During the Roland Garros men's final match, I heard John McEnroe describe all the improvements that Rafael Nadal has made to his game. Let me first assure everyone that I find McEnroe to be an excellent color commentator. He is entertaining and fun, and obviously reads the game very well. Therefore, even when the best in business get caught up in the moment and make a "far out there" remark, it shows that everyone is prey to the seduction of exaggeration.
But to list the areas where Nadal has improved and to include in that list something absurd like "one can make a solid case that he is a better volleyer than Roger Federer" is simply beyond common sense. Okay, Johnny Mac, take a deep breath.
Then it got me thinking: when he makes that assertion, most casual tennis fans probably believe it. What else have exaggerations made people believe? What legends and myths have actually crossed the line between reality and fantasy?
Let's start with another McEnroe comment that I have heard many other announcers repeat also (especially the male announcers): Justine Henin's one-handed backhand is the best shot in women's tennis. Sorry, but no! Yes, it is a beautiful-looking shot with solid fundamentals; yes, she can use it to add variety, but gentlemen, come on! Just because a WTA player hits a one-handed backhand, it does not make it a sensation, certainly not the best shot in women's tennis. It is not even Henin's own best shot, albeit a fantastic one.
Henin will often run around her backhand to hit her real number one weapon (her forehand) to finish the point. She will rely more on her forehand to hit winners from the back of the court than her backhand, because she trusts in her forehand more to hit a winner. Finally, on faster surfaces, more powerful players have hit hard to Henin's backhand to break her game down; the Williams sisters used that tactic successfully many times at Wimbledon.
So this love affair that male announcers have with female tennis players who hit a one-handed backhand needs to end. Yes, the latest Roland Garros winner, Francesca Schiavone, has a one-handed backhand, Amelie Mauresmo had a nice one-handed backhand, and Henin may have the best one-handed backhand in recent years, but let's leave it there and not blow it out of proportions please. There are several players in the last decade in WTA who have better backhands than these players, but who happen to hit it with two hands. And because of it, they can hit better angles, can handle power better, and can return better. Fascination with a female tennis player hitting a one-handed backhand should not lead to unwarranted emotional exaggeration.
Another exaggeration is the impression sometimes created that, back in the 1970s and '80s, everybody played serve-and-volley. While it is true that Wimbledon's grass and the different pressured balls during those days favored the serve-and-volley style player more than today's Wimbledon, the ATP tour was by no means dominated by serve-and-volleyers like you would hear in the tall tales of today. There were plenty of Guillermo Vilas, Corrado Barrazzutti, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Ivan Lendl types of players since the beginning of the Open Era in 1968. Even before these guys above, Ken Rosewall dominated Roland Garros and many other clay court tournaments for many years by emulating a backboard from the baseline.
While a general observation that the number of serve-and-volley style players have declined in the last two decades is very accurate, to say that everybody rushed to the net after their serve prior to that period, or that the game was dominated completely by serve-and-volley style, is nothing short of an extreme exaggeration and mostly inaccurate.
The last exaggeration that I will mention is a total creation of the American media led by Bud Collins; their relentless campaign during the last several years to make the number of Slam tournaments won the single most important record in tennis, and one that should be the main tool for measuring the greatest player of all-time. Isn't it funny that until the '90s, it was rarely mentioned, and the calendar Grand Slam was rather held at the highest esteem? The big question was who will be the next one to win the Grand Slam since Rod Laver, or who will even get close to Borg's record of five Wimbledon titles in a row?
Then, all of a sudden, Pete Sampras started winning a large number of Slam tournaments. When he reached his 12th and surpassed Laver and Borg, it was the perfect opportunity to all of a sudden exaggerate the Slam number and basically declare it, out of nowhere, as the number one tool for determining the greatest player of all-time. Sampras was an American and the timing was perfect. That is all that Collins, the McEnroe brothers, Brad Gilbert, and Cliff Drysdale talked about for many years ... until Roger Federer ruined the party.
But they tried hard to hold on to Sampras, by exaggerating the importance given to the number of Slam titles. They held on to it for dear life when Federer began to break all the other records one-by-one, the number "14" became all that they talked about; it was the only thing that was left for them to talk about. Never mind that by the time Federer had his 12th and 13th Slam titles, he was more accomplished than Sampras in many categories, never mind that on clay, one of the three major surfaces on the tour, Sampras was never a top-five player during his career (and many years, quite mediocre), never mind that Federer had winning streaks that Sampras never saw in his dreams. All that mattered was that Sampras had 14 Slam titles, so he was the greatest player of all-time, period.
Let me pause here and reaffirm that number of Slams won is indeed an extremely important number in the discussion of who is the best player of all times. But it's only one of several records. How about the distribution of your success on every surface? Or how about the following records:
* Winning Wimbledon record five times in a row like Federer and Borg?
* Winning U.S. Open five times in a row (Federer)?
* Winning Roland Garros four times in a row (Nadal, Borg)?
* Winning the Grand Slam (Laver)?
* Playing 23 Slam semifinals in a row (Federer)?
* Most weeks at number one (Sampras ahead of Federer by one week)?
* Winning a Slam title without losing a set (Borg three times, Nadal twice)?
* Winning all four slams (Laver, Agassi, Federer)?
* 96% winning record in one season (J. McEnroe in 1984)?
* 81 clay court matches won in a row (Nadal 2005-2007)?
* Only one single match lost on grass from 2002-to-present (Federer)?
These are just some of many that come to my mind immediately. I am sure there are more, but the relentless efforts of the American media in trying to reduce the measure of greatness into one single number in order to keep Sampras floating above everyone else, even though he lagged behind in most other categories, was not only unfair, but downright silly. After all, how else can you call a player who won one European clay court title his whole career and a total of three on clay the greatest of all-time? But Federer spoiled that, too, by passing Sampras' record by two more Slams.
One thing that they did succeed is to blow up the importance of Slam titles, although it was not their main goal. Now we hear constantly that Federer has 16, Sampras has 14, and Nadal has just won his seventh, will he reach that level? Let's say that Nadal wins two more Roland Garros titles and reaches nine, and then he stops there; shall we consider him better than Andre Agassi in the history of the game just based on that number since Agassi has only eight? Shall we not consider the fact that Agassi won the career Grand Slam, and that his career lasted close to 20 years?
Or let's say that Nadal wins another six Slam titles in upcoming years, including the U.S. Open, to have 13 Slam titles. Are we to say that Nadal is still behind Sampras, who never reached the finals of Roland Garros and never established any type of remote dominance on clay over the rest of the field, only because Nadal has 13 titles, while Sampras has 14? Finally, if Nadal win three more Slams, including the U.S. Open and has 10 Slam titles, does he still remain behind Borg who has 11, but has never won the U.S. Open or the Australian Open?
The American media who has focused on that number so much during the 2005-to-now period for the reasons mentioned above, and convinced the somewhat casual fan I might add, that it is the only number that determines greatness, would like you to believe that it's how it works. Sorry, Bud Collins and the rest of your crew, but come on, stop exaggerating.
If any readers have noticed other exaggerations gain momentum in the tennis world, feel free to share them. Until next time!
June 8, 2010
Enis Oksan:
Another masterpiece! I think those commentators need to add much more depth during lives games as a reflection of their immense experience. I mean sometimes I feel like even a tennis enthusiast but a struggling 3.5 like me can say most of the things that likes of John McEnroe and others say in those games. I’m sure they can do much better. They are too repetitive.
June 8, 2010
Michael Kreider:
Another thought great piece of tennis insight by Mertov The Turkish Tennis Master. Mertov definitely knows who he is. Opinionated to a fault, but if you read him often he serves up far more Aces.
June 8, 2010
Brad Oremland:
Great work as usual, Mert. In fairness to Sampras, his seven singles titles at
Wimbledon are unmatched. As far as a complete game, though, he simply didn’t have one, as you noted.
June 8, 2010
Isik Okte:
Another thought provoking piece by the Turkish Master…the media always needed to ”hype” somebody not for the good of the game but for ratings…Sampras’ dominance was not something they liked so they hyped Agassi even at his worst…Federer’s dominance was the same - they needed to hype somebody and because they could not find any current player to hype, they hyped Sampras and his ”history” vs. Fed. This is a silly game media plays all the time and intellectual tennis minds never fall into the trap…we know what real greatness comes from and it does not come from the number of Grand Slams won…
June 8, 2010
Scott:
to counter your argument,there are also plenty of advantages one has hitting with one handed backhands as opposed to two hands….more slice,more chip,more spin and overall more variety. and yes you can also find angles with one too. there is also an aspect of defense in a one-hander which really limits a two-hander.
don’t get me wrong,i agree there are great two-handers as well but to say critics go too far lauding the very few female players that have one is wrong. it’s a dying art-form and hardly any of these two-handed players know how to hit shots with the kind of craft and option that say a francesca schiavone or suarez navarro can.
as for justine,particularly,indeed she was often given the spotlight for her’s and to be honest it is rather overrated. i agree with that. as you said,it wasn’t her weapon…it wasn’t what won her slams,it was her forehand. personally,i’ve always preferred the backhands of mauresmo and schiavone….and way back when conchita martinez. momo and schiavo in particular their weapons have been their back-hand. and besides that,their backhands have always been more fluid,more controlled. with justine however,she tends to get a bit too wristy and it doesn’t look quite as elegant and she often shanks balls out of nowhere.
June 8, 2010
Mert Ertunga:
Thanks for the comments so far.
Enis, overall I like John McEnroe, I think he is very entertaining, he just gets carried away with his emotions at times, but then again didn’t he as a player too? :)
Isik, and Michael, I think you guys went overboard with your praise of me too :)). Thanks for the kind comments. Isik, ratings was a big part of it as you have said.
Brad, there is no doubt that he owned Wimbledon in the nineties.
Scott, I agree with you about the variety of a one-handed backhand. I think a two-handed backhander can play defense just as well and even turn defense into offense very quickly (like Nadal showed), but Federer showed also that one-handed backhand can play defense as well (Wimbledon final 2009), so I am 50-50 on the defense issue. There is no doubt that a stylish one-handed bakchand is wonderful to watch.
Mert
June 8, 2010
Luke Broadbent:
I agree, especially on the greatest player debate. What I find is that there is often an ignorance towards the game’s past, particularly before the Open era.
I mean something that I found out on my own, by accident, some time ago was that before the Open era the professional tour had three major tournaments, one in the US, one in Britain and one in France. These were the premier events of the time for the professionals, but because they weren’t the more established Slams it seems as though the tennis media has removed them from history as they are never talked about. If these events more acknowledged more then the likes of Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall would have amazing stats.
I think it’s a sad case of affairs when some of the game’s history is forgotten, which appear to be what’s happening. I may have to write an article touching on some of it.
June 9, 2010
Mahesh:
hi mert,
nice article and very insightful facts… just wanted to add on to some more and also challenge some points you mentioned above….
points to add to measure one’s greatness include:
- Roger holding the max no. of consecutive weeks of no.1 title
- Even roger has won a slam without dropping a set - 2007 australian open
as for a point to challenge - i personally dont consider rod laver’s achievement as great as many of the other things achieved by others. this is more so because the 4 slams then were played only in two surfaces - grass and clay…. had that been the case in borg’s days, even he would have won the calendar slam maybe 3-4 years… perhaps consecutively also. so its very difficult to put laver’s calendar slam ahead of others just because he wasnt tested across surfaces….
nice article though… really liked reading it.
June 9, 2010
Jackie Cross:
Hi Mert,
Long time no see!
You must agree that Federer has more style to his game, I love to watch him move about the court so gracefully, he moves with so little effete.
Well Nadal, he works hard at what he does, I know he his a winner,but will his body hold up in years to come?
June 9, 2010
Mert Ertunga:
Luke you bring up a good point. I believe the US one was played on hard courts many years. In the lack of hard court Slam tournaments in the amateurs it would be interesting to see who won those and how well they did on other surfaces.
Mahesh good point about the surface distribution of Slam tournaments. However, Laver won on big hard court tournaments against the best in the field also. Nevertheless, your point is valid.
Jackie, you bring up the million dollar question about Nadal. He has already had some physical problems and had to lighten up on his schedule. So far so good, let’s see how this new approach does in the years to come.
Wonderful input you guys!
Mert
June 25, 2010
Nnamdi Ngwe:
Great stuff again Mert!
I’m a fan of all those greats mentioned above. Sampras was fantastic in his time but I don’t think he was as dominant as Nadal and Federer. I fully agree that the media goes nuts with these stats to try and build up or put down a great player. They do that in their “major” sports too. Michael Jordan is the best because he won six championships. What happens if Kobe’s team wins again next year? Peyton manning wasn’t a “great” quarterback until his team won a championship either.
Weird
June 26, 2010
Mert Ertunga:
Great comparison and input Nnamdi! Thanks for reading as usual!
Mert
July 14, 2010
Selim:
Thanks for the great article Mert. Couple of more impressive records jumped to my mind as I read your article, just wanted to share those:
- Sampras holding the year-end #1 ranking most consecutive number of times (6 times - he says in his autobiography that this is the record he cared the most about)
- Lendl playing in 8 consecutive US Open finals
- Connors winning 109 singles titles
- McEnroe winning 77 singles & 77 doubles titles (and being only one of 2 players in Open Era to achieve #1 ranking in both singles and doubles - the other one Stefan Edberg)
- Borg doing the “Channel Slam” or the “Borg double” (French Open + Wimbledon) in 3 consecutive years
July 20, 2010
Feyz:
Another great one Mert. Keep them coming ;)
One criteria that Jackie mentioned and I wholeheartedly agree is the beauty of the game. In that category, among the players I’ve watched, Roger and Justine pretty much tops the list. When we mention the “greatest” of all time, we should put this in as a weighted input, too. I’d love to watch Roger playing even after he’s no longer on the charts, even after he’s not a factor on the slams (God forbid.)
Having said that, I believe 23 Slam semis in a row is the most amazing, most unattainable of it all. In such a competitive and individualistic sport, this kind of consistency is unmatched. And the prolonged success in sports is far more admirable than sudden outbursts of brilliance. I believe this’s why we (the world) put Muhammad Ali (3 times champion, even after a gap of 3 years), MJ (6 times, 3+3 with comeback), and Raul Gonzales’ (66 CL goals in 131 games over 14 seasons) of the world in a different category.
And if I start to write about media hype and the ratings etc, if I go back to 2002 Western Finals b/w Lakers and Kings, I’ll get emotional and I won’t stop. So let me not…
July 20, 2010
Mert Ertunga:
Selim and Feyzo,
Thanks for some great comments. Selim, the last one about Borg is indeed the most impressive out of all those that you mentioned, although it seems that Nadal may possibly break that record.
Beauty of the game… hmmm… Good idea but very subjective Feyzo. Rod Laver’s game looked beautiful and effortless too for example. Your point is nevertheless well-made, hardly anyone can argue that Federer is not one of the “smoothest operators” in the history of the game.
And just to make you emotional again.. Hedo passes the ball to a wide open Peja, Peja shoots the three…. and… off the rim :((
Mert