Tennis: Men's Singles History Since 1950

Spoiler Alert

The GOAT is NOT Djokovic, Nadal or Federer

Singles tennis is fairly unique amongst pro sports. Mano a mano. It has a similar appeal to boxing and MMA in that respect.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all reached twenty majors. A bunch of others could have reached that plateau, as well, over the years, but for one reason or another, it

didn't happen for them.

The Open Era began in 1968 when the majors allowed pros to play. The two players who were hurt the most, legacy-wise, by the ban of pros before then were Laver

and Rosewall. Laver ended up with eleven career majors victories. Before he turned pro, he won the grand slam in '62 at the age of twenty four and after the

tournaments became open in '69, Laver proceeded to win another slam in '69 at the age of thirty one. In all, he missed 21 majors in the prime of this career.

One would think that Laver would have had a legitimate shot at winning maybe half of those, which would have put him in the twenty range.

For Rosewall, he missed forty five majors in his prime. He turned pro in 1956 at the age of twenty two and didn't make it back until '68 at the age of thirty four.

Despite missing all of that time, Rosewall did manage to play in forty two majors at the fringes of his career with a tremendous showing of eight titles, eight runnerups

and nine semifinals appearances. That's twenty five of forty two tournaments in the money when he was very young (under twenty two) or very old (over thirty four).

That's a remarkable run that no one else comes close to matching. If Rosewall merely matched his success at the fringes during his prime, had he been allowed to play in

the majors, he would be right there with the others in wins and light years ahead in finals and semi finals appearances. By the projected numbers, Rosewall is clearly

the GOAT. Altho', not so fast. Laver would have won his fair share against Rosewall, so he could, arguably, claim to being the goat.

Meanwhile, no disrespect to Roy Emerson, but he took advantage of the absence of Rosewall and Laver, who he was clearly inferior to, to rack up twelve titles in the

breach. I doubt If he would have had any if the other two were around. Not that it was Emerson's fault, of course.

The American era came next after the great Aussies started aging out. Jimmy Connors was never the most talented guy. His talent level got him to the semifinals of

majors a lot. After that, it was his sheer will to win and competitiveness that took over. I've never seen another tennis player like Connors. The farther he was down in

a match, the harder he played and the tougher he was to beat. It was fantastic to watch. He was obnoxious, but he was impressive. He embodied the American spirit,

since long lost, of that time. When I played tennis and somebody better was whupping me, I folded like a pathetic beach chair. Connors was just the opposite and that

always impressed me.

Then there was McEnroe. My favorite tennis player and favorite announcer of all time. A quintessential New Yorker (I'm from New York) who could never suffer fools

(neither can I), John was my guy. An obnoxious New Yorker, but a winner. He represented America well. McEnroe was well on his way to a GOAT-ish career when he

hurt his back at the age of twenty six and was never the same player afterward. He left another good seven or eight years of great tennis on the table as a result.

John had seven majors titles, he could have had a lot more.

McEnroe was also the catalyst behind Bjorn Borg quitting. Borg started winning titles in '74 at the age of 18 and never stopped until he retired in '82 at the tender age

of twenty six. In his eight year run, Borg won eleven of the twenty one majors he entered. Borg only played in two Australian Opens, winning one. He would have

won a whole bunch of those, as well, if he chose to play in them. A funny thing happened to Borg. After total domination, Bjorn lost back to back finals in '81

to McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US Open and promptly retired. Until then, Borg was invincible. It was no coincidence that the Borg on Star Trek, who

were invincible and emotionless, were named the Borg. Borg was tennis's version of The Natural. He made it look so easy. He was clearly the best tennis player of

his time and, if you watched him play, of any time. He was also clearly more talented than the extremely talented McEnroe. Yet, McEnroe, with smarts, guile, wits

and pure determination, beat Borg twice. Borg, apparently, couldn't handle it and quit. On the one hand, you have tremendous respect for Bjorn's talent, second to

none. On the other hand, what a wimp! McEnroe, meanwhile, was not revelling in his defeat of the invinceable. Borg took John's game to heights he never thought

possible. It was a real blow to John not to have Borg around to try to conquer anymore.

Tennis had a real different vibe back in the day when Connors and McEnroe were around.

The Eighties and Nineties were the Golden years of tennis. There has never been as much primo talent around before or since even without Borg in the mix, McEnroe

injured and Connors aging out. You had the Swedes, Mats Wilander and Stefan Edberg, the brilliant Boris Becker, the stoic and relentless Ivan Lendl plus all of the

young American talent coming in led by Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Jim Courier. It was no cakewalk, even into the quarterfinals, of any of the majors.

Maybe that's why so many guys like Edberg and Becker burned out by the time they were thirty. Those two retired at thirty. It was fierce.

The young Americans then came on to dominate in the Nineties. Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Martin et al. Odd how Americans went from domination to non

existence overnight. No good explanation for that. Sampras was looking old by the time he won his last title. Pete was only thirty one at the time. Agassi played until

he was thirty six, but he had had a couple of hiatuses which kept him fresher longer.

Interesting how the Big Three evolved. Federer is the most stylish player ever. If you want to see how the game should be played, how it was meant to be played, watch

Federer. Poetry in motion. Nadal, meanwhile, was a force of nature. A thoroughbred. Secretariat in tennis shorts. His combination of power, agility and quickness

in his prime are unmatched. The Federer - Nadal matches were something to behold. Poetry vs. Power and Athleticism. Plus, they were both legitimately nice guys.

Truly humble. Very compelling. To this was added Djokovic. Novak wasn't pretty in the way he played. Novak altho' a great athlete, wan't the force of nature that

Nadal was. Folks resented Djokovic muscleing in on the party. But what Novak had was what McEnroe had without most of the theatrics. Determination, guts, smarts,

wits, competitiveness, strength of will. The Big Three were as different in style and talent as you can get. Made for a great era.

Now we've got the new guys coming in. Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Berrettini. It will be fun to watch them grow.

My All Time (Since 1950) Top 10

1 - Ken Rosewall Australia

2 - Bjorn Borg Sweden

3 - Roger Federer Switzerland

4 - Rod Laver Australia

5 - Novak Djokovic Serbia

6 - Rafael Nadal Spain

7 - John McEnroe USA

8 - Pete Sampras USA

9 - Jimmy Connors USA

10 - Andre Agassi USA