Mens Tennis Forums banner

Article: Who's the Best Tennis Player of All Time?

15K views 174 replies 72 participants last post by  LawrenceOfTennis 
#1 ·
#2 ·
1 = Connors?? Wrong.
2 = Lendl??? Wrong.
3 = McEnroe??? :spit: Wrong :lol:
4 = Vilas??????????????? :haha: :haha: WRONG :haha:
5 = Agassi = correct, he's about the 5th best player of all time...
6 = Edberg??? Wrong!!!!!!
7 & 8 = Federer & Sampras???

Who the hell voted in this? This is a disgustingly shit list. Federer at #7? Sampras at #8? Players like Connors, Edberg & Lendl ahead of them?? COMPLETELY WRONG!
And Vilas?? Vilas?????? #4? With only 4 slams??? HAHAHA, what are people thinking? He's not even in the top 10 :haha:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mimi
#5 ·
Biggest bullshit i've read in a long time. Michael Chang > Nadal, 6 players > Federer, yeah right :spit:

According to this it's better to have one brilliant day and, let's say, beat Federer in R1 and then go out against a mug in R2, rather than to beat 7 decent

players and lift up the trophy. Weird Nalbandian didn't make the list if you go by those kind of performances.
 
#11 ·
whats with the over-rating of fed ? he came in when tennis was at a low point,he didnt even have a aggassi or rafter type in 04/05/06 like sampras did in the 90s
Federer imo is at the right spot and so is nadal,the rest of that list is avg though
 
#9 ·
It proves that dependent on the criteria used and of bases used you can deduce many conclusions.

Gerulaitis (0 GS) at 23 ahead of Nadal (9 GS) at 24. Need I say anymore.
 
#47 ·
It proves that dependent on the criteria used and of bases used you can deduce many conclusions.

Gerulaitis (0 GS) at 23 ahead of Nadal (9 GS) at 24. Need I say anymore.
He won one slam. Well, a MMslam, but still.

Well, maybe you've got a point, Pablin.

I'd put Laver, Sampras and Lendl over Frauderer.
Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzalez... you could make a case perhaps. But Lendl?? No sir.
 
#15 ·
Out of the top 3? Oh really? What's your reasons behind this remark?
Federer = 16 slams, over 700 matches won, 17 masters titles, 67 titles overall...not in the top 3? Incorrect!
 
#31 ·
Yeah, i would put them ahead Federer too..
And this kid who's talking about how much more money Federer earned, check how much money Sampras got for some of his GS victory and check how much Federer got.. Djokovic earned more money then Lendl too, does that mean that Djokovic is better player then Lendl ? ;)
 
#17 ·
You are also wrong, Glenn.

Federer = 16 slams.
Sampras = 14 slams.
Laver = 11 slams.
Lendl???? :haha: He only has 8 slams.

Sure, not everything is slams, but he beats them in almost everything else as well.
Not to mention he has won over $20 million more than Sampras, his closest competitor for GOAT status :lol:
Federer trounces them when it comes to careers.

Federer is at #1 :wavey:
 
#18 ·
so what besides nadal ,federer had no competition
 
#24 ·
i've always wondered what tennis rankings would look like if they used sth like the elo system in chess. would be quite interesting.

as for this list, the flaws are obvious but we don't know the exact method. maybe it's a simple bias for players who played a lot of matches? if so, it could be corrected easily.
 
#30 ·
Federer is the GOAT. He has more slams than anyone else. I don't even understand how we can discuss the GOAT factor when everyone know it's Federer. This list is a joke. He should clearly be #1.
 
#37 ·
Got to thank Castafiore for bringing this to my attention. It was funny then and it's funny now. Longevity is a wonderful thing.
 
#40 ·
When an algorithm produces as spurious results as these, it does not take a degree in mathematics to conclude that there is there is a misspecification in the model. Indeed, I doubt even the most ardent fan of Eddie Dibbs would argue that he deserves to be ranked 6 places higher than Rafael Nadal.

I have had a careful look at paper (click here for the link) and immediately would question the formula used to determine the 'prestige score'. Whilst I am generally more familiar with a more econometric approach rather than network analysis, the equations clearly present a significant bias towards those who have played more matches and by virtue of spending more time on the tour have had victories against other top players. But to be honest, that seems to be only the start of the problem - I haven't had a chance to fully analyse the model yet but it seems to have other fundamental flaws in it as well.

I wonder if similar comments have been brought up in the paper's peer review. When I have more time and a proper chance to go through the system of equations, I am inclined to email Dr. Radicchi myself to clarify some points of contention. In the meantime, I wouldn't take the list too seriously as it is just intended to be another way of looking at things rather than coming up with a definitive ranking list. The interesting point to note is that what qualifies as a 'fair ranking system' is rather subjective; if one were to believe that the criteria and assumptions for the model were reasonable, then the results are what they are.
 
#41 ·
an american says the 3 best players in tennis history are americans :rolleyes: you can live in your dreams, US citizens, but now look at ranking, what do you see?
the best tennismen are Federer, Nadal and Laver. And certainly not Connors or McEnroe :rolls:
 
#44 ·
Ivan Lendl was Czech during almost all the period in question.
 
#42 ·
It's an interesting take on things & it's nice to see Connors getting some credit, but as the paper justifying the rankings & the all-important "prestige score" lying behind them seems to be couched in algebraic gobbledygook, it's hard to identify precisely where they've gone wrong. I get the impression they may have ranked according to total victories against "top players" rather than win-loss percentage. And there's an obvious problem when your ranking system for the best players ever includes a concept of a "top player" apparently based on different criteria.
 
#43 ·
Well the algebra itself is not too difficult but yes, you are right that total victories against more 'top players' is what causes the upwards bias for some players. I also agree that there inevitably will be problems if one tries to define what constitutes a top player or a player's prestige by methods other than those that are most conventionally accepted.
 
#46 ·
They do claim in the paper that because their method of calculating prestige scores relies heavily on total number of victories, there is a bias against currently active players. Also they don't seem to consider any sort of tournament weighting in relation to players victories.

They then consider the best player by year to "supress" the bias against currently active players. That version is slightly better but it names Novak Djokovic, the best player of 2009 and Rafa the best player of 2007:rolls:

2000 Marat Safin |Gustavo Kuerten |Gustavo Kuerten
2001 Lleyton Hewitt| Lleyton Hewitt| Lleyton Hewitt
2002 Lleyton Hewitt| Lleyton Hewitt| Lleyton Hewitt
2003 Roger Federer| Andy Roddick |Andy Roddick
2004 Roger Federer| Roger Federer|Roger Federer
2005 Roger Federer| Roger Federer| Roger Federer
2006 Roger Federer| Roger Federer| Roger Federer
2007 Rafael Nadal| Roger Federer| Roger Federer
2008 Rafael Nadal| Rafael Nadal|Rafael Nadal
2009 Novak Djokovic’| Roger Federer| Roger Federer
2010 Rafael Nadal| Rafael Nadal |Rafael Nadal
The left side is the prestige score ranking. The middle is ATP and the right side is ITF.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top