A-Greatest03E

"The comparing and rating of athletes who were not contemporaries
and did not encounter one another on important occasions is a trap
in which no tennis reporter of experience should be caught."
-- Al Laney, distinguished sportswriter, in his acclaimed 1968 book,
Covering The Court -- A Fifty-Year Love Affair with the Game of Tennis

Even Al Laney couldn't resist the temptation to ignore his own advice. Just three sentences later, he contends: "I do not think any player I have seen between that youthful Davis Cup experience of 1914 and the late 1960s could have beaten the best Tilden."

It's no wonder Laney couldn't help putting in his two cents. Debates about "Who's the greatest" rage in every sport. Is it Jordan, Magic or Bird? Could Ali whip Louis? Was Mays better than Ruth? And how about Pele vs. Maradona, Tiger vs. Jack, and Marino vs. Montana? Passionate fans love nothing more than a good argument, and passions really flare when their favorite players get praised or pushed down the all-time list.

Laney's 35-year-old pick might be right for the pre-Open Era. But what about Rod Laver whose second Grand Slam in 1969 clinches his status as "the greatest ever" in the eyes of many cognoscenti? Just as fiercely will others argue that deadly efficient Bjorn Borg, while a less flashy shot-maker than either Tilden or Laver, earns that mythical accolade. The under-30 generation that watches ESPN Classic matches featuring Borg, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe can't imagine how these medium-sized stylists could ever take a set off ferociously powerful Pete Sampras. And let's not forget three other brilliant champions: Don Budge from the 1930s, Jack Kramer from the '40s, and Pancho Gonzalez from the '50s.

Before our battle is joined, I have a confession. As a kid, I idolized Laver, a fellow lefty about my size, and even tried to imitate his diverse repertoire of eye-popping shots. I never witnessed earlier all-time greats in their primes, although I've seen many on film. And that leads me to the requisite ground rule for this debate: no subjectivity allowed. As 1920s New York governor Al Smith used to say: "Let's look at the record."

What are the fairest ways to analyze "the record"? I propose eight criteria and stress that no single criterion conclusively settles the debate.

Grand Slams
"When we look back at the greatest players of all time, we look at the number of Slams they won," Sampras asserted in 1995. Not so fast and not so simple! But Grand Slams do count heavily.

Sampras indisputably reigns supreme here with 14 Slam titles, a record that may never be broken. Not all majors are created equal, though, and "Pistol Pete" racked up a "modern" record seven crowns at Wimbledon, the most prestigious "Big Four" venue. Five titles, including his unforgettable first and last ones against archrival Andre Agassi, came at the U.S. Open, arguably co-No. 2 in Slam status with Roland Garros. Sampras notched two more Slams at the Australian Open. Only peerless Sampras in mid-career could, without boasting, announce: "It's not a good year unless I win two majors." The undeniably big gap in Sampras's resume is the French Open, but more about that later.

Roy Emerson, whose partying and work ethic were unrivalled -- "Emmo closed more bars and practice courts than anybody I've ever met," said Arthur Ashe -- ranks second to Sampras with 12 majors, including a "career" Grand Slam. Six of Emerson's trophies, however, were captured at the Oz Open, the least coveted Slam.

Laver and Borg tie for third place with 11 Slams. Eight of Laver's titles came in 1962 and 1969 when he won the Grand Slam of tennis, all four majors during one year, a feat Agassi rightly called "as great an achievement as you can have in any sport." Budge, in 1938, was the only other male player to accomplish the feat even once.

Borg, though not initially a serve and volleyer, improved both strokes enough to win a "modern" record five consecutive Wimbledon titles as well as his record six French Open victories in only eight attempts. Switching from Roland Garros clay to Wimby grass with only two weeks in between is one of tennis' most formidable challenges, yet Borg prevailed back to back there thrice, from 1978 to 1980.

"Big Bill" Tilden captured 10 majors, seven at Forest Hills and three at Wimbledon, including his final tour de force there in 1930 at 37. Connors, Fred Perry, Ken Rosewall, Ivan Lendl and still-active Agassi all gained eight Slams. The pugnacious Connors strutted and stormed to five U.S. Open titles on three surfaces -- grass, clay (a somewhat faster version called Har-Tru) and hard -- an amazing accomplishment and unbreakable record. Perry, Britain's last and most colorful men's champion, distinguished himself with a "career" Grand Slam.

Davis Cup
The oldest and most renowned annual international team competition in sports is often, and erroneously, overlooked in "Who's the greatest?" debates. True, it's lost some of its former luster because a small minority pro players care more about dollars and ranking points than representing their country.

"They say you have the best and worst moments of your career in Davis Cup" once said fair dinkum Aussie Patrick Rafter, and compatriot Emerson experienced ecstasy only with his perfect 15-0 record (9-0 in Challenge Rounds) in live rubbers.

Tilden, a city slicker from a prominent Philadelphia family, racked up a stellar 25-5 mark that featured 13 straight victories in the Challenge Round. With some help from "Little Bill" Johnston, he spearheaded the United States to seven straight Cup titles (1920-26) before France's "Four Musketeers" finally wore out his aging, 34-year-old body in 1927.

Borg first displayed his nerveless mien at just 15 in a phenomenal Cup debut win over New Zealand's well-regarded Onny Parun in 1972. He then carried Sweden to its first Cup title in 1975 and amassed a gaudy 37-3 career mark that included a record 33-match winning streak. Boris Becker's 38-3 Cup record -- even more sensational since he had little support until Michael Stich arrived and he nearly always played doubles -- deserves considerable acclaim. Laver boasts an abbreviated (due to turning pro) but strong 16-4 Cup record. Perry won every singles match in the four Challenge Rounds he played to guide his country to four straight Cups during 1933-36. His career Cup record of 34-4 ranks among the best.

Before McEnroe failed (he was fined four times in one tie for misdemeanors!) and resigned as a Davis Cup captain in 2000, he better channeled his patriotic fervor as a player en route to a superb 41-8 record and five titles. Almost as impressive, Agassi notched a 30-5 record.

Sampras helped the U.S. prevail in 1992 against Switzerland and heroically propelled it to a 3-2 triumph against host Russia on clay in 1995. Who can forget seeing Pete collapse in painful cramps and exhaustion and get carried off the court after beating Andrei Chesnokov and then return to wrap up the final? But Sampras often snubbed Davis Cup just when the "Greatest Generation" (Agassi, Jim Courier, Michael Chang and himself) could have dominated it, playing only 16 ties in his 15-year pro career for a modest 15-8 record.

Degree of Domination
Comparing champions can also be instructive when we determine how superior they were when it counted most. Here Sampras pulls away from the competition, like the Porsche he once said was his most prized possession. Sampras racked up a terrific 14-4 record in Grand Slam finals. Compare that with Borg's 11-5, Laver's 11-6, and Tilden's 10-5 records. Lendl actually competed in more Slam finals, 19, than any man, but he agonizingly lost 11 of them, thus becoming the only champion with seven or more majors who lost more finals than he won. Only Emerson's 12-3 final record surpasses Sampras's (on a percentage basis) among double-digit Slam titlists. That clutch play is diminished when one considers he faced amateurs only during his prime, but more about that shortly.

The case for Sampras is furthered bolstered by his extraordinary domination in his 14 victorious Grand Slam finals. He didn't just beat opponents, he usually whacked them. Out of a possible 28 sets "Pistol Pete" could have lost, he surrendered only seven. And only once was Sampras forced to go to five sets. Rocketing-serving Goran Ivanisevic extended him that far in the 1998 Wimbledon final, but even then Sampras crushed the Croat 6-2 in the deciding set. (Interestingly, Steffi Graf, the most successful Open Era women's champion, was forced to go three sets in 13 of her 22 Slam final triumphs.)

Sustained domination can be measured in other ways, too. Sampras eclipsed Connors's 1974-78 record of consecutive years finishing No. 1 when he, despite losing hair and getting ulcers, pulled off the incredible by doing it six years straight, 1993-1998. That's the Open Era record, while Tilden also ranked No. 1 for six straight years, 1920-25 in the amateur era.

Way back then, A. Wallis Myers, an authoritative journalist, produced widely accepted rankings. Subsequently, highly regarded journalists John Oliff, Lance Tingay and Bud Collins produced unofficial but generally accepted rankings, though various worldwide magazines also published their own. ATP computer rankings started in 1973. The considered judgments of yesteryear's journalists proved superior to the erroneous and widely denounced "Best 14" computer ranking system during the 1990s. Unbelievably, the "Best 14" threw out, on average for top 100 players, more than 40 percent (!) of tournament results. Since Sampras, who suffered very few early round losses, was severely penalized for averaging just 18 tournaments a year during 1993-98, his No. 1 rankings become even more impressive.

What isn't controversial, though, is the criterion of tournament titles. From 1912 to 1930, when Tilden was an amateur, he won an astounding 138 of 192 tournaments and reached 28 more finals. No man has come close to that long-term domination.

Excellence on All Surfaces
Before the U.S. Open in 1978 replaced its clay courts (which had replaced its grass courts in 1975) with Deco-Turf II hard courts, the four Grand Slam tournaments were contested on grass and clay only. Highest marks go to Grand Slammers Budge and Laver, plus Perry, Emerson and Agassi, who all claimed every major title at least once during their storied careers.

Connors and seven-Slam champion Mats Wilander get an asterisk for their all-surface achievements. Even though Jimbo won the 1976 U.S. Open on clay with an impressive four-set decision over clay king Borg, he failed to capture Roland Garros. Wilander triumphed on grass at Melbourne in 1983 and ﾕ84, but never advanced past the quarters at Wimbledon.

Detractors knock Sampras for not winning Roland Garros. Fair enough. Even more damaging is that in 13 tries he never even reached the final.

But was Sampras really inept on clay? On the contrary, in 1996, just weeks after his coach Tim Gullikson died, he gained the French semis with five-set victories over former two-time titlists Sergi Bruguera and Courier before bowing to eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Often overlooked is Sampras's 1994 Italian Open title, the second most prestigious clay event. At Rome, he dropped only one set en route to the final where he routed Becker 6-1, 6-2, 6-2. "He is playing tennis like they will play the game in the 21st century," marveled Becker. Furthermore, there is the surprising fact that Sampras, tennis' premier serve-and-volleyer, ranked seventh (minimum 60 matches played) on the ATP Tour in won-lost percentage (71.11) on clay with a 64-26 record during 1991-99, ahead of Agassi (70.13) with a 54-23 record.

Borg failed to win the U.S. Open in nine attempts, but to his credit he reached the final on four occasions, and thrice when the event was played on hard courts. To his discredit, he entered the Australian Open only once, losing in the third round in 1974, during his relatively short nine-year Slam career.

Tilden had only three cracks at the French Championships (which didn't admit international players until 1925), all when he was past his prime; yet he made the final in 1927 and 1930. Kramer never entered Roland Garros, while Gonzalez had only two chances, in his third Slam event in 1949 and as a 40-year-old in 1968. Still he gained the semis both times.
In sum, Sampras's bete noire was clay, and in late career he quipped, "It would take an act of God" to win the French. That conceded, Super Sampras conquered every other surface: seven Slams on grass, five Slams on American hard courts plus three more titles at Miami (which some consider the world's fifth most important tournament), two Slams on Australia's slower hard courts, and five indoor titles on hard courts and carpet at the prestigious, season-ending ATP Tour World Championships. After Sampras annihilated him in the 1997 Wimbledon semis, an awed Todd Woodbridge spoke for many victims, saying, "He's human, but not by much."

Quality and Depth of Opposition
In 1995 Gonzalez compared his era 40 years earlier with contemporary players, averring, "If we had 10 great players in my time, they have 100 now. The level of tennis is hard to believe because the shots are so phenomenal. They're quicker, faster, sharper mentally. And with the money, they're more competitive."

Gonzalez also didn't mince words comparing the elite players of both eras. "Pete has the most complete game of anyone I've ever seen. Andre has made a complete turn-around in the last five, six months and is on the same level as Pete. I think these two guys would beat the pants off anybody in the past."

From the 1930s, when Tilden, Ellsworth Vines and Perry turned pro, to 1968, when Open Tennis arrived, neither the barnstorming pros nor the often-diluted amateurs boasted all the top stars. Confining this criterion to the Open Era, I believe the 1980s were blessed with the strongest array of top players on all surfaces. Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg and Becker, all great champions, ruled during parts of the decade, and thus their accomplishments should be evaluated more favorably.

Conversely, the mid- and late-1970s, when Borg reigned, was the weakest period, particularly on grass. Authoritative British journalist Rex Bellamy accurately put the first four of Borg's five Wimbledons into historical perspective when he wrote: "He emerged when the great days of serve-and-volley exponents such as Rod Laver, John Newcombe and Stan Smith were over and McEnroe had yet to happen. Pre-McEnroe the best grass court expert Borg had to beat was Roscoe Tanner, who was just short of the highest class."

From 1990 to the present, the depth of talent increased enormously by any criterion. Tennis, once a formful sport, often became downright unpredictable as stars were ambushed everywhere. Example 1: Grand Slams were won by long-shots, such as 66-1 pick Michael Stich (1991 Wimbledon), 33-1 pick Sergi Bruguera (1993 French), and No. 66-ranked Gustavo Kuerten (1997 French). Example 2: In 1996, 13 different players gained 16 Grand Slam semifinal berths, and in 1997 nine of the 16 men's semifinalists at Grand Slam tournament were unseeded. Example 3: in 1998 the top two seeds reached the singles final in only five of the 79 ATP tour events. Example 4: In 1998, 2001 and 2002 eight different players reached Slam finals! Contrast that extraordinary depth with 1937-38 when Budge won 92 straight matches, and in 1938 when three of his Slam finals astonishingly required less than an hour.

Summing up the changing times, in 2001 Goran Ivanisevic said, "In tennis now, you don't have any favorites. It doesn't matter if it's clay or grass or hard court. Anybody can beat anybody."

Then and Now
When comparing old-time champions with their modern counterparts, the edge has to go to moderns for quality and depth of competition, but each side can find plenty of support in other respects. Media pressure is far more omnipresent and invasive now, and some players resent mandatory press conferences and sensationalist tabloids. Today, hard courts, tough matches in every round, and a 10-month season have resulted in far more frequent and severe injuries than ever.

On the other hand, today's performers can globetrot on super-sonic jets rather than spend weeks on ocean liners, recline in comfy chairs for 90 seconds and chow down during changeovers rather than briskly switching sides, and whack balls with huge space-age rackets rather than little wooden ones. They play 12-point tiebreakers instead of protracted sets, and get a fortnight to play seven rounds at Grand Slams instead of the eight days Ted Schroeder had to play six rounds at the 1949 U.S. Championships. Today's athletes also benefit from advances in training and nutrition. And the greats and near-greats reap unprecedented fortunes from tournament prize money, exhibitions, and endorsements.

Missed Opportunity
Laver supporters are ready to pounce right about now. How many times have we heard their battle cry: "Just think how many more Grand Slam titles 'Rocket' would have copped if he hadn't missed out during his five prime years [1963-67] because he was a pro."

The flip side of their claim is a two-part question: How many of his first six Slams, won during 1960-62, might Laver not have won if he had to face Gonzalez, Lew Hoad and Rosewall and other barnstorming professionals? Laver, who lost 19 of his first 21 matches to Rosewall and Hoad as a pro, later admitted, "I didn't find out who were the best [players] until I turned pro and had my brains beaten out for six months at the start of 1963." Second, even though Laver emerged as the top pro in 1964, who knows how many of those potential 21 missed majors he would have captured?

Ah, more than one can play the "What if?" game. When asked in 2000 how many Grand Slam titles Sampras would have won if three of the four majors were still played on grass, Courier replied: "He'd be on 25 easily, if not 30 by now."

If Laver were the victim of fate, consider the misfortunes of other champions born too soon to capitalize on Open Tennis. Rosewall turned pro in 1957 and missed 11 prime years. Equally durable Gonzalez competed in only five majors and one Davis Cup tie before turning pro in late 1949. He lost an incredible 18 years! Kramer turned pro after winning Wimbledon, Forest Hills and the Davis Cup in 1947 at age 26. What's more, like so many young men of his generation, he fought for his country during World War II and lost some of his best early tennis years, too.

Budge turned pro in 1939, the year cocksure Bobby Riggs bet on himself to win a rare Wimbledon "triple" (all three events) and won $108,000. Both sacrificed some prime years while in the military, but Budge got heavier and slower and was never the same after the war. "I put Don Budge right at the pinnacle," said Kramer. "If it weren't for the prohibition against the pros at Grand Slams and the interruption of World War II, he would have won so many major titles that you wouldnﾕt have been able to count them."

Finally, international travel was so time-consuming and costly and expense money often so low in the first half of the 20th century that few amateurs competed at all the Grand Slams. Tilden, Henri Cochet, Rene Lacoste, Riggs, and Kramer never played the Australian, and Budge, Vines and Jean Borotra did only once. Far different were the inexcusable absences Down Under of Borg, McEnroe and others in the 1970s and '80s, who claimed the tournament had lost stature, a problem their snubs only worsened. Some also regrettably skipped Roland Garros before French administrator Philippe Chatrier revitalized it.

The Early Pros
The post-war pro game, an amalgam of one-night stands and conventional tournaments with draws of various sizes, was loaded with most of the world's premier players. Therefore, its top guns demand the highest consideration for "greatest ever" honors.

How does Gonzalez, who only had time for two U.S. titles during his brief amateur stint, stack up among the other greats?

Savvy veteran Kramer disposed of Gonzalez 96-27 in his first pro tour in 1949-50. But after Kramer retired, the fiercely competitive Mexican-American -- "Pancho gets 50 points on his serve and 50 points on terror," Kramer once said -- beat Budge, Pancho Segura, and Frank Sedgman in a 1954 tour to become king of the pros. He reigned until 1961.

From 1951 to 1964 Gonzalez captured the U.S. Pro title a record eight times, and from 1950 to 1956 he won Wembley, considered the world pro championship, four times. At 40 Gonzalez amazingly routed second-seeded Tony Roche, the Wimbledon finalist, 8-6, 6-4, 6-2 at the inaugural U.S. Open. In 1969 ageless Gonzalez defeated Newcombe, Rosewall, Smith and Ashe (6-0, 6-2, 6-4 in the final) to win a Las Vegas tournament and climbed to No. 6 in the world rankings.

Kramer's resume, while shorter because an arthritic back led to a premature retirement, was spectacular, too. The Kramer pro dynasty began in late 1947 when he ruled his tour with Riggs, 69 matches to 20. After dominating Gonzales 96-27, Kramer overpowered shrewd and steady Pancho Segura 64-28 during their 1950-51 tour. There was no main tour in 1952, but "Big Jake" retained his World Pro title and outplayed Sedgman, an athletic Aussie star, 54-41 in their series in 1953.

Back again to our "What if?" game. In his authoritative, albeit inevitably slanted, 1979 memoirs, The Game: My 40 Years in Tennis, Kramer speculated who would have been "the probable winners of Wimbledon and Forest Hills if they been open to pros and amateurs from 1931 to 1967." Kramer would have captured five of each, Budge would have added six more U.S. titles, while Gonzalez would have benefited the most with seven more U.S. and six more Wimbledon crowns.

Perhaps more objective was a panel of tennis writers who in late 1969, after Laver pulled off his second Grand Slam, ranked their all-time greats. Their top 10 were, in order: Tilden, Budge, Laver, Gonzalez, Kramer, Perry, Henri Cochet, Rene Lacoste, Hoad and Vines.

This selector unequivocably rates Sampras the greatest ever. His sensational Grand Slam record, awesome degree of domination, excellence on several surfaces, and tough contemporary competition (especially on clay) make his shortcomings -- no French title and modest Davis Cup record -- pale in significance.

Subjectively, if I may break my ground rule, Sampras often played sublime tennis, particularly at crucial stages of high-stakes matches. While he relied a lot on his explosive first and incomparable second serve, he showcased plenty of other weapons: a solid volley and athletic net game, impeccable smash, powerful running forehand, touch shots, agility and speed, courage, and smart strategy. Yes, his backhand did occasionally break down under pressure and in long rallies, but that was his only weak link.

Sampras's leading rivals -- from McEnroe, Becker, and Edberg early in his career to "Greatest Generation" compatriots Agassi and Courier to rising stars Marat Safin and Andy Roddick -- showered him with superlatives. Most typically, they praised Sampras as the best and most complete player they've ever faced or seen. Indeed they should. Sampras beat them more often than not and won about twice as many major titles as the best among them.

After he demolished Agassi in the 1990 U.S. Open final, Sampras self-deprecatingly called himself "a 19-year-old punk from California." Before his last tour de force at the 2002 U.S. Open, when everyone had written him off as a slump-ridden has-been, Sampras reminded everyone: "You've got to remember who I am and what I've done here."

I'll always remember who Sampras was -- the greatest tennis player ever.

My All-Time Top 10
1. Pete Sampras
2. Bill Tilden
3. Rod Laver
4. Pancho Gonzalez
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Jack Kramer
7. Don Budge
8. Jimmy Connors
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe

PAEANS TO THE CHAMPIONS
"He can hit shots the rest of us can't hit and don't even think of hitting." -- Jim Courier, on Pete Sampras (1991)

"Tilden always seems to have a thousand means of putting the ball away from his opponent's reach. He seems to exercise a strange fascination over his opponent as well as the spectators. Tilden, even when beaten, always leaves an impression on the public mind that he was superior to the victor. All spectators seem to think he can win when he likes. -- Rene Lacoste, on Bill Tilden, in his 1928 book, Lacoste on Tennis

"Rod Laver is my tennis god. He's such a humble, nice man who doesn't say anything bad about anybody, even if you try to get him to do it. He's our Babe Ruth. He was the first guy who did everything, came over the ball, served and volleyed, hit from the baseline and sliced." -- John McEnroe, on Rod Laver, in Tennis magazine (2002)

"He is the greatest natural athlete tennis has ever known." -- Tony Trabert, on Pancho Gonzalez (1955)

"They should send Borg away to another planet. We play tennis. He plays something else." -- Ilie Nastase, on Bjorn Borg

"Kramer had an air about him, a type of aggression that is hard to define. There was nothing personal about it, but he played every point as though it was a life-and-death situation." -- Adrian Quist, on Jack Kramer, from his book, Tennis: The Greats (1920-1960)

"I consider him the finest player 365 days a year that ever lived." -- Bill Tilden, on Don Budge, in the 1947 edition of Tilden's autobiography, My Story

"Looking back from the early 1990s, with Connors still playing well, I see that he was the greatest male tennis player, bar none, in the two and a half decades since the Open era began in 1968." -- Arthur Ashe, on Jimmy Connors, from his 1993 book, Days of Grace

"You know what the name Lendl means to me? Dedication, hard work, overcoming everybody, although maybe he didn't have the tennis talent of a lot of guys. I admire him immensely." -- Pete Sampras, on Ivan Lendl (1994)

"In terms of tennis talent, I have never seen anyone better than John." -- Arthur Ashe, on John McEnroe

WHITHER ANDRE?
Before Agassi lovers beat me about the head and shoulders for omitting him from my All-Time Top 10 list, please note that the charismatic Las Vegan barely missed out amidst the very formidable competition.

At No. 11, Agassi still ranks ahead of redoubtable Ken Rosewall, whose Grand Slam total of eight equals Agassi's despite "Muscles" missing an astounding 11 prime years when he was a pro barred from playing the Slams. We will never know many more Slams and Davis Cup matches No. 12 Rosewall might have racked up.

No. 13 Fred Perry, like Agassi, won eight major titles and a "career" Grand Slam. Perry surpassed Agassi, though, by A) ranking No. 1 for three years B) leading Great Britain to four straight Davis Cups with a superior 34-4 singles record and C) winning more Wimbledons (3) and U.S. titles (3) than Agassi. Had Perry not turned pro at age 27, he, too, would likely have added more majors to his resume.

What counts against Agassi is that he ranked No. 1 at the end of only one of his 17 seasons, that he won four of his eight Slams at the least prestigious Australian Open, that he played poorly in several Slam finals, including his first three when he was favored, that he generally faced weaker opposition in Slam finals, that he ranked in the Top 5 only eight times, and that he skipped his first eight chances to play the Australian Open and three Wimbledons early in his career.

Lendl's powerful Slam record -- three U.S., three French and two Australian titles, plus reaching an amazing 11 more Slam finals, including two Wimbledons -- four years ranked No. 1, three years ranked No. 2, and three years ranked No. 3, and 94 career singles titles gives him the domination and longevity to earn the No. 8 ranking.

Connors owns the Open Era record of 109 singles titles, highlighted by a record-tying five U.S Opens and two Wimbledons. He also ranked No. 1 for five straight years, and stayed in the Top 3 for an astounding 12 straight years to nail the No. 9 all-time spot.

McEnroe's prime was shorter but more brilliant than that of Lendl, Connors and Agassi. McEnroe captured fewer (seven) Slams, but they were bigger: four U.S. and three Wimbledon titles. Most important, he was spectacular in Davis Cup, going 41-8 in singles and collecting five Cup titles. He also ranked No. 1 for four straight years and amassed 77 titles.

The Agassi file remains alive, open and well. Another major title should push him into the Top 10. Another two into the Top 8. Don't count him out!