Greatest ever? We have a surprise

• Recommend0
• Tweet0
• Comments0
• Email
• Print

• Recommend0
• Tweet0
• Comments0
• Email
• Print
• Subscribe

Patrick Novarik/AFP/Getty ImagesRoger Federer has matched Pete Sampras with 14 Grand Slam titles.

Somewhere an old-time tennis fan is worked up over this whole Roger Federer versus Pete Sampras debate: "Let me tell you, neither of those guys compares to Don Budge!" the fan is screaming. "Let's see them hit the ball with one of them tiny wood rackets they had to play with. It took real skill in those days! And they didn't have them pretty girls handing them towels between every point, either! They had to wipe their sweat with their own shirtsleeves!"

Sorry, Don Budge fans, but we're going to leave your guy out of this debate for now.

Who is the greatest player? Now that Federer has tied Sampras for most Grand Slam titles at 14, the argument seems to settle around those two (sometimes Rod Laver, as well).

But winning Grand Slam titles is just one facet of the debate. Jimmy Connors, for example, played the Australian Open only twice, reaching the final both times. What about winning on different surfaces? What about career longevity? What about caliber of competition? What about being linked with Barbra Streisand, Brooke Shields and Steffi Graf?

So in true Page 2 fashion, we've devised a points system to calculate all this. We'll look at 11 of the best players of the Open era (since 1968), those with at least six Grand Slam titles. We're going to leave Laver out of the debate for now because his career is a little more difficult to evaluate; he won six majors as an amateur before turning pro in 1963, then added five more once professionals were allowed to compete. He might be the best player ever; we won't disagree, but it is fair to say that modern tennis really began in 1968.

For now, on to our scoring system. Here's how it works:

• Five points for each Grand Slam singles championship;
• Three points for each finals win over one of the other 10 players on our list;
• Two points for each loss in a Grand Slam championship;
• One point for each semifinals loss in a Grand Slam event;
• One point for every 10 career matches won in Grand Slam tournaments;
• One point for each separate year a player reached at least the semifinals of a Grand Slam event;
• Five points for finishing the year ranked as the No. 1 player in the world; four points for being No. 2; three points for being No. 3;
• 15 points for completing the career Grand Slam

Andre Agassi

TOTAL POINTS: 143

Boris Becker

TOTAL POINTS: 103

Bjorn Borg

TOTAL POINTS: 127

[+] Enlarge

John Kelly/Getty ImagesJimmy Connors won eight Grand Slam titles despite rarely venturing to the Australian Open.

Jimmy Connors

TOTAL POINTS: 171

Stefan Edberg

TOTAL POINTS: 108

Roger Federer

TOTAL POINTS: 159

[+] Enlarge

Focus on Sport/Getty ImagesIvan Lendl never gets much credit for being a dominant force in the '80s.

Ivan Lendl

TOTAL POINTS: 160

John McEnroe

TOTAL POINTS: 125

Rafael Nadal

TOTAL POINTS: 82

Pete Sampras

TOTAL POINTS: 169

Mats Wilander

TOTAL POINTS: 90

Final rankings

Jimmy Connors?!?! Indeed … and why not? Sure, he won "only" eight majors, but consider:

A. His amazing run of excellence and durability, including being ranked in the top three in the world for 12 consecutive years and reaching the semifinals of the U.S. Open at age 39;

B. He has won more Grand Slam matches (233) than anybody else despite competing in the Australian Open only twice;

C. Although he never won the French Open, he did win the U.S. Open in 1976 when it was held on clay;

D. He beat great players such as Borg, McEnroe and Lendl in finals;

E. Think about all the players he had to compete against at their peaks: in the '70s, against John Newcombe (five career Grand Slam titles), Guillermo Vilas (four GS titles) and Roscoe Tanner (one title); in the late '70s and early '80s, Borg and McEnroe; in the '80s, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander and Becker.

Here's one stat that says something about Connors: From 1973 Wimbledon through the 1985 U.S. Open, he played in 35 majors and reached the quarterfinals in 34 of them (and the semifinals in 28 of them). The guy always came to play, and he was among the best in the world for 15 years. Yes, Sampras has more titles, but it's hard to say he matched Connors' consistency, and he clearly didn't match Connors' record on clay. And although one of the judgments against Federer's case has been a lack of star opposition, you can make the same case against Sampras: His early rivals included past-their-prime guys such as Edberg and Becker; Agassi, the guy who should have been his chief rival, took a midcareer sabbatical, got fat, battled injuries and started dating movie stars; his other chief rival should have been Jim Courier, who won four Grand Slam titles but flamed out at age 24. Late in his career, Sampras battled the likes of Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, neither of whom became a consistent winner. So if you're going to use that argument against Federer, you have to use it against Sampras, as well.

Certainly, under our fun little points system here, Federer eventually will pass Connors. His peak excellence is unsurpassed, and he'll accumulate career "value," as well. He has a rival in Nadal, and up-and-coming talent such as Andy Murray that should make for tough competition.

But until then, let's at least acknowledge that Connors deserves to be in the debate.

Plus, he deserves extra credit for marrying a Playboy bunny.

• Recommend0
• Tweet0
• Email
• Subscribe
• Print
• Comments0

David Schoenfield | email

ESPN Senior Writer

• Follow
• Archive

• Covers MLB for ESPN.com
• Former deputy editor of Page 2
• Been with ESPN.com since 1995