Once in a while, I will get into discussions with friends, tennis fans, and even on a few message boards about some of the specious points of views lingering around tennis circles and clubhouse dialogues regarding men's tennis. It never ceases to amaze me to find out that people have developed opinions based on spurious facts, or simply based on something that they have heard so many times that they now believe it to be genuine and sound.
In the process, facts become distorted, certain players undeservingly become failures, and what starts out as a harmless exaggeration turns into a "well-known fact." Unless anyone takes the time to do a little research and find records or facts, these claims turn into "common knowledge" in the blink of an eye. Some of these may sound obvious to people who follow tennis closely. My advice to them is to bring these up with their friends and see if it's that obvious to them also. I doubt it.
Let's start with one that I hear more often than any other, and yet it is perhaps the easiest to find out with a few clicks on the Internet. It's the misguided notion that Rod Laver won all his titles during the amateur era, hence should not be considered when debating who should be the greatest player in the history of the game.
Just to set the record straight, Laver won the Grand Slam twice, the second one being in 1969, more importantly, during the open era! To exclude Laver from the open era discussion would be no better than excluding Rubik's cube from an '80s games discussion or excluding Bob Marley from a history of reggae discussion.
Another misguided fact about Laver is that he was lucky because three of the four slams were played on grass. Roger Federer and Pete Sampras fans love mentioning this, in hopes of eliminating Laver from the greatest of all-time discussion, in favor of their idols. Unfortunately for them, it does not change the fact that Laver won French Open twice, which their idols have yet to do once, and won many important tournaments on various surfaces, including the Italian Open on clay, U.S. Pro hard courts in Boston, and Philadelphia Indoors, to name a few. If this does not sound convincing enough, just to name a few, put your idol against Tony Roche, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, and Stan Smith on grass back in those days and see if he can win all three grass court slams in the same year.
Simply put, the man was a winner on every surface, indoors and outdoors. Out of major players since the start of the open era, Roger Federer, Andre Agassi, and Bjorn Borg are the only ones who have proven to be winners on every surface (sorry, John McEnroe, Sampras, Mats Wilander, and Ivan Lendl fans).
Speaking of Federer, that brings up the next fallacy. Who in the world started the rumor that Federer is a weak clay court player? Superficial followers of tennis who only see the red dirt occasionally during Roland Garros pickup the newspaper on Monday following the tournament, see that Federer did not win it, and label him as a clay court failure. Not only Federer is an excellent clay court player, he is probably the best clay court player for the last three years outside of Rafael Nadal, who himself happens to be the best clay court player in the history of the game (okay, I am willing to entertain the Bjorn Borg vs. Nadal clay court discussion, but only because it's Borg). If it takes Nadal to dethrone Federer from being the best on clay, I will argue with anyone and everyone that Federer is one of the best clay court players in the open era.
Here is another good one: Borg never won the U.S. Open nor the Australian, therefore he should not be included in the discussion with Federer, Laver, and Sampras. Please! During the late-'70s, none of the top players bothered to go to Australia to play. Borg declared many times, he would have gladly gone to Australia if there was a chance to complete the Grand Slam for him (back in those days, Australian Open was the last Slam to take place). He did not because he lost four times in the finals of the U.S. Open, twice to Jimmy Connors and twice to John McEnroe.
The U.S. Open for Borg was not the same case as Sampras at the French Open or Lendl at Wimbledon. Borg could win on all surfaces and reached the finals of U.S. Open twice on hard courts, losing to the best talent tennis has seen in those days by the name of John McEnroe. Even when he passed up on the French to prepare for Wimbledon, the best that Lendl could do was to reach the final. Sampras was quite miserable in Paris outside of one semifinal appearance. This is not the case with Borg and the U.S. Open. And just for good measure, think of how many players won Roland Garros on slow clay and came back few weeks later to win Wimbledon on slippery and fast grass, just once. Well, Borg did that three times in a row.
I will finish with the latest invalid belief. It's the one claiming that Rafael Nadal is strictly a clay court player and has not proven himself on any other surface. It's a matter of time before Nadal wins a Slam other than Roland Garros. In fact, if not for Federer, Nadal may have won on grass courts of Wimbledon already. He has already won several big hard court tournaments, including a title in Dubai's hard courts with a win over Federer in the finals. At this point in time, I am willing to go even a step further and claim that he would be the best player on all surfaces if Federer was not around. Nadal and Federer are both getting these undeserving reputations because they happen to be playing during the same period.
At the end of the day, I love discussing the game and the players. Setting the record straight happens to be a necessary evil that comes occasionally with those pleasant debates.
July 17, 2007
carmen dunbar:
Just for the record if you rgard Roger Federer as a winner on every surface please remember that Ivan Lendl won Wiombledon as a junior and he also won Queens on grass during 1989 and 1990
July 17, 2007
Ricky:
“Nadal and Federer are both getting these undeserving reputations because they happen to be playing during the same period.”
great point
July 17, 2007
Shraddha:
HI,
I did not read the whole thing but as I am a die hard Nadal fan , I loved te part regarding the denial of Nadal being strictly a clay court player and i completely agree to the fact that federer and Nadal do not deserve such specifications. Nadal played awesome during the finals of wimbledon2007 and if he had served better, he would have won it.
July 17, 2007
Frances:
So what is your conclusion? Laver is the greatest player of all time to date? I think that’s what you are saying.I’m confused as to why Federer and Nadal are compared in the same category.Roger has 11;Rafa has 3 Slams.I’m predicting that it will be another 2-3 years before Rafa has any victories on other surfaces if ever.Why? Because Roger beats everyone but Rafa;while Rafa has many opponents who can take him to 5 sets and also beat him.
Best ever still Laver,perhaps.But I believe will be Roger in a year or two.
As for Nadal serving better ;unfortunately he can’t serve better due to playing left handed when he’s naturally a right hander.The advantage he has over Roger in playing double handed to Roger’s single handed backhand is nullified by the fact that he then has to serve with his left hand.
July 17, 2007
tenniscritic:
Sampras won on clay too, just to set the record straight. He won Rome, a Masters series tournament, in 1994.
July 17, 2007
Mert Ertunga:
Thanks for the comments so far..
Carmen, Lendl comment was Wimbledon specific. But even with the two Queens titles I would not see him the same as Federer on clay.
Shradda and Ricky thanks for the notes.
Tenniscritic, one title on european red clay for 14 year career that spans 14 Slam titles does not make Sampras a winner on clay.
Frances, yes I do believe Laver is still the greates player of all time, as you said, Federer is getting close.
Mert
July 17, 2007
Glen Janney:
Good article, except for all of the “If only this..”, and “If only that..”.
Well Federer DID serve way better than Nadal at WImbledon, Borg DID refuse to go to Australia.
History will tell who is the greatest of all time, but as of right now one thing is certain: Over the last four years Federer has been the most DOMINANT player in tennis history.
July 17, 2007
toots:
mert! who’s this guy borg that you are talking about? was he a tennis player?! hahaha
Nice artice….I agree with you, if it Nadal and Federer weren’t playing at the same time I think they would both win all four and get the grand slam. Time will tell if either can achieve it!
July 17, 2007
leila:
Shraddha - Federer is an excellent returner so even if Nadal served better at Wimby it would not have made a difference I think. True, Federer wasn’t at his best in the first 4 sets but if you’re thinking he got lucky in the 5th, the score in that set was 6-2 and not 7-6 in another tie break so luck had nothing to do with it. Nadal had his chance to break Federer on his serve twice but he couldn’t. Instead it was he who got broken twice because of Federer’s brilliant tennis that was clearly missing in the previous sets.
Mert - nice article.
July 18, 2007
MikeZ.:
Lendl won tournaments on all surfaces, for example Lendl won Queens.
July 18, 2007
jai:
MikeZ (and Carmen above) Ertunga’s unique point here about Lendl v. Federer is that despite the results of lendl on grass sort of matching Federer on clay (there is no grass masters, so its hard to really equate), they are not equal players, and I agree with Ertunga on this.
First, as the article mentioned, you have a difference in competition. If you accept Nadal as one of the two best clay-courters ever, then Federer could be as great ast the third best ever, and still not have an RG title. Despite being a huge Fed fan, I wouldn’t rate him THAT highly, but the point is, he can be evaluated independently of Nadal as a top-notch clay player.
Lendl on the other hand had a chance to take Wimbledon in a lull between Jmac/Connors and Sampras, when Becker, Edberg, were “dominating” Wimledon, and lesser grass players like Cash, Stitch, and Agassi managed to take titles. Basically, Lendl should have won during that period.
Also, lets not forget that Federer has a whole half a career ahead of him. Two Wimbly finals was Lendl’s absolute peak, after he dedicated his tennis life to grass.
I’m more partial to Wilander, who managed to win two Aussie Open’s on grass (beating Lendl once actually). Sure, he doesn’t have near the results that Federer will have (or even currently has) but he made 3 Slam finals each on Grass, Hard, and Clay and managed to win 2 Slams on each surface. That’s something special.
July 18, 2007
Mert Ertunga:
Jai,
Speaking of WIlander (good points you make), he also won Wimbledon doubles with Nystrom, two guys who could not volley or serve very well at the time..
Take care
Mert E.
July 19, 2007
Tom Kosinski:
Interesting article Mert. I think a point you make without saying is that right now there are only two players at the true top. In Laver’s days the draws were smaller and the players much more of an equal caliber. Rosewall, Hoad, Fraser, McKinley, Emerson, Santana, Stolle, Sedgeman, Ralston in the late 50’s and early ’60s then Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Emerson in the late 60’s.
Nadal should have won Wimbledon, but you have to give Roger his props. I’m still reserving greatest of all time status. Measuring by number of major titles alone is wrong. Pete won most of his titles on grass. My favorite surface, but still makes Pete much more unisurface, like Nadal. One of the more interesting things needing to be added to the mix is how many titles would Laver or Rosewall have won between ‘62 and ‘68 had they not turned pro? Don’t think we would even be having the Federer discussion.
Nice article, and great comments.
tom
July 24, 2007
grant:
like many americans you dismiss lendl with no good reason, lendl was a 2 time finalist at wimbledon and made the semis another 4 or 5 occasions. Also a 2 times champion at queens and in 1983 was runner up at the aussie open when it was still played on grass. while grass was definetly lendl’s poorest surface he was still a much more accomplished player on grass than federer is on clay, a look at their records should tell you that.