Now that Novak Djokovic has won his 23rd grand slam tennis tournament (and there is little prospect of Nadal equalling him), many people are saying Djokovic is the greatest of all time. But many of these people also feel a certain reluctance in saying this. Federer seems at least as great.
But can the numbers lie? Yes!
Suppose a tennis player comes along who is 10 feet tall. Every serve is an ace. He never loses a service game. He wins 30 grand slams. Is he the GOAT (greatest of all time)? No. The idea is ridiculous.
Or suppose that in the next few years there is another world war, and the majority of young men are conscripted. But the grand slams are still played, and Dave wins 30 of them. Is Dave the greatest? Certainly not.
If there is any meaningful sense in which we can ask who is the greatest of all time, the answer can not simply be given by crudely adding up slams. You’ve got to factor in other things, like who else was playing at the time, and physical advantages.
So, let’s do that. Since 2019, Djokovic has won eight slams. But during this time, Federer was too old and injured to play his best, and the competition was generally pretty weak. It is not that these eight slams don’t count. But they are worth less.
Consider next physical advantages. Djokovic isn’t 10 feet tall but he is extremely fast and flexible. He is, as they say, “the rubber man”. This is an immense physical advantage. It allows him to extend points and grind his opponents down. His abilities as a returner and defender, and indeed a strategist who runs his opponents around, are part of his greatness. But his physical advantages, at the same time, reduce the greatness of his achievements.
You might say Djokovic has a winning head-to-head record against Federer. But this is irrelevant, since they peaked at different times. Federer was in his prime from 2004 to 2009. Djokovic peaked from 2011 to 2016.
You might say the greatest of all time is determined by a hypothetical, namely who would have beaten whom at their peaks. But people’s tennis games match up differently. It could be that Federer at his peak would beat Djokovic at his peak, who in turn would beat Nadal at his peak, and yet also be true that Nadal would beat Federer! Actually, it could be that Kyrgios at his peak would beat any of these players at their peaks, yet this would not make Kyrgios the greatest of all time.
I think that the greatest tennis player of all time, if we can make sense of this notion, is some function of who, at their peak, would consistently beat the other candidate greats at their peaks, on a variety of different surfaces. A huge factor here is going to be mentality. A common characteristic of “the big three” (Federer, Djokovic and Nadal) is their ability to play the important points well and to stay mentally tough. In the end, the greatest might come down just to this factor: mental toughness. It is unclear who is best in this regard.
after newsletter promotion
If I am right, and the greatest player of all time is some function of this, it is of course futile to try to work out who is the greatest. But it is still meaningful and fun to argue about it!
Also, we can still ask who is the greatest returner of all time, who is the greatest server, who is the most talented, who has the most beautiful all-round game, who has the best drop shot, and so on. These are all still very interesting, and much more manageable, questions.
If Carlos Alcaraz goes on to win 30 slams across eras when other candidate greats are playing as well, then we might be able to say, with plausibility, that Alcaraz is the greatest player of all time. But we don’t have to say this about Djokovic just because he has notched up his 23rd slam.
-
Ben Bramble is a philosophy lecturer at ANU and a former nationally ranked junior tennis player