ADDING THEM UP – MEASURING TENNIS GREATNESS
We’ve covered how Roger Federer stacks up vs the other all time greats on an all surface basis. Our methodology, SHOTS , argues that for tennis greatness it is important to establish a consistent framework. SHOTS relies on 2 metrics we created, SITDON, which looks at career winning percent between all time greats, Pantheonists, vs. each other and SATERICCON, a multi-dimensional snapshot of the competitiveness of open era slams ranking each one of them. When we aggregate the results of those slams for each winner, it gives us a portrait of the all time most competitive slam champions, those players who were greatest when greatness was required. So rather than hypothesize, we look at player records, value the toughest tournaments and add them up. In the absence of an alternative methodology, we provide a robust framework to answer the question, who really is the Greatest Tennis Champion.
Breaking out Federer’s match record by surface, he places 7th at Wimbledon in SATERICCON score vs. Sampras who comes in first with a 2.63 ranking. Sampras may not have a 2.63 times greater chance of winning a Wimbledon championship than Federer (though we think it is somewhat indicative). But he is more likely to win such a championship where players have won 2.63 times more slams than in Federer’s era. (Remember that we have adjusted the SATERICCON rating to almost double Federer’s chances of winning a slam vs all time greats based on cumulative rather than average score. ) Some consider Sampras’ victory in 1993 to be the greatest Wimbledon. Quarterfinalists included 6 slam winners (Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Stich, Courier and Sampras) and 2 multi-slam finalists (Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline). However, Becker’s 1989 victory had 4 quarterfinalists that had won as many grand slams as the 1993 quarterfinalists combined (Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander). Both are great feats and show the confluence of great all time players and styles in that era.
Again, SATERICCON Analysis shows the quality of a player by the field they defeat. Not surprisingly the 4 toughest Wimbledon’s occurred within a 6 year time frame, between 1988 and 1993.
A similar story plays out at the US Open where Federer places 6th to John McEnroe’s 2.93 cumulative rating. Though some have argued that Sampras’ first US Open victory was the hardest with 5 Pantheon quarterfinalists (McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi and Becker), on a SATERICCON basis, Edberg’s 1991 victory had at least the same difficulty and his 1992 victory was superior with 5 Pantheon quarterfinalists (Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Lendl) plus Michael Chang, a slam winner. McEnroe had a similarly challenging 1980 victory with 4 Pantheonists (Borg, Connors, Lendl) and multi-slam winner, Johan Kriek.
Again, SATERICCON Analysis shows the quality of a player by the field they defeat. Not surprisingly the toughest US Open’s are concentrated in two eras when great new talents emerged to challenge the established talents still in their prime. 2 of the top 5 occurred when McEnroe and Lendl came to challenge Borg and Connors and the remaining 3 occurred when Agassi, Sampras, Courier and Chang came to challenge Becker, Edberg and Lendl.
When taken on a weighted average across fast surfaces Federer ranks a cumulative 7th on the SATERICCON scale. Though Borg never won the US Open his cumulative Wimbledon score puts him ahead of Federer. Likewise, Becker and Edberg who won less than half the titles of Federer, rank ahead of him when you consider that they played at the nexus of all time great play.
When reviewing the fast surface data, we do a reality check of Federer’s play vs. comparable players who emulated the champions listed above him. With a 10 year age difference there is insufficient match experience between Federer and Sampras to make a judgement, though Sampras frequently won tournaments at least twice as difficult as Federer and served 5-10 mph on average faster. Federer lost to Nadal on fast courts many times. Would he do any better against a left handed serve and volleying McEnroe. Using Federer’s record against Agassi prior to Agassi turning 33, would Federer do well against a left handed, tough returning player like Connors? Finally, Patrick Rafter dominated Federer before he retired, would Federer do better against Stefan Edberg who stylistically is a similar yet vastly superior player to Rafter?
When we started this discussion of all time greatness, it was pre-Wimbledon before Rafael Nadal won his 2nd title in 4 consecutive finals. Nadal fits the prototypical model of the Pantheon players as a teenage winner of a slam or a person who wins a slam within a year or two of turning pro such as Connors in 1974. All of the top 5 Pantheon players established themselves this way but not Federer who finishes 10th all time / all surface via SATERRICON . Nadal is likely to move to #2 all time with his next slam win based on his SATERRICON rating while still maintaining the highest winning percent among Pantheon players via SITDON analysis.
We now look at Nadal’s French Open record. Nadal’s French Open record is marked by his victories over Federer in 3 finals and 1 semifinal and Federer’s participation in each quarterfinal during Nadal’s era. Borg’s era is marked by the absence of great clay court players and the retirement of the great Aussie generation early on and Lendl’s is hindered by his quest for a Wimbledon title where he skipped multiple French Opens. In Lendl’s absence, Wilander and Andres Gomez (who Lendl handily beat 4 times at the French Open) won the title.
Again, SATERICCON analysis shows the quality of the players by the fields they played against. Not surprisingly the toughest French Open’s involve the Lendl – Wilander rivalry which saw many great multi-surface matches and by Jim Courier’s two year dominance of the surface over Agassi.
To improve his legacy, Federer will need to do more as the path of his career continues to mirror Sampras with fewer victories and even less victories against other grand slam winners. A US Open, Wimbledon or Australian Open win against Nadal (the French seems out of the question) and tournament wins over the next generation of greats will be significant and could improve his SATERICCON ratings so he passes Becker and Edberg. Sampras, Borg, Nadal and McEnroe seem unobtainable and surpassing Connors will depend on his success against a younger generation of future slam winners perhaps including Juan Martin Del Potro (should he return successfully from wrist surgery) and maybe Sam Querrey as both Nadal and Djokovic are on the down side of their career grand slam trajectories and are unlikely to add significantly to their totals. We don’t see a new generation of players on the horizon like Sampras and Agassi or Lendl and McEnroe that will catalyze the game via a great rivalry with Federer and Nadal.
Secadametrics's Blog 