grass, with not even a month between them, is particularly grueling and challenging—particularly because many players tend to do their best only on their favorite surfaces, and clay to grass is as far apart as tennis surfaces get. The French-Wimbledon pairing, informally called the "channel slam," is considered to be the most difficult segment of the Grand Slam, and only five men have ever accomplished that.

A little digression: originally it was considered genteel for sportsmen to be amateurs. In the 1960s, the tennis landscape split into two: the best players became professionals and were banned from the amateur tournaments. The trouble was, the public wanted to watch the best players. So in 1968 everyone was brought together again in what is still known as "the open era," when both amateurs and professionals were allowed to play in most tournaments (these days, amateurs are rare in tennis, as in golf). Rod Laver's career was split in two because of the turmoil: he won the Grand Slam as an amateur in 1962, turned pro in 1963, and was not allowed to play in the majors again until the open era began in April 1968, at which point he promptly won the grand slam again in the first full year of the open era, 1969. This is the reason Laver was the consensus choice as the men's GOAT (greatest of all time) in tennis until recently.

With me so far?

How many majors a player has won is considered a basic mark of greatness. When I was young, Roy Emerson of Australia led the record books for the men, having won 12 major championships in his career. Even the great Björn Borg of Sweden (listen to how it's really pronounced—it might surprise you) "only" won 11 majors, but he retired in the middle of his prime at the age of only 26 (for comparison, Jimmy Connors of the United States retired at 43 and Roger Federer of Switzerland, who celebrated his fortieth birthday earlier this month, won his most recent major at 36). Even with his early retirement, he's still number six on the all-time list. After Borg, Pete Sampras of the United States broke new ground by amassing 14 major titles, including the last one in which he competed, after Emerson's record had stood for 30 years. Sampras's game had no weaknesses—if you were going to design a player with ideal skills on paper, it would be Pete. Wikipedia says, "At the time of his retirement [in 2003], many regarded Sampras as the greatest player of all time." Amen to that. I certainly thought so...in 2003. Given the huge purses and the depth of talent in modern tennis, it was a record that looked an awful lot like it could never be broken.

But it wouldn't even last very long, as it turned out. Because then came Roger and Rafa.

Rafael Nadal of Spain and Roger Federer have had one of the most spectacular rivalries in the history of the game. Together, they dominated men's singles for years. Federer, who scored an important early victory over a fading Sampras, his childhood idol, when he was only 19, broke Sampras's majors record with his 15th major title at Wimbledon in 2009, and surpassed Sampras's seven Wimbledon titles with his eighth in 2017. Meanwhile, Rafa Nadal owned the French Open, which is played on clay, a slower surface that rewards power and consistency, winning an astonishing 13 French titles, more than any other player in any major. By 2018, Federer had won his 20th major, a number which even as late as that year seemed all but untouchable.

But along the way, something really astonishing happened. Despite Federer and Nadal's overpowering dominance, a third player, Novak Djokovic (of Serbia, not previously known as a tennis powerhouse) actually managed to shoehorn his way into the top echelon of the game, right in the heart of the Roger-Rafa era and in the face of their formidable opposition*.

His breakout year was 2011, during which he compiled a combined 10–1 record against Federer and Nadal. He was undefeated from the beginning of the year until the semis of the French, when he suffered his one loss to Federer; he won all three of the other majors. By July 4th he was ranked No. 1 in the world, a ranking he retained for the rest of the year. His match record for the year was 70–6, and he won ten tournaments in total. It was one of the half-dozen or so best years by a male player in the whole history of tennis.

...That is, until this year.

In any event, it's no longer the era of Roger and Rafa; for some time now we've been in the era of the "Big Three." Look up almost anyone's list of the best male tennis players in history, and the top three will almost unfailingly be some ordering or other of the Big Three: Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic.

Rafael Nadal caught up to Federer's 20 majors titles in the French Open last year. Astonishingly, Djokovic, at the 2021 Wimbledon earlier this Summer, has joined the two of them with 20 majors titles, meaning that at that time there were three active players who each hold 20 major titles. To longtime tennis fans, this is not only unprecedented, it is fantastic and incredible, almost difficult to conceive. How in the world did each of them get to 20 while giving the other two 40?

Very improbably, a case can actually be made right now that Djokovic is already the GOAT. He leads both Federer and Nadal in head-to-head matchups; he is the only man in the open era to have covered the career grand slam not only once but twice, the only man to win the channel slam twice, the only man to win three of the four majors in one year three times; and he has surpassed Federer's previous world record of 310 weeks at the No. 1 ranking (another record that once seemed insurmountable) with 336 and counting. He has beaten Nadal twice in the French Open, at Nadal's best tournament on Nadal's favorite surface, clay, and he's beaten Federer three times at Federer's best tournament, Wimbledon, on his best surface, grass. While it's true that Djokovic has "only"(!) won six Wimbledon titles, he's lost fewer finals too—he's six for seven while Roger's record is eight out of 12.

So here's what's happening: Djokovic is having another spectacular year. He has already won the first three of the 2021 major tournaments, meaning, he's three-fourths of the way to the true Grand Slam and enters the U.S. Open tomorrow with a chance at it. And both Nadal and Federer are out of the U.S. Open tournament because of injuries. Federer has a bad knee which could possibly end his career, and Nadal announced a week and a half ago that he is out for the season with a recurrence of the foot injury that has dogged him in the past. Furthermore, reigning champion Dominic Thiem of Austria will not be defending because of a wrist injury. Thiem has beaten Djokovic five times in 12 tries, which is not shabby.

These absences might even be not such a good thing for Djokovic: you can make the case that his toughest competitors bring out his best. And it hardly turns the U.S. Open into a walkover. Any given day, and all that. There are other players capable of beating Djokovic. Everyone will be gunning for him, and it's simply not an easy task to win a major tournament that draws all the best available talent. There are all sorts of chances for all sorts of things to go wrong—witness last year, when Djokovic smacked a ball in frustration, inadvertently hit a line judge in the throat, and was defaulted (disqualified) from the tournament by rule. But there's currently not anyone even close to Djokovic's No. 1 ranking; he's having a spectacular year; he's supremely fit**—and he's been there, having already won the U.S. Open on three separate occasions (2011, 2015, and 2018).

He has a great deal to gain, too. A Grand Slam in tennis is like catching lightning in a bottle. There are superfans who think it will never be accomplished again, that Laver will be the last. Even to go into the year's last major with a chance at it has got to be a rare thing***. Serena Williams had a chance at it and tragically (well, to me) fell to a relative unknown who was swinging the racquet more freely. But this much is for certain: the stakes are epochal. If Novak Djokovic pulls this off, he will decisively pull ahead of his two contemporaries and rivals in the GOAT discussion. The "Big Three" will dissolve. He will stand alone.

So can he do it?

Just the chance of it is deeply exciting to tennis fans, who feel like we're seeing history.

...And now, if you don't normally follow tennis, you're up to speed too, so now you can enjoy it as well. See what reading good old TOP does for you?  :-)

I sure wish Scott were here to see this! He would be loving it.

Mike

*You can look at this two ways, though. Djokovic himself has said that competing against Federer and Nadal helped raise his game to its current level. Without them, he might not be where he is.

**By the way, I can't help mentioning that he follows a whole-food plant-based diet of the type I've advocated here, and he credits it in part for his energy, fitness, and stamina. I know, I know, the old joke—"how can you tell someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you." Still....

***I couldn't find the stat.

Book o' the Week

Bystander: A History of Street Photography by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz (Laurence King Publishing, 2017). First published in 1994. In this revised edition, the story of street photography is brought up to date with a re-evaluation of some historical material, the inclusion of more contemporary photographers, and a discussion of the ongoing rise of digital photography.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Bystander at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim: "Great post, sir. Your excitement and enthusiasm shine through in every line! I have never struck a tennis ball in anger or in competition, but it is my second favorite sport to watch. Cue sports, either any of the American billiard games or snooker, are my all time favorites. Anyway, I am excited as can be for the Open to begin this year. Too bad Rafa and Federer (or Serena) won’t be there, but it’ll be a great time!"

dgray: "This is a nice summary of the current conversation about tennis, but in comparing players of different eras it is always good to remember that the modern discussion of greatness includes different elements in the mix than it used to. Judging players' careers based on Grand Slam titles [i.e., major titles —Ed.] is a relatively new criterion. It wasn't that long ago that many of the sport's top players didn't even bother to travel to Australia for that open because of the expense, disruptive travel logistics, and place in the calendar. The difficulties didn't seem worth it in a time when Grand Slam titles were not hailed as the primary goal of the tennis schedule. This is one of the reasons why you see the local Australian players dominate the tournament results in earlier years. This skews the results for earlier generations. Navratilova has said that if she knew her place in tennis would be judged solely on Grand Slams she wouldn't have skipped Australia so many times. The prominence of Grand Slams has changed the way players schedule their years and what they peak for. Serena Williams, for example, despite her longevity and incredible number of GS wins is only eighth on the all-time list of most total titles won by a woman. Because GS singles' titles are so valuable, top players also rarely play doubles in today's game. If we include doubles' titles as part of the criteria then again Navratilova has a jaw dropping 59 GS trophies. Media coverage and the sport's popularity have basically changed the rules of determining greatness, and each generation has played to its own rules."

Mike replies: Very true. I'll just add that there may be a new reason for players skipping the Australian: because Australia might require a mandatory quarantine for players this coming year. Few top players can afford to take two weeks out of their schedules, never mind the logistics of access to practice facilities and practice partners while in quarantine. I just saw an interview with a top female player who said she would skip the Australian if the country is still requiring a hard quarantine when tournament time comes around. 

As for the rules being changed, I'll just point out that my initial expertise in photography was as a B&W darkroom expert! You can guess how marketable and in-demand that expertise is now. Want to hear all about the ins and outs of archival standards for washing fiber prints, or how contrast filters affect paper curves? I'm your man.  :-)

ASW: "I don't really watch tennis anymore, but reading this made me remember how much time I spent watching (and enjoying) as a kid, in the era of Agassi, Sampras, Jim Courier, Michael Chang. I think Jimmy Connors was still playing as well. The funny part is that I watched on a 13-inch black-and-white TV, and because we lived in a rural area the reception was...not good. In my memory at least, I couldn't even distinguish the (tiny) ball from the rampant static, yet I fondly remember watching hours and hours of matches. Now I have a perfectly good 39-inch/1080P TV (even color, but I'm not bragging) that I have never watched tennis on. Maybe I should give tennis another try, now that I can likely see the ball!"

Michael Fewster: "As a tennis player(still) and student of the game for some 70 years...I had to comment. Everyone forgets Pancho Gonzales. In the golden era of Australian tennis, the Oz greats still spoke of Gonzales with awe. Turning professional and then taking on Gonzales was the supreme test, even as Gonzales aged. The power of his serve was legendary. And we are taking wooden racquets and gut strings. I understand that a forehand of his was once timed at 112 MPH. Shot-speed measuring didn't happen often in those days. That's very fast for a forehand even by today's standards. When the open era arrived, Gonzales was in his 40s. At 41, he beat Laver, and he regularly demolished Emerson when he emerged. I'm Australian and old, but for my generation, Gonzales was supreme. It is worth reading an account of his career to get a grasp of just how good he was and why he never makes it into the lists."

Comments

[Trevor Johnson]

GOAT should not be about 'mere' statistics.

Rod Laver is probably the best male tennis player of all time. Billy Jean King the greatest female player.

Jack Nicklaus, the best golfer of all time and I saw him play, and win, many times.

Jim Clark is the best Formula 1 driver of all time, ( I once saw him race; I was a small boy). Both Fangio and Senna thought so.

[George Swann]

The only tennis player to achieve a Golden Slam (the 4 Majors and Olympic gold medal in the same calendar year)was Steffi Graf in 1988. “I'm not in touch with Steffi, but if you can connect her, I would be delighted to ask her how she did it,” Djokovic said, recalling how he briefly worked with Graf's husband, Andre Agassi.

[J. D. Ramsey]

Eastern Europeans often get underrated by Americans. Maybe it is something to do with the difficulty in pronouncing their names when they are read in print, or they have an appearance that doesn't equate to the appearance that Americans find attractive (i.e. Ivan Lendl who was #1 203 280 weeks - non-consecutive). There seems to be a bias when it comes to eastern Europeans. On the female side how many recall Hingis, Seles, Wozniaki - with the exception of Navratilova who exiled to the U.S.? While tennis fans consider Djokovic among the greatest of all time (and maybe THE GOAT), he doesn't have the name recognition in the U.S. that one might expect).

[That's ironically rather a bigoted claim itself. Scott was a big fan of Martina's and I was a big Hingis fan and Nastase as well. We followed Lendl as closely as any other great player. I've liked Novak since before 2011. And it's been noted many times that New York crowds at the Open are very generous with their applause to the opponents of American contenders. I get tired of anti-American generalizations. Yes, I know we're a big target. --Mike]

[Andrew Bearman]

Truly an extended golden age of tennis we are living through.

I agree with you on Djokovic. Plus, he's still got a few more prime years ahead.

What about women's GOAT?

Chris Evert agrees on D'joker as GOAT, and on Serena:

"Many consider Williams the GOAT including Evert but with a caveat.

'If you put all the best tennis players of all-time I would say Serena,' Evert told FanSided’s Da Windy City podcast. 'If you said most accomplished career, I would say more Steffi (Graf) and Martina (Navratilova). They have better numbers. They have a better percentage of winning, they won more tournaments they just won a couple of less grand slams but they are better in all the other categories.'

Evert has the numbers correct. Navratilova has 167 tournament wins, Graf 107 while Williams is 8th all-time with 73. Both Navratilova and Graf have slightly higher win percentages as well."

https://fansided.com/2021/08/29/chris-evert-picks-novak-djokovic-and-serena-williams-in-the-goat-conversation/

[Daniel]

I will still go with Rocket Rod Laver.
Aussie Power and drive as big as his heart.

[Tom Burke]

You’re right, of course - Novak probably is the GOAT, although Federer’s achievement in the same era as Novak and Rafa, at his age, is also extraordinary. But I’m a Brit, and I’ll be always an Andy Murray fan. Sadly he only won 3 Major titles; there were also 8 defeats in Major finals, all to either Roger or Novak. Ranked 4th (just behind the big 3) at year-end eight times.

On a really, really good day he could beat them; two of his Major finals were victories over Roger and Novak, and on his way to the finals he lost, he generally beat one of them in the semis. In any other era he would have won much more, and he did finally reach world ranking #1 at the end of 2016.

But sadly I have to agree - Novak Djokovic may well be the greatest tennis player ever. What’s certainly true is that tennis fans have been privileged to have seen the matches over the last 20 years.

[robert e]

Here's that stat you were looking for, courtesy of the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/sports/grand-slam-novak-djokovic-us-open.html

"Aside from Budge, Laver and Djokovic, only two other men, Jack Crawford in 1933 and Lew Hoad in 1956, won even the first three Slam events. (Both did nearly get their Slams in the U.S. Open, losing in the final, Crawford to Fred Perry and Hoad to Ken Rosewall.)

"Since Laver’s last Slam, only three men won even the first two events before Djokovic this year, Mats Wilander in 1988, Jim Courier in 1992 and Djokovic himself in 2016."

Thanks for the great sum-up of what's at stake. I knew about it, but not so neatly and completely.

For those looking for more spice, the official website usopen.org is hosting a bracket challenge and a fantasy league.

Re players pushing each other to be better: I used to think Federer and Nadal had robbed each other of even more titles and greatness (e.g., for a number of years Fed was the best clay court player in the world, except for Nadal; and eventually vice versa for Nadal on fast courts). But now I believe Djokovic is right--none of the Big Three would have been nearly as great without the others. And not just as rivals to beat--I suspect they inspire each other as much as they inspire the rest of us, even if not from the same perspective.

[Patrick Wahl]

Interesting writeup. I have followed tennis since the McEnroe and Connors days. Its popularity seems to come go in the US depending on whether or not there is a successful American tennis player (male mostly) currently playing, and right now it does seem to be on one of the downswings in the US.

Anyway, random thoughts – I'm a Federer fan, and if, I know, a huge if, the all time best clay court player hadn't come along at the same time as Federer, he would have what? maybe another 5 majors under his belt. One of the rare players who is good on all surfaces. Most of them have their bugaboo surface. Sampras couldn't do anything in the French, Borg never won a US Open, Lendl couldn't break through at Wimbledon, etc.

If you think of what it means for 3 players who are contemmporaries to have won 60 majors, and it doesn't quite work out this way of course, but if they were all compressed into consecutive years, that's 15 years of only 3 people winning the majors. Amazing to have that concentration of talent.

[robert e]

Notable sidebar to the Grand Slam conversation is the history of the Australian Open, which for decades was a smaller, low-paying event that many non-Australians considered not worth the time or expense. On top of that, it took place during the winter holidays (it didn't move to mid-January until the mid-80s).

Borg entered once, when he was 17. Connors competed twice. Agassi didn't bother until late in his career. Evert skipped it more often than not during her best years. She also skipped other Slams. They just weren't what they are now. During the first decade of the Open Era, pros didn't take them as seriously. There was more money and prestige available elsewhere, and I suspect some hangover from the amateur era ban as well.

[darlene]

I have never paid much attention to tennis, but now I feel I am "up to speed". Superb article, thanks!

[hil]

Looking forward to the Open! Growing up, my idols were Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver. Both belong in a top five of all time discussion. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are certainly moving up in the rankings!

[Yonatan Katznelson]

Exciting (tennis) times indeed, and thank you for the vegan joke. I hadn’t heard it and I have a niece-in-law it fits like a (non-leather) shoe.

Also – I am sorry for your loss of Lulu. She was such a constant presence in your blog, I can only imagine how much more of a constant presence she was in your life.

[Stavros C.]

Thing is, a sport like tennis is not only measured in numbers.

Djokovic might well get many more Grand Slams, but he will never have the talent and grace of Federer, nor the power and grit of Nadal. He is winning so much simply because he has robot-like consistency: Where others will tire and falter after 5 hours of tennis, his physical condition allows him to play at full speed.

For me (and that will always be subjective of course), Federer is the GOAT, followed by Nadal, simply because he took tennis to a different level during his prime. His Wimbledon matches against Nadal are pretty much over half of the top-10 tennis matches of all times, and that alone should give credit to my claim for those two.

[My personal feeling is that the best tennis players are those who dominated their eras--so for me it's Tilden, Laver, Borg, and Sampras so far, with the inclusion from the Big Three still to be made after they are all retired.

In pool there is a player named Efren Reyes, from the Philippines. He is called "The Magician," and he legendary for the brilliance of his play--he sees things other players don't, he makes shots other players can't, and he is amazingly inventive and audacious. Federer is the Magician of tennis, and I agree that he wins on these kinds of criteria--grace, style, improbability, elegance, finesse. Who but Federer can hit a *winner* between his legs, or a *backhand* leaping overhead? He's amazing. But he might not come out on top by the numbers as the leading player of his era when all is said and done. --Mike]

[Bear.]

I didn't know Rod Laver was still playing competitively.

[Kye Wood]

Mike. He's an anti-vaxxer.
An incredible athlete he may be. But his choices on life issues,which include diet, are tainted by his anti-vax stance.

[Peter Croft]

"and not everyone likes sports at all." I have trouble reading that.

And a rule I learnt in primary school 60 years ago:
each
every
either
neither
none

Each is singular; every one is singular;... none is plural, and so on. Sorry to be pedantic.

[Paul]

Steffi Graf actually accomplished something even rarer, winning the golden slam, with all major titles plus the Olympic gold medal.

[Yeah, but that only became a thing because she did it. The Olympics only come around once every four years. It's not viable as a "fifth major." --Mike]

[Gerard Geradts]

And how about their respective favorite DSLR-brand?

[Francisco Cubas]

I just dislike Djokovic antics so much... But then, you can't argue with the numbers. Allthough, coming from football (the real one), where is never entirely what you do but how you do it that matters, I have to say that, as an avid fan (I once watch a next day repetition of a whole Nadal-Federer Australia final with a friend, and we both already knew the final score) for me Federer will always be number one: the beauty, the fluidity of his game, gliding like some artistic ice skater, hiting all kinds of balls, seemingly effortlessly. Nadal for me was always his unique talent for the clay and a relentless heart, all effort and strong mentality. DJokovic must be the most resilient player ever, with the best deffence skills and a mentality even stronger than Nadal's.

I didn't know about that hiatus in Rod Laver's carreer. Being excluded from grand slams during six of his prime years certainly makes a strong case for him as the GOAT.

[Jeff]

I especially admire how he refined his game over time, not just relying on natural talents. This sums it up…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/32073734/how-novak-djokovic-mastered-faults-become-goat%3fplatform=amp

[Kirk Fisher]

Hard to explain Djokovic's complete collapse at the Olympics. But yes, we've seen a remarkable span of greats in the last 15 years.
I still kind of miss the elegance of Roche, Laver, Emmo, etc.

[robert e]

A footnote: Apparently sales of tennis equipment in the US boomed during the pandemic--up 40% according to one source, and still up. That's no surprise, of course: tennis has always been a socially distanced yet social activity, and good outdoor exercise, and tennis courts are pretty ubiquitous in the US.

[David Lee]

Nadal and Federer are class acts. No comments on Djokovic.

[Kinloch MacGregor]

If he were to win this year’s Grand Slam, I think Novak might always wonder what would have happened had two and possibly three of his greatest threats been healthy… Rafa, Roger and Dominic.

[David M Bostedo]

Great article... but I take exception to one small passage:

"Djokovic has... lost fewer finals too—he's six for seven while Roger's record is eight out of 12."

That's not at all a positive for Djokovic. It's basically saying that you're better if you lose early, rather than lose in the final match, because then your record in the final match will look better. Getting to the final match is always better than not getting there.

If they'd been to the same number of final matches, then sure, their records would be directly comparable. Otherwise having "less final matches lost" is not a logical thing to use as a positive attribute.