Comparing Tennis Eras, Why Federer’s Second Half Matters

Wimbedon’s first week is midway and tennis pundits will discuss how much more Roger Federer will extend his lead on the other all-time great tennis players in the great players’ Pantheon.  Disbelievers will be silenced looking for arguments like, ”Could Federer have beaten Becker, Edberg or McEnroe on fast courts?” or “If Federer couldn’t beat an aging Rafter or Agassi before they turned 31 how could he beat them at their best?”.   If you have heard the reply, “can’t compare eras tennis”, you are not alone as Googling for that statement comes up more than 2 million times in results.  But you can compare eras.

We at Secada Labs have analyzed more than 3,000 tennis matches played between all time greats, “The Pantheon” and other slam winners across the Open era(s) and more than 1,400 matches between the 16 players who comprise “The Pantheon”, winners of 4 or more Grand Slams during the open era.  Using our patent pending SITDON and SATERICCON methodology and based on our copyright pending SHOTS framework, we have come up with an absolute measure of tennis greatness.  The framework and metrics answer 3 questions.   (1)  How do you measure all time greatness?  (2) What was the level of greatness of any player in the tennis pantheon at the time they were playing?  (3) What was the level of greatness of the field of any tournament won by an all time great?

The Pantheon of All Time Great Players
4 Slam Victors or More (top 16)
Roger Federer		Mats Wilander
Pete Sampras		Stefan Edberg
Bjorn Borg		Boris Becker
Jimmy Connors		Rod Laver
Ivan Lendl		Jim Courier
Andre Agassi		Guillermo Vilas
Rafael Nadal		Ken Rosewall
John McEnroe		John Newcombe

Federer’s Rank Among All Time Greats

We ran the analysis and Federer ranked no greater than 6^th on all time basis on any surface even when weighted in favor of his “volume” of slam victories rather than the average competitiveness of those wins.   Indeed, 5 players, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and 3 Americans, Pete Sampras, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors ranked ahead of Federer on a weighted average basis on his two best surfaces and Federer ranked 7 overall on a blended basis.  Sampras, Edberg and McEnroe ranked ahead of Federer on both surfaces.  We think back to the old Reebok commercial where Shaq is faced with the Pantheon of great centers, he shows his prowess and they reply, “That isn’t enough” .   Federer’s record of beating tennis also-rans with a rapidly diminishing tournament record has not been enough.  The last part of Federer’s career will determine his place in the Pantheon.

Before drilling down into the numbers there are 3 philosophical arguments that are the basis of the study and need to be asked in any comparison.

Comparing All Time Greats

(1) How do you compare all time greats?  Does the level of competition matter.  Does Muhammad Ali’s triumphs over 6 heavyweight champs in or near their prime make his fights more meaningful than Larry Holmes victories over an aged Ali and Ken Norton and a succession of unknowns?   Does the Quality (Q rating)  of who you beat or the Q rating of the overall tournament matter as much as what you win?

(2)  Though all time slam records matter, any determination of greatness would be determined by a tournament of champions or long term competition.  So though people may say that Federer’s defeat of an aging Sampras long past his Wimbledon peak is exemplary of his likely outcome with Sampras (we disagree), the question remains how many times would Federer beat Sampras out of 10 matches, 5 out of 10, 6 out of 10?  Could Federer win in a tournament of 16 people where he could face an Agassi or Connors in their prime in the first round, then Lendl or Vilas then Edberg or Becker before he ever faced Sampras?  We know the answer to that for Sampras as he is one of the few who has won such a tournament as have Edberg and Becker.   The answer is unknown for Federer.

(3)  If grand slams or “Majors” are the gold standard of measuring tennis success and championships are the coin of the realm, what happens when the gold in the coinage is diluted?  In the book “eight centuries of financial folly” The authors stated “Many of the earliest financial crises occurred when monarchs of a country reduced the gold or silver content of their coinage to finance budget shortfalls”  Did rule changes occur in tennis that diluted the value of slam championships by increasing the likelihood that top players would reach later rounds as seeded?  Did rule changes occur, (like slowing down the court and balls at Wimbledon) that favored one style of play over another. Although our study eliminates equipment changes  as a factor in greatness, 2001 tennis rule changes have had many unintended consequences that unequally favor a champion over challengers and certain styles of play over others.

More to come in our next part – The 2002 Slow Court era – Saving the Tennis Brand

Note:  Credit goes to Phil Secada, who is loosely associated with Secada Labs for serving as a backboard and devil’s advocate about these concepts with respect to Federer all time.