For the first few months of Carlos Alcaraz’s life, the men’s tennis world was formless and empty. No fewer than four different players were No. 1 in the world in the first nine months of baby Carlito’s life. In that time, the old warhorse Andre Agassi made it back to the top for the final time. The feisty Australian Lleyton Hewitt wrestled away the top spot for a few weeks. The Great American Serving Machine Andy Roddick made his way to No. 1 and flashed a boundless future.
It was Kafelnikov who became the 1st Russian Men's #1, not Safin. Which not only makes Safin and Safina the only sibling pair to be #1, but also means that they were also both the 2nd Russian players of their gender to be #1. Numbers are funny.
I miss watching Safin play. He was incredibly mercurial, but at his best he was completely unbeatable. The only player I can recall being capable of thwarting Roger at his absolute peak. From a technical standpoint, he was about as flawless as a tennis player can get, and perhaps even more beautiful to watch than the stately Fed. If he'd had even half of Federer's mental strength, goodness knows how many titles he (and Roger) would have.
"The only player I can recall being capable of thwarting Roger at his absolute peak."
Uh, Rafael Nadal? Safin was awesome in that 2005 Australian Open, but let's not get carried away. That was the only time he beat peak Federer, and it was 9-7 in the fifth.
I consider Roger's "absolute peak" 2004-2006, when he had winning percentages of 93, 95, and 95%. During that three-year stretch, Roger was 3-6 against Nadal; and 244-9 against everyone else. Nadal was the only player to beat him more than once. The others who beat him were Henman, Costa, Kuerten, Hrbaty, Berdych, Safin, Gasquet, Nalbandian (in the memorable Masters Cup final, 7-6 in the 5th), and Murray.
I suppose I should refine what I meant by that. I 100% agree that Nadal was prime Fed's best foil. And I also agree that 04-06 was Roger's absolute peak. However, four of Nadal's wins at that time were on clay, his best surface and Roger's relative worst. So Fed was actually 3-2 off of the clay against him at that time.
However, what I meant was Roger in his peak, on a day that he was also playing his absolute best tennis. In that state he was nigh unbeatable. But Safin, playing his absolute (and very rare) best could go toe-to-toe with Roger in that state. That Australian Semi was one of the most beautiful matches I've seen to this day. Unbelievable tennis.
I would also accept Nadal's triumph at Wimbledon in '08 as an entry into that category though.
Your timing with the Landau quote was either an intentionally well timed illustration or one of those cosmic things. That concert was 48 years ago today.
Joe, one brain exercise that may be interesting. How many slams, or how many weeks at number 1, would Fed-Nadal-Novak have had if the other two never picked up a racket in their life?
I agree with Rob; though it's easy to say "____ could have had 40 majors without ____", it's unlikely any of them reaches 20 majors without the other two.
I'm not sure that Nadal raises his game without Federer. I think it's a pretty sure thing that Djokovic never goes to the extremes to improve, as he has, without the challenge of beating Federer & Nadal & knowing what that would take. And does Federer stay locked in & continue to raise his game without the heated rivalries? Or does he get bored and retire at age 31? Hard to predict an alternative universe, but without one another, the challenge of that, and the ability to rise to that challenge, I don't think any of them rise to the level that they have.... and especially for so long. One interesting aside. I had a tennis coach, who actually had some dealings with Federer early on, that thought that Federer would never be a great tennis player because he was a boring guy that didn't have balance in his life. He was 100% pure tennis. He was wrong, but he was right. Because Federer did gain balance along the way with his family, and also got his 100% tennis personality inflamed by excellent competition. It is an interesting question you raised. It's certainly fun to speculate.
Korda (who beat Alcaraz in the Monte Carlo finals in April, one of Alcaraz's 3 losses this year) and Brooksby look good (as does Tommy Paul). But the top American male tennis player right now is 24 yr. old Taylor Fritz, ranked #14 in the world.
FYI, teen phenom Andrea Jaeger's first victory on the pro tour, as a 14 year old, was against veteran Kathy May Teacher, Taylor Fritz's mom. I learned this from Jeff Sackmann's The Heavy Topspin blog, where, in Posnanski-like fashion, he is counting down the top 128 tennis players of all time. https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/
I cannot thank you enough for this information on the tennis 128. I’ve read Joe for years, including his first two versions of the Baseball 100 (reading those earlier versions means there were an extra 26 players that didn’t make his final cut for those who might be interested in reading more baseball stuff. )
But I play tennis almost every day and have always loved Joe’s tennis related posts- including this one. But the Tennis 128 is like a new surprise gift. Thanks so much And. And I’m looking forward to listening to the podcast Joe did with Jeff Sackmann at the beginning of the project.
My pleasure Ron H. Like you, I've been reading Joe for years and, as a tennis player as well, appreciate his tennis articles. I'm 60, so I grew up with McEnroe and Connors and Borg and Vilas (and Gerulatis and Orantes and Lendl and then Wilander and Edberg and Becker etc.). I am really enjoying the 128 Countdown, learning about great players in tennis history before my time, but I am also really looking forward to reading about the players I grew up with. Another tennis writer I enjoy is Jon Wertheim at Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/author/jon-wertheim
I’m 70. And remember catching Rod Laver, Stan Smith, John Newcome et al in the latter parts of their careers. I didn’t always watch a lot of tennis thru all the years but I really remember the Borg domination years at Wimbledon and Evert and Navritovla - and even Tracy Austin.
I read the first entry- number 128 - about the gal who was ambidextrous and switched hands so she always was hitting a forehand. How fascinating. I’m really going to love some of those older players I knew very little out nothing about. Will be especially interested to read more about Suzanne Lenglen. Nine article about her a few years ago, in, I think, SI. Perhaps Wortheim wrote it- can’t remember.
Yes I know John Wertheim- he’s one of the few guys I still read at SI. He’s also written a nice book about sports events in 1984. I read a great article he did (possibly an excerpt from the book) on the Olympic basketball trials that Bob Knight held in Bloomington at the IU campus. John was a Bloomington native and had a lot of inside scoop. As I was a student at IU when Knight first became coach I really appreciated that work. And like his tennis stuff too.
Going read 127 next. Maybe one a day until I catch up. 👍🎾😎
I read the Wertheim book and vaguely recall the article you referenced. I was Time Inc.'s (and, thus, Sports Illustrated's) in-house litigation attorney for years so I got to know Jon a little. He is a very good guy and very smart (Yale, Penn Law School before he came to his senses and became a sportswriter).
I don't really remember Smith and Laver and Newcombe but I do recall Ashe and definitely remember the Evert-Navratilova rivalry and Tracy Austin, in pig tails, on the SI cover with the headline "A Star is Born."
Simply the best drop shot I’ve ever seen. Not afraid to use it in pressure spots or when he is deep behind the baseline. And so well disguised, a thing of beauty.
I wouldn't call myself a tennis fan, but I usually at least tune in to the majors. I guess I'm one of the few looking forward to the end of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovich era. It was great for say, 10 years, but now I'm ready to see new players.
I love the occasional drop in on the tennis world.
I don't have much to add, except a couple of things about Yevegeny Kafelnikov.
1) First, whenever I hear his name, I picture Nikolai Davydenko in my minds eye before I remember they are different people separated by around a decade.
2) He also brings to mind the little watched TV show Sports Night because of the episode where Dan can't get through recording a promo while pronouncing his name correctly. For any random Sports Night fans out there: It's raining in Indian Wells.
Came back to this after the brilliant Sinner/Alcaraz match last night/this morning. I truly hope he is the next great one. What a joy to watch.
It was Kafelnikov who became the 1st Russian Men's #1, not Safin. Which not only makes Safin and Safina the only sibling pair to be #1, but also means that they were also both the 2nd Russian players of their gender to be #1. Numbers are funny.
I miss watching Safin play. He was incredibly mercurial, but at his best he was completely unbeatable. The only player I can recall being capable of thwarting Roger at his absolute peak. From a technical standpoint, he was about as flawless as a tennis player can get, and perhaps even more beautiful to watch than the stately Fed. If he'd had even half of Federer's mental strength, goodness knows how many titles he (and Roger) would have.
"The only player I can recall being capable of thwarting Roger at his absolute peak."
Uh, Rafael Nadal? Safin was awesome in that 2005 Australian Open, but let's not get carried away. That was the only time he beat peak Federer, and it was 9-7 in the fifth.
I consider Roger's "absolute peak" 2004-2006, when he had winning percentages of 93, 95, and 95%. During that three-year stretch, Roger was 3-6 against Nadal; and 244-9 against everyone else. Nadal was the only player to beat him more than once. The others who beat him were Henman, Costa, Kuerten, Hrbaty, Berdych, Safin, Gasquet, Nalbandian (in the memorable Masters Cup final, 7-6 in the 5th), and Murray.
I suppose I should refine what I meant by that. I 100% agree that Nadal was prime Fed's best foil. And I also agree that 04-06 was Roger's absolute peak. However, four of Nadal's wins at that time were on clay, his best surface and Roger's relative worst. So Fed was actually 3-2 off of the clay against him at that time.
However, what I meant was Roger in his peak, on a day that he was also playing his absolute best tennis. In that state he was nigh unbeatable. But Safin, playing his absolute (and very rare) best could go toe-to-toe with Roger in that state. That Australian Semi was one of the most beautiful matches I've seen to this day. Unbelievable tennis.
I would also accept Nadal's triumph at Wimbledon in '08 as an entry into that category though.
These tennis entries are a real treat, Joe. Thank you.
Your timing with the Landau quote was either an intentionally well timed illustration or one of those cosmic things. That concert was 48 years ago today.
Figured your piece on Alcaraz had to be appearing soon. Time to spread the word.
Joe, one brain exercise that may be interesting. How many slams, or how many weeks at number 1, would Fed-Nadal-Novak have had if the other two never picked up a racket in their life?
I agree with Rob; though it's easy to say "____ could have had 40 majors without ____", it's unlikely any of them reaches 20 majors without the other two.
I'm not sure that Nadal raises his game without Federer. I think it's a pretty sure thing that Djokovic never goes to the extremes to improve, as he has, without the challenge of beating Federer & Nadal & knowing what that would take. And does Federer stay locked in & continue to raise his game without the heated rivalries? Or does he get bored and retire at age 31? Hard to predict an alternative universe, but without one another, the challenge of that, and the ability to rise to that challenge, I don't think any of them rise to the level that they have.... and especially for so long. One interesting aside. I had a tennis coach, who actually had some dealings with Federer early on, that thought that Federer would never be a great tennis player because he was a boring guy that didn't have balance in his life. He was 100% pure tennis. He was wrong, but he was right. Because Federer did gain balance along the way with his family, and also got his 100% tennis personality inflamed by excellent competition. It is an interesting question you raised. It's certainly fun to speculate.
Korda (who beat Alcaraz in the Monte Carlo finals in April, one of Alcaraz's 3 losses this year) and Brooksby look good (as does Tommy Paul). But the top American male tennis player right now is 24 yr. old Taylor Fritz, ranked #14 in the world.
FYI, teen phenom Andrea Jaeger's first victory on the pro tour, as a 14 year old, was against veteran Kathy May Teacher, Taylor Fritz's mom. I learned this from Jeff Sackmann's The Heavy Topspin blog, where, in Posnanski-like fashion, he is counting down the top 128 tennis players of all time. https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/
Echoing Ron's sentiments....big thank you for this link.
I cannot thank you enough for this information on the tennis 128. I’ve read Joe for years, including his first two versions of the Baseball 100 (reading those earlier versions means there were an extra 26 players that didn’t make his final cut for those who might be interested in reading more baseball stuff. )
But I play tennis almost every day and have always loved Joe’s tennis related posts- including this one. But the Tennis 128 is like a new surprise gift. Thanks so much And. And I’m looking forward to listening to the podcast Joe did with Jeff Sackmann at the beginning of the project.
My pleasure Ron H. Like you, I've been reading Joe for years and, as a tennis player as well, appreciate his tennis articles. I'm 60, so I grew up with McEnroe and Connors and Borg and Vilas (and Gerulatis and Orantes and Lendl and then Wilander and Edberg and Becker etc.). I am really enjoying the 128 Countdown, learning about great players in tennis history before my time, but I am also really looking forward to reading about the players I grew up with. Another tennis writer I enjoy is Jon Wertheim at Sports Illustrated. https://www.si.com/author/jon-wertheim
I’m 70. And remember catching Rod Laver, Stan Smith, John Newcome et al in the latter parts of their careers. I didn’t always watch a lot of tennis thru all the years but I really remember the Borg domination years at Wimbledon and Evert and Navritovla - and even Tracy Austin.
I read the first entry- number 128 - about the gal who was ambidextrous and switched hands so she always was hitting a forehand. How fascinating. I’m really going to love some of those older players I knew very little out nothing about. Will be especially interested to read more about Suzanne Lenglen. Nine article about her a few years ago, in, I think, SI. Perhaps Wortheim wrote it- can’t remember.
Yes I know John Wertheim- he’s one of the few guys I still read at SI. He’s also written a nice book about sports events in 1984. I read a great article he did (possibly an excerpt from the book) on the Olympic basketball trials that Bob Knight held in Bloomington at the IU campus. John was a Bloomington native and had a lot of inside scoop. As I was a student at IU when Knight first became coach I really appreciated that work. And like his tennis stuff too.
Going read 127 next. Maybe one a day until I catch up. 👍🎾😎
I read the Wertheim book and vaguely recall the article you referenced. I was Time Inc.'s (and, thus, Sports Illustrated's) in-house litigation attorney for years so I got to know Jon a little. He is a very good guy and very smart (Yale, Penn Law School before he came to his senses and became a sportswriter).
I don't really remember Smith and Laver and Newcombe but I do recall Ashe and definitely remember the Evert-Navratilova rivalry and Tracy Austin, in pig tails, on the SI cover with the headline "A Star is Born."
Simply the best drop shot I’ve ever seen. Not afraid to use it in pressure spots or when he is deep behind the baseline. And so well disguised, a thing of beauty.
Landau actually wrote "I saw Rock and Roll future" (no possessive). He was doing a Christmas Carol / Ghosts of Christmas kind of thing in his article.
Why do you hate hockey, Joe? ;-)
I wouldn't call myself a tennis fan, but I usually at least tune in to the majors. I guess I'm one of the few looking forward to the end of the Federer/Nadal/Djokovich era. It was great for say, 10 years, but now I'm ready to see new players.
So I guess it will be JCF's job to keep the kid from reading JoeBlogs!
Seriously, though, I've lost touch with the sport and hadn't heard of Alcaraz. Thanks for the update!
I love the occasional drop in on the tennis world.
I don't have much to add, except a couple of things about Yevegeny Kafelnikov.
1) First, whenever I hear his name, I picture Nikolai Davydenko in my minds eye before I remember they are different people separated by around a decade.
2) He also brings to mind the little watched TV show Sports Night because of the episode where Dan can't get through recording a promo while pronouncing his name correctly. For any random Sports Night fans out there: It's raining in Indian Wells.
I hadn't even heard of Carlos Alcaraz until Joe tweeted about him this weekend. After a quick google search and now this article I am excited!
I petition at least quarterly tennis updates outside of any spectacular or notable major tournament happenings.
I agree. More tennis Joe!
I like tennis and I hope your right . He might be all that but win a grand slam first
Done
And done.