The Tennis 128 returns tomorrow, when I will unveil the 48th greatest player of the last century. Click here to read about the project and see the full list.
* * *
Iga Świątek is now a three-time major champion. Carlos Alcaraz just won his first slam. It’s easy to imagine both of them winning many, many more.
So, do they belong in the Tennis 128?
Many of you have asked me that. It is, by far, the most common question I’ve heard since kicking off the project in February. Some of you started wondering back in May, when Iga was in the middle of her winning streak and Alcaraz was proving he could hang with the big boys.
The short answer is no. Even if I hadn’t already announced players from #49 to #128, they wouldn’t get a spot.
If you think one or both of them deserve to be on the list, your reasoning probably falls into one of two categories:
- Peak level is extremely important, and they’ve shown themselves to be capable of truly exceptional things in a short period of time.
- They are young, and even very conservative forecasts of the rest of their careers add up to something special.
Both arguments are valid. The second point is especially powerful for Świątek, who is now up to three majors. Many of the players on my all-time list (and a couple of them in the to-be-announced top 48!) don’t have that many.
Here’s why these two points don’t sway me–or, to put it more accurately, why my algorithm rates players differently. First, I do give a great deal of weight to a player’s peak. But it’s not everything–even though many pundits over the years have sometimes acted that way. You can find arguments that someone like Lew Hoad is the greatest of all time, simply because he could be so exceptional on a given day.
I worked hard to find a satisfactory balance between peak and longevity. The more weight you give to a player’s peak, the wackier the list starts to look. You might not like Hoad at #74, Jim Courier at #107, or Iga at a number greater than 128. But I guarantee you that you’d have more issues with a formula-based list that gave a player’s strongest moments considerably more weight.
As a result, neither Iga nor Carlito have enough career achievements to merit a spot on the list. They probably will, and it probably won’t take long. They just don’t right now, and they can’t get there by the end of this year.
Second, no forecasting went into the making of this list. All-time greats are outliers by definition; it would be wrong to apply some generic aging curve and give them credit for future excellent seasons on that basis.
Fortunately, the lack of forecasting didn’t end up being too important. Most of the best active players are either winding down their careers or don’t yet qualify for the list.
So, where do this year’s US Open champions rank?
Świątek, with her two-major campaign, has almost definitely played her way into the top 200. A flawless end to the season–let’s say, a couple more titles plus an undefeated run at the Tour Finals–would move her up around 150.
Alcaraz had the same potential when I first looked into this issue back in May. He’s had an amazing season by any realistic standard for a 19-year-old, but it hasn’t been as otherworldly as the April/May edition of Carlos suggested it might be. A very strong finish to 2022 would move him into the top 200. A more realistic projection for the rest of his season would put him somewhere between #200 and #250.
Still, it doesn’t take that long to assemble an all-time great tennis career. Check back in twelve months. The answers to these questions could be very different.