By Gene Desrochers
Since we have the 2008 Australian Open coming up in January, I've decided to ask, who's the greatest male tennis player of the Open Era (1968-Present)? I ask this question of an individual sport that I know a little something about. Although I will not be very scientific, I will begin the debate and hopefully the rest of you will continue it. Let's get started.
Let’s start with the obvious stat of who's won the most majors in his career. Here is a list of contenders. By my standards, if you are not on this short list, you get no consideration. Sure, there are guys who were immensely talented, who only won one, or two, or zero titles, but we are not discussing talent. We are discussing the actualization of work ethic plus talent plus mental fortitude, and career achievements. To that end, I offer in order, with the number of grand slam singles titles to their name the following:
John McEnroe, 7
Mats Wilander
Jimmy Connors, 8
Ivan Lendl, 8
Andre Agassi, 8
Rod Laver, 11**
Bjorn Borg, 11
Roger Federer, 12*
Pete Sampras, 14
I know, there are names not on the list that you might feel have been slighted, such as Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Arthur Ashe, Jim Courier (you should be ashamed of yourself), Gustavo Kuerten, Guillermo Vilas, etc. However, as great as these men were, they are not worthy. Furthermore, you might ask, where the heck is Roy Emerson, with twelve grand slams? Well folks, since Roy won his last title in 1967, and won none in the Open Era, he does not qualify.
So here goes. We have four main criteria: (1) Work Ethic; (2) Talent; (3) Mental Fortitude; (4) Accomplishments.
Under criteria number one (1), all of these men excel, or they wouldn't be here. However, a couple stand out for doing more with the talent they were given than any of the others. Federer clearly puts in his hours and stays healthy, the hardest thing to do on today's grinding circuit. McEnroe makes a weak showing in this category--definitely the most disappointing on this list. He hated to practice, using doubles as his workout, and quit the game for over half a year in his prime, never to recover fully (it's rumored he was partying with rockers and doing drugs the entire time). Wilander stands near the top for doing the most with the least physical gifts. Like his countryman, Borg, his work ethic was strong. Connors too did more with his 5'8" frame than anyone else and was legendary for his cardiovascular workouts. Lendl was Czech, so it goes without saying, he worked his butt off. Agassi, while slacking early, came on strong after age 29 and for the latter half of his career ranked as one of the hardest working men on the tour with grueling strength-based workouts. Laver was known to be in good shape, but I don't know much about this area of his tennis. Sampras, worked hard, but his fitness was always his weakest point. However, his work ethic with respect to improving his strokes was the best out of all these players, having changed from a two-handed backhand in his early teens. He constantly improved his serve, volleys, overhead, and forehand throughout his career. While Sampras was not a tiger on the practice court, he would save it for big matches and performed admirably in grand slams for he knew that was what history would judge him by.
In the talent category, McEnroe and Federer stand alone among tennis players in recent memory, and probably in all memory. As Mac once said, "I have more talent in my pinky than Lendl has in his whole body." There is no doubt that McEnroe only winning seven slams, and never winning the French or Australian, makes him the biggest disappointment on the list. Federer has already established himself as a man of exceptional focus. He has accomplished everything expected of his talent and has surpassed his early stage mental weaknesses. On the other end, Wilander probably had the least talent with Lendl following closely. Both made up for it in other ways by developing their strengths and attacking opponents' weaknesses. Borg, Laver, Agassi, Connors, and Sampras were all comparable in talent, although out of them, Connors was probably the least gifted.
Next, we have mental strength. Many say Borg exhibited great mental strength; after all, he was the only guy McEnroe behaved for. Others say no one was stronger than Wilander. But, the ultimate test is the ability to close out a match; to put your opponent out of his misery and bury them when the time came. This title goes to Sampras. In a total of eighteen slam finals; he lost four matches, two of those losses coming late in his career. Even Laver, with all his titles and two Grand Slams, could not boast that winning percentage, losing six times in seventeen appearances. All of these men were fighters, but like Joe Montana at the quarterback position, if I wanted one guy playing for me in the big game, it'd be Sampras.
Finally, we have accomplishments. Sampras with his lofty record of fourteen slams certainly makes a strong case in this category too. Federer now stands in second place with twelve slams and counting. Furthermore, his streak of over 200 consecutive weeks at number one, eclipses the previous streak held by Connors at 160 weeks. Agassi and Laver stand out as the only guys with all four majors in their pocket, making their achievement special. Each distinguishes himself from the other because Laver did it in one year (twice) and Agassi did it on four different surfaces. Borg and Federer share the record of five Wimbledons in a row. Mac's record of 82 wins and 3 losses in 1984, make it the greatest single season ever. Connors' record of 109 singles titles makes a case for him in this arena. Lendl held the no. 1 ranking for 270 total weeks and 157 consecutive weeks during the 1980s. There is of course, Laver's grand slam year of '62 and '69, the rarest feat in tennis, having only been achieved by one other man, Don Budge in 1938. In terms of accomplishments, Laver and Sampras stand alone, having the two highest total numbers and distinguishing themselves in the types and ways. Laver held all four twice and Sampras won the two most cherished titles, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, a total of twelve times. But none compare to Federer’s astonishing slam feats over the past three seasons. He currently has been in ten, yes, ten grand slam finals in a row. He has won three of the four majors for two consecutive seasons. He continues to amass records at an astonishing rate, including another year-ending Master’s title.
Agassi finally realized his great gifts, but perhaps too late in his career to match the accomplishments of one such as Sampras. Wilander and Borg quit at age twenty-six and Laver missed a bunch of years between '62 and '68 because he turned professional (he needed to make a living) and the slams were not part of his tour. If McEnroe had held his temper in check just a little more, maybe he never would have taken that career ending sabbatical. However, we can only look at the actual events, not what might have been.
Having paused and reflected on all the criteria, and accepting the fact that Federer could still alter his total, I would already say that Federer stands at the top of the heap as a combination of mental toughness, accomplishments, and work ethic, even at this early stage. Should he win the French or surpass the fourteen slams held by Sampras, Federer will remove all doubt as to who the greatest ever is.
* Still playing and currently number one with no end is sight, must be given consideration due to age and seemingly unlimited potential.
** Only five of those came in the Open Era, but since he won the Grand Slam in '69, the only man to do so in the Open Era, makes strong case.
Keywords: greatest ever, men's tennis, player, tennis
