Top 101 Male GS Tennis Players of the Open Era [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Top 101 Male GS Tennis Players of the Open Era

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 05:25 PM
Active players in italics.

1 Rod Laver
2 Roger Federer
3 Pete Sampras
4 Bjorn Borg
5 Ivan Lendl
6 Ken Rosewall
7 Jimmy Connors
8 Andre Agassi
9 John McEnroe
10 Mats Wilander

11 Boris Becker
12 Stefan Edberg
13 John Newcombe
14 Rafael Nadal
15 Jim Courier
16 Guillermo Vilas
17 Arthur Ashe
18 Ilie Nastase
19 Jan Kodes
20 Lleyton Hewitt

21 Marat Safin
22 Pat Rafter
23 Stan Smith
24 Gustavo Kuerten
25 Yevgeni Kafelnikov
26 Andy Roddick
27 Michael Chang
28 Goran Ivanisevic
29 Tony Roche
30 Andres Gimeno

31 Michael Stich
32 Pat Cash
33 Vitas Gerulaitis
34 Roscoe Tanner
35 Sergi Bruguera
36 Juan Carlos Ferrero
37 Johan Kriek
38 Carlos Moya
39 Richard Krajicek
40 Novak Djokovic

41 Manuel Orantes
42 Thomas Muster
43 Petr Korda
44 Yannick Noah
45 Adriano Panatta
46 Miloslav Mecir
47 Todd Martin
48 Cedric Pioline
49 Kevin Curren
50 Alex Corretja

51 Mark Philippoussis
52 Thomas Johansson
53 Albert Costa
54 Andres Gomez
55 Tom Okker
56 David Nalbandian
57 Henri Leconte
58 Alex Metreveli
59 Harold Solomon
60 Mark Edmondson

61 Tim Henman
62 Brian Teacher
63 Sebastian Grosjean
64 Nikolay Davydenko
65 Raul Ramirez
66 Gaston Gaudio
67 Clark Graebner
68 Brian Gottfried
69 Phil Dent
70 Andrei Medvedev

71 Marcelo Rios
72 Guillermo Coria
73 Dick Crealy
74 Fernando Gonzalez
75 Tim Mayotte
76 Magnus Norman
77 Zeljko Franulovic
78 Marcos Bagdhatis
79 Patrick Proisy
80 Onny Parun

81 Steve Denton
82 Jonas Bjorkman
83 Eddie Dibbs
84 Tommy Haas
85 Thomas Enqvist
86 Arnaud Clement
87 Victor Pecci
88 Rainer Schuttler
89 Kim Warwick
90 Roger Taylor

91 Cliff Richey
92 Wayne Ferreira
93 Tom Gorman
94 John Alexander
95 Greg Rusedski
96 Niki Pilic
97 Michael Pernfors
98 Alberto Berasetegui
99 Dick Stockton
100 Aaron Krickstein
101 Jose Higueras

RagingLamb
07-29-2008, 05:32 PM
Is this is based on another source, or is it your own ranking of players?

MurrayFan1
07-29-2008, 05:33 PM
YES! I knew Henman would be in there somewhere!

MacTheKnife
07-29-2008, 05:38 PM
Extensive list. Don't agree with it, but someone put a lot of work in there. I would be to lazy to get past the top 10.

oranges
07-29-2008, 05:43 PM
Some curious choices to appear in the top 100 at all, but commendable effort.

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 05:43 PM
Is this is based on another source, or is it your own ranking of players?

It's my own ranking, but it's based on their results in GS tournaments.

RagingLamb
07-29-2008, 05:46 PM
It's my own ranking

o.k. just making sure.

but it's based on their results in GS tournaments.

It must have been very time consuming. Did you use a specific method, e.g. assigning points for GS matches etc.?

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 05:53 PM
o.k. just making sure.



It must have been very time consuming. Did you use a specific method, e.g. assigning points for GS matches etc.?

That's how I started -- 4 for a win, 3 for a final, etc.. But then I moved players around where things didn't quite fit. 1 GS title counts arguably more than 2 SFs, for example (a pure points ranking would have semifinal-king Jimmy Connors at #1). Or the poorly attended Aussie Open in the 1970s and early 80s should have less weight than other GS tournaments (malus for Kriek, Denton, etc.). Or if someone does well (almost) only at the French (e.g., Kuerten, Bruguera), this is a malus. Further, one needs to make extra allowances for Laver or Rosewall, who had great careers also before the open era. And so on.

Hence, of course there is subjectivity in there. You may say I tried to be as objective as possible, as long as this didn't conflict too badly with my subjective assessment. ;)

Tom Paulman
07-29-2008, 05:54 PM
64 Nicolas Davydenko

Who was this guy? Nikolay's father?

ReturnWinner
07-29-2008, 05:57 PM
Where is Clerc

Denaon
07-29-2008, 05:59 PM
Well...I don't fully agree with it...but it's a cool list you've done....

I think I'm gonna make mine soon :p
But first I'll have to decide which method I'll use :p :lol:

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 05:59 PM
Roddick is the 26th greatest player of the open era? Even as a fan... :lol:

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:27 PM
Where is Clerc

Around #120 (2 GS semis don't get you more).

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:28 PM
Who was this guy? Nikolay's father?

His Argentine cousin. ;)

thrust
07-29-2008, 06:29 PM
Open Era: Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg, Connors, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Nadal, Laver, Rosewall. As great as Laver and Rosewall were in the Open Era, they were even better before that even though Rod won the Grand Slam in 69 and Ken was close to 34 at the beginning of the OE

ReturnWinner
07-29-2008, 06:32 PM
Around #120 (2 GS semis don't get you more).

I'd take Clerc career over for example Clement.

Sebby
07-29-2008, 06:34 PM
My top 5 at the moment :

1) Laver

2) Borg

3) Sampras

4) Federer

5) Agassi (he won on all surfaces and that's why he's here instead of Connors or Lendl)


EDIT: ok, ok I just learned that Wilander have also won GS on all surfaces BUT he never won Wimbly :umbrella:

*Viva Chile*
07-29-2008, 06:36 PM
74 Federico Gonzales


Is this guy portuguese??? :spit: and active??? :haha:

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:38 PM
Open Era: Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg, Connors, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Nadal, Laver, Rosewall. As great as Laver and Rosewall were in the Open Era, they were even better before that even though Rod won the Grand Slam in 69 and Ken was close to 34 at the beginning of the OE

I should have made that clear -- I rank Laver's and Rosewall's ENTIRE careers, difficult as it is. Otherwise one would have to rank truncated careers and this doesn't appeal to me.

I therefore include players IN FULL if they had a substantial part of their careers in the open era (Laver, Rosewall) and exclude them if they didn't (Emerson, Gonzales).

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:45 PM
I'd take Clerc career over for example Clement.

Fair enough. Clement has 1 F and 2 QFs, Clerc had 2 SFs. According to the criteria I used Clement comes out higher, other criteria would yield something else -- Clement peaked at # 10 in the ATP rankings (probably one of the lowest in the list), for example, Clerc at #4.

More generally, this of course is no exact science. Personally I'm reasoanbly confident about the top 20, error interval +-1. But further down it becomes increasingly vague. This is in the nature of the thing.

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:46 PM
Is this guy portuguese??? :spit: and active??? :haha:

Damned... :o

RagingLamb
07-29-2008, 06:48 PM
That's how I started -- 4 for a win, 3 for a final, etc.. But then I moved players around where things didn't quite fit. 1 GS title counts arguably more than 2 SFs, for example (a poor points ranking would have semifinal-king Jimmy Connors at #1). Or the poorly attended Aussie Open in the 1970s should have less weight than other GS tournaments in the 1980s (malus for Kriek, Denton, etc.). Or if someone does well (almost) only at the French (e.g., Kuerten, Bruguera), this is a malus. Further, one needs to make extra allowances for Laver or Rosewall, who had great careers also before the open era. And so on.

Hence, of course there is subjectivity in there. You may say I tried to be as objective as possible, as long as this didn't conflict too badly with my subjective assessment. ;)

that's an interesting way of doing it. I'm assuming you first picked 101 players then decided to rank them relative to each other, is this true? Or did you start with a much larger sample?

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 06:56 PM
that's an interesting way of doing it. I'm assuming you first picked 101 players then decided to rank them relative to each other, is this true? Or did you start with a much larger sample?

I started with every player who had reached at least one GS-QF in the open era (more than 300).

Voo de Mar
07-29-2008, 07:05 PM
Or the poorly attended Aussie Open in the 1970s should have less weight than other GS tournaments in the 1980s (malus for Kriek, Denton, etc.). Or if someone does well (almost) only at the French (e.g., Kuerten, Bruguera), this is a malus. Further, one needs to make extra allowances for Laver or Rosewall, who had great careers also before the open era. And so on.


Yes, Grand Slam tournaments in the Open Era weren't equal against each other, to count each of them with the same measure. US Open in years 1975-1978 was a joke tournament. First three rounds only "the best of three" (US Open 1977 is a completely joke - even 4th round was the best of three, straight set matches in QF & SF, also final without special drama - 4 sets, Vilas def. Connors). Similar problem with Roland Garros in years 1973-1975...
Australian Open through many years - only three rounds, in year 1975 the draw was made for only 32 players! :lol:

:wavey:

*Viva Chile*
07-29-2008, 07:16 PM
Damned... :o

still... it's Gonzalez ;)

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 07:21 PM
still... it's Gonzalez ;)

Gracias, amigo -- no se porque he confundido eso.... ;)

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 08:24 PM
Yes, Grand Slam tournaments in the Open Era weren't equal against each other, to count each of them with the same measure. US Open in years 1975-1978 was a joke tournament. First three rounds only "the best of three" (US Open 1977 is a completely joke - even 4th round was the best of three, straight set matches in QF & SF, also final without special drama - 4 sets, Vilas def. Connors). Similar problem with Roland Garros in years 1973-1975...
Australian Open through many years - only three rounds, in year 1975 the draw was made for only 32 players! :lol:

:wavey:

I usually expect better quality from you. The US Open had fantastic draws throughout the 1970s. I don't see you complaining about the 1973 Wimbledon or even the 1972 Wimbledon (Newcombe wasn't there to defend his title in '72 and of course '73 had the strike). The US Open was probably the most consistent of the majors in that decade. The French was a poorly attended event until Borg started winning there.

In general your point is fair in that the majors weren't equal - the worst being the Aussie which was a relative non-event from about 1975 until becoming reenergized in 1983. The event was so poorly attended it doesn't even measure up to contemporary masters series standards.

So, yes, I very much question the OP's list, considering that he doesn't deeply expand on how he adjusts his criteria for these standards. I guess that his ranking of Federer as #2 and Borg as #4 reflects this, even though Borg's 11 majors are a much more impressive accomplishment in an era where he played three at most grand slam tournaments per year.

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 08:47 PM
I guess that his ranking of Federer as #2 and Borg as #4 reflects this, even though Borg's 11 majors are a much more impressive accomplishment in an era where he played three at most grand slam tournaments per year.

## 1-4 are the Dai-Yokozuna (great-grand-champions) of tennis (check the link in my signature), hard to rank against one another, and I'd happily accept another ordering. As for myself, I have Federer ahead of Borg because 3 out of 4 (in 06 and 07) still seems a tad more impressive than 2 out of 3 (in 78, 80). But that's the best answer I can come up with.

Smash.
07-29-2008, 08:50 PM
Marat :clap2::clap2:

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 09:03 PM
5) Agassi (he won on all surfaces and that's why he's here instead of Connors or Lendl)

What about Wilander? He won grand slam titles on grass, hard courts and clay.

This is a silly reason to put a guy like Agassi over someone like Lendl. I'll list some reasons:

- Agassi was never a consistent #1 and most definitely never the consensus best player in the world .. 1999 was probably the closest he came to being one, but he was helped out by the fact that Pete skipped the US Open with an injury

- Andre never put together a dominant stretch over one year .. Lendl had a stretch that encompassed about three years (1985-1987) and dominated every surface but grass in those years

- Lendl reached the US Open final eight years in a row .. the Masters Cup final also eight years in a row

- Lendl's peak year (1986) is one of the greatest single years in Open era history .. in this year, he won the French Open, The US Open, the 128-man Boca West Event (the fourth biggest tournament that year), the Masters Cup and was the runner-up to Becker at Wimbledon. If you look at his overall results he was close to unbeatable all year. Agassi never had a year like this.

- Lastly, even though Agassi has GS wins on grass and clay he was hardly a great player on either surface. In fact, most knowledeable fans will tell you that Lendl was a much better grass courter and I'm sure everyone would agree that Lendl is top-five in the open era on clay. As much as I respect Andre's run at the 1992 Wimbledon I can't just ignore the fact that he was on the receiving end of a gigantic Ivanisevic choke. Conversely, Lendl has much more consistent results on all surfaces than Andre - a contender at the very least in every major event throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, with no visible lulls or poor streaks that Andre had.

My opinion on these things is that one must always look at peak performance and that the greatest players in history all have distinguished peak streaks that run several years consecutively. Rosewall had one in the early 60s that ran about three years. Laver was untouchable for five years in the mid-to-late 60s. Borg was the game's best for three years in a row 1978-1980. Lendl 1985-1987. Sampras won six majors between 1993 and 1995 and, of course, Federer 2003-2007. Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi and, for now, Nadal are all second-tier to me because they do not have such a stretch to their name.

As for counting grand slam titles, this is a pretty poor way of going about things. After winning the grand slam in 1969, Laver missed a lot of majors in the early 70s, not winning a single one in 1970 for example, but he was arguably the best player that year (either he or Rosewall, I think). But he did win in a very jam-packed field in Rome in 1971, which had much richer draws than the French that year (in which Laver did not participate). I do wonder if the OP is so intent upon counting majors, whether he would also be interested in looking at any system that provides 'adjusted majors' - ie those events that one would deem to be equivalents to today's majors. For example, the fourth-best event in the early 1980s would probably be the Masters. In 1974 it would probably be Dallas WCT. In 1976/78 maybe Dallas or Philadelphia. In 1986 we didn't have the Australian Open. Also for much of the 1980s the Key Biscayne event had a 128-man draw with arguably better representation than the Australian Open. How do we adjust for this?

I think it's very hard to do, which is why counting majors is a waste of time, for the most part. What's important is to look at a player's peak performance first, his longevity second and also be aware of his play across different surfaces. These are the three facets of criteria that determine that Laver was probably the best ever. He had a career peak that was perhaps unmatched (Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, maybe even Federer would disagree). His longevity was unmistakeable - a distinguished amateur until 1963, then a great pro for many years thereafter. Kenny Rosewall could boast of being an elite player longer (about two decades), but he couldn't claim of being dominant for as long. And, lastly, greatness across all surfaces - Laver is one of a few (and I do mean it - a number you can count on your one hand) players in history to have elite results on every surface. His results are probably the most convincing - his competition greater than Tilden; competence more long-ranging than Budge; a style that quieted Rosewall on slow and fast and more convincing history on hardcourts than Borg. This is how we know that Laver was probably the best - not because he won 11 majors (or even however many he won as a pro), but by being aware of the entire volume of his accomplishments and being able to weigh it against that of the other greats.

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 09:04 PM
## 1-4 are the Dai-Yokozuna (great-grand-champions) of tennis (check the link in my siganture), hard to rank against one another, and I'd happily accept another ordering. As for myself, I have Federer ahead of Borg because 3 out of 4 (in 06 and 07) still seems a tad more impressive than 2 out of 3 (in 78, 80). But that's the best answer I can come up with.

That's a pretty poor answer. The fourth biggest event in those years was the Masters. In 1979 and 1980 Borg won the Masters, which would mean that in those years he went 3 out of 4 back-to-back. In 1978 he didn't play the Masters.

Action Jackson
07-29-2008, 09:09 PM
This is the problem of solely relying on numbers to prove a point.

Voo de Mar
07-29-2008, 09:15 PM
I usually expect better quality from you. The US Open had fantastic draws throughout the 1970s. I don't see you complaining about the 1973 Wimbledon or even the 1972 Wimbledon (Newcombe wasn't there to defend his title in '72 and of course '73 had the strike). The US Open was probably the most consistent of the majors in that decade. The French was a poorly attended event until Borg started winning there.


I'm afraid you haven't understood me correctly. In my opinion winning a tournament with 7 wins in a row - all matches "the best of five", is more valuable achievement than winning a tournament with mixing of 3/4 wins "the best of three" in the first week then 4/3 wins "the best of five" in the second week (like it was in Roland Garros in the 70's) or winning GS with 5 wins "the best of five" like Newcombe did it in Aussie Open 1975. I completely elided from attendance of the best players in the previous post.
I'm sceptical to my point of view in this issue though :shrug:

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 09:16 PM
That's a pretty poor answer. The fourth biggest event in those years was the Masters. In 1979 and 1980 Borg won the Masters, which would mean that in those years he went 3 out of 4 back-to-back. In 1978 he didn't play the Masters.

In two of his 3-out-of-4 years Federer also reached the final at RG though, while Borg got to the US Open final only once in his 3-out-of-4 years(1980). Add in that Federer won the Masters Cup 4 times as well, including in 2004 and 2006 -- in these years it would be 4 out of 5 then.

But I didn't consider the Masters. It's too different in format from the other tournaments.

Another pro-Fed stat: Federer reached the final in 10 subsequent GS tournaments in which he participated (and 17 semifinals). Borg's best series is 6 (it gets to 12 once you admit QFs).

More generally, I respect your considerable expertise, but I also feel somewhat estranged by an attitude as if tennis' history was your own.

Sebby
07-29-2008, 09:29 PM
What about Wilander? He won grand slam titles on grass, hard courts and clay.

DAMNED! The guy is hysterical, CALM DOWN DUDE, CALM DOWN! I'll put Lendl in #5 and even #4 if you promise to stop, no need to write a book :haha:

btw I'm learning something here... Wich GS Wilander won on grass :confused:

The AUS Open ?

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 09:30 PM
I'm afraid you haven't understood me correctly. In my opinion winning a tournament with 7 wins in a row - all matches "the best of five", is more valuable achievement than winning a tournament with mixing of 3/4 wins "the best of three" in the first week then 4/3 wins "the best of five" in the second week (like it was in Roland Garros in the 70's) or winning GS with 5 wins "the best of five" like Newcombe did it in Aussie Open 1975. I completely elided from attendance of the best players in the previous post.
I'm sceptical to my point of view in this issue though :shrug:

I'm just amazed that you called the US Open a joke tournament. I even referred to the post you were replying to, which didn't give any evidence that there was such sarcasm intended.

Best-of-three or best-of-five - one guy still has to beat the other and more often than not the best man wins. I would take a major with a deep draw and some best-of-three matches than a major with a poor draw and all best-of-five matches.

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 09:31 PM
DAMNED! The guy is hysterical, CALM DOWN DUDE, CALM DOWN! I'll put Lendl in #5 and even #4 if you promise to stop, no need to write a book :haha:

btw I'm learning something here... Wich GS Wilander won on grass :confused:

The AUS Open ?

100 points. Although the grass at the Aussie Open was slower than in Wimbledon.

Action Jackson
07-29-2008, 09:32 PM
Wilander

2 grass GS titles
3 on clay
1 on hardcourt
1 on Rebound Ace

Action Jackson
07-29-2008, 09:32 PM
Although the grass at the Aussie Open was slower than in Wimbledon.

Doesn't matter it was still grass at the time.

Sebby
07-29-2008, 09:34 PM
Ok thanks guys, I didn't know it :)

Sebby
07-29-2008, 09:37 PM
Wilander

2 grass GS titles
3 on clay
1 on hardcourt
1 on Rebound Ace

wow...Rebound Ace too ?

So Agassi is not the only one to have won GS on FOUR different surfaces...

I'll go to bed a bit less stupid :lol:

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 09:39 PM
In two of his 3-out-of-4 years Federer also reached the final at RG though, while Borg got to the US Open final only once in his 3-out-of-4 years(1980). Add in that Federer won the Masters Cup 4 times as well, including in 2004 and 2006 -- in these years it would be 4 out of 5 then.

I'm of the opinion that Roger needs a couple of more majors or a major and a Davis Cup title to surprass Borg's accomplishments. Borg, for the record, did not lose a Davis Cup match in his adult life.

But I didn't consider the Masters. It's too different in format from the other tournaments.

In those years there were only three majors that had 128-man draws and in some years the draws were as low as 96. The Australian may have had 64-man draws at times, if memory is correct. You are creating a criteria based on contemporary standards - I can just as easily and half-heartedly create criteria based on yester-standards in which I completely discount Federer Aussie wins in favour of a system where only three major events are counted in a year. That would leave Federer with nine adjusted majors to Borg's 11.

Another pro-Fed stat: Federer reached the final in 10 subsequent GS tournaments in which he participated (and 17 semifinals). Borg's best series is 6 (it gets to 12 once you admit QFs).

I don't understand this. Subsequent to what?

More generally, I respect your considerable expertise, but I also feel somewhat estranged by an attitude as if tennis' history was your own.

Every time someone posts on historical matters with such utter disregard for facts the great pros of the past roll over in their graves. Tennis history is not my own, for I actually take care to read about it rather than treat it as a collection of isolated results.

Action Jackson
07-29-2008, 09:42 PM
wow...Rebound Ace too ?

So Agassi is not the only one to have won GS on FOUR different surfaces...

I'll go to bed a bit less stupid :lol:

Well Wilander wasn't a showpony or even the best player of his generation and he won 7 GS titles. He turned it on, when he needed to.

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 10:02 PM
In those years there were only three majors that had 128-man draws and in some years the draws were as low as 96. The Australian may have had 64-man draws at times, if memory is correct. You are creating a criteria based on contemporary standards

The grand slams were always the grand slams, even though the organizers almost killed the Aussie Open in the 1970s. And NEVER did they have an 8-man field -- meaning that the world's #9 couldn't win the tourney -- where the early games were played in a group modus.

And anyway, as you may have seen from an earlier post, I DID discount the Aussie Open in the 70s and early 80s (otherwise Johan Kriek would be many ranks higher). Hence it remains rather unclear to me what your're having beef with. I should discount them even more?

Or is your only point of soreness that I have Federer ahead of Borg? Well I already wrote that ## 1-4 can be orderered in various ways. As can other players: I also couldn't give an undisputable answer why Connors is ahead of Agassi (my reason: longevity), or Becker ahead of Edberg (back-to back Wimbledon and US Open titles).

I can just as easily and half-heartedly create criteria based on yester-standards in which I completely discount Federer Aussie wins in favour of a system where only three major events are counted in a year. That would leave Federer with nine adjusted majors to Borg's 11.

So what? The # of GS titles aren't the only criterion for the ranking, and at the very top not even the principal one. Otherwise Federer wouldn't be ahead of Sampras.

I don't understand this. Subsequent to what?

Federer reached 10 GS finals in a row. Borg 6. Federer reached 17 semifinals and quarterfinals in a row. Borg 6 semifinals and 12 quarterfinals. Even if you adjust each Borg statistic by (4/3) you don't get to Federer's numbers.

And for three long years, whenever Federer lost he lost to ONE guy only: Rafael Nadal. Noone else could touch him at the slams, no matter on what surface. While prime Borg -- dominant as he was -- could be beaten by John McEnroe (80), Roscoe Tanner (79), and Jimmy Connors (78).

Every time someone posts on historical matters with such utter disregard for facts the great pros of the past roll over in their graves. Tennis history is not my own, for I actually take care to read about it rather than treat it as a collection of isolated results.

Well if this is to imply that only you pay regard to the facts this is an insult. If you wish to insult people that's your business, but at least you should back up your claims a bit better.

Voo de Mar
07-29-2008, 10:07 PM
I'm just amazed that you called the US Open a joke tournament. I even referred to the post you were replying to, which didn't give any evidence that there was such sarcasm intended.

Maybe I used a wrong word, unfortunately people still misunderstand the others beceause of different comprehension the same words. This issue is more complicated when the talk is leading by at least one person who writes/speaks in unnatural language for itself (here my case).
Anyway, my point is: in US Open 1977 were played four rounds with only "best of three" matches, and most of them were two-setters, then quarterfinals and semifinals only with scorelines like 6-2 6-4 6-3 and finally the final which was the only 4-setter (!) in that tournament - fourth set 6-0... That's why I've written "joke tournament". Nothing more :o


Best-of-three or best-of-five - one guy still has to beat the other and more often than not the best man wins. I would take a major with a deep draw and some best-of-three matches than a major with a poor draw and all best-of-five matches.

I think conversely, but as I said - I'm not sure about it, it's a matter of feeling ;)

fast_clay
07-29-2008, 10:31 PM
grass is grass

Henry Kaspar
07-29-2008, 10:32 PM
grass is grass

Chocolate is chocolate.

CmonAussie
07-30-2008, 05:49 AM
Active players in italics.

1 Rod Laver
2 Roger Federer
3 Pete Sampras
4 Bjorn Borg
5 Ivan Lendl
6 Ken Rosewall
7 Jimmy Connors
8 Andre Agassi
9 John McEnroe
10 Mats Wilander

11 Boris Becker
12 Stefan Edberg
13 John Newcombe
14 Rafael Nadal
15 Jim Courier
16 Guillermo Vilas
17 Arthur Ashe
18 Ilie Nastase
19 Jan Kodes
20 Lleyton Hewitt

21 Marat Safin
22 Pat Rafter
23 Stan Smith
24 Gustavo Kuerten
25 Yevgeni Kafelnikov
26 Andy Roddick
27 Michael Chang
28 Goran Ivanisevic
29 Tony Roche
30 Andres Gimeno

31 Vitas Gerulaitis
32 Michael Stich
33 Pat Cash
34 Roscoe Tanner
35 Sergi Bruguera
36 Juan Carlos Ferrero
37 Johan Kriek
38 Carlos Moya
39 Richard Krajicek
40 Novak Djokovic

41 Manuel Orantes
42 Thomas Muster
43 Petr Korda
44 Yannick Noah
45 Adriano Panatta
46 Miroslav Mecir
47 Todd Martin
48 Cedric Pioline
49 Kevin Curren
50 Alex Corretja

51 Mark Philippoussis
52 Thomas Johansson
53 Mark Edmondson
54 Alberto Costa
55 Andres Gomez
56 Brian Teacher
57 Tom Okker
58 David Nalbandian
59 Henri Leconte
60 Alex Metreveli

61 Harold Solomon
62 Tim Henman
63 Sebastian Grosjean
64 Nikolay Davydenko
65 Raul Ramirez
66 Gaston Gaudio
67 Clark Graebner
68 Brian Gottfried
69 Phil Dent
70 Andrei Medvedev

71 Marcelo Rios
72 Guillermo Coria
73 Dick Crealy
74 Fernando Gonzalez
75 Onny Parun
76 Tim Mayotte
77 Magnus Norman
78 Zeljko Franulovic
79 Marcos Bagdhatis
80 Patrick Proisy

81 Steve Denton
82 Jonas Bjorkman
83 Eddie Dibbs
84 Tommy Haas
85 Kim Warwick
86 Thomas Enqvist
87 Arnaud Clement
88 Victor Pecci
89 Rainer Schuttler
90 John Alexander

91 Roger Taylor
92 Cliff Richey
93 Wayne Ferreira
94 Tommy Gorman
95 Hank Pfister
96 John Sadri
97 John Lloyd
98 Greg Rusedski
99 Niki Pilic
100 Michael Pernfors
101 Alberto Berasetegui


:wavey:
good job Henry Kaspar;)
...
happy to see lots of Australians on your list:cool::worship:

VolandriFan
07-30-2008, 06:03 AM
I think Carlos is still active ;)

At least, he was yesterday. :p

Ferrero Forever
07-30-2008, 01:35 PM
36:) Yay

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 03:00 PM
:wavey:
good job Henry Kaspar;)
...
happy to see lots of Australians on your list:cool::worship:

And you overlooked Tony Roche at #29 and Dick Crealy at #73... ;)

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 03:01 PM
I think Carlos is still active ;)

At least, he was yesterday. :p

True. :worship: Please let me know if you find other errors.
Cheers,
HK

Ays25
07-30-2008, 03:05 PM
federer shoud be behind becker in here
also stich must be higher, he was a joy to watch and was unlucky to play in the same time with sampras, he woud have been no 1 if he played now.

JolánGagó
07-30-2008, 03:12 PM
Both Becker and Edberg are grossly overrated.

stich must be higher, he was a joy to watch and was unlucky to play in the same time with sampras, he woud have been no 1 if he played now.

Great joke.

oranges
07-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Both Becker and Edberg are grossly overrated.


:haha: If it were up to you, they would prohibit players from crossing that service line. No coming to the net guys, sorry, it's the rules. :haha:

finishingmove
07-30-2008, 03:29 PM
grass is grass

Chocolate is chocolate.

grass is like a box of chocolates

groundstroke
07-30-2008, 03:32 PM
Nadal at 14? What the hell? He should be lower than 14, rank him 30 or 40. A clay moonballer..

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 03:33 PM
grass is like a box of chocolates

:haha:
.... you never know what you get :yeah:

Kolya
07-30-2008, 03:38 PM
If its just GS results then the title should be Top 101 Male GS Tennis players of the Open Era.

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 03:42 PM
If its just GS results then the title should be Top 101 Male GS Tennis players of the Open Era.

Fair point. Maybe a mod could change this.

Although GSs would arguably make up for 70-80 percent of the ingredients of an overall ranking too.

Sebby
07-30-2008, 05:17 PM
federer shoud be behind becker

:spit: :silly:

12 GS to 6

thrust
07-30-2008, 06:17 PM
Open Era: Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg, Connors, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, Nadal, Laver, Rosewall. As great as Laver and Rosewall were in the Open Era, they were even better before that even though Rod won the Grand Slam in 69 and Ken was close to 34 at the beginning of the OE

Oops! Forgot to include Wilander! He would be between Agassi and Edberg.

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 06:23 PM
Oops! Forgot to include Wilander! He would be between Agassi and Edberg.

And BigMac, it seems.

Ays25
07-30-2008, 06:23 PM
:spit: :silly:

12 GS to 6

at least 20 top players on becker era vs just nadal ;)

Damn
07-30-2008, 06:26 PM
Nadal at 14? What the hell? He should be lower than 14, rank him 30 or 40. A clay moonballer..

Good joke.

Sebby
07-30-2008, 06:29 PM
at least 20 top players on becker era vs just nadal ;)

Ok. Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian etc. were shit, we'll don't start this debate again ;)

Henry Kaspar
07-30-2008, 10:54 PM
Ok. Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian etc. were shit, we'll don't start this debate again ;)

Well, my ranking obviously assumes that the eras are comparable in strength (as I believe they are). Otherwise the effort would be futile.

This said, Becker battled with Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, and the young Pete Sampras -- all players in my top 12. Of Federer's rivals it's indeed only Nadal who is really in this class. The others are half a step below.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:53 AM
Nadal at 14? What the hell? He should be lower than 14, rank him 30 or 40. A clay moonballer..


And Bjorn Borg should be..... ?

rocketassist
07-31-2008, 02:56 AM
Djokovic above Muster?

Drug testing for the thread starter.

Also Stich > Rodduck.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 03:07 AM
Djokovic above Muster?

Drug testing for the thread starter.

Also Stich > Rodduck.

Hmmm..... Djokovic already reached two GS finals compared to Muster's one, and he went to 5 GS semifinals in a row on three different surfaces -- Muster never did anything like this. If anything I have Djokovic a tad low, given that he is still quite a newbee.

As for Stich>Roddick, in terms of potential probably yes, in terms of achievements no.

Knightmace
07-31-2008, 04:57 AM
Federer is 2!

Win French Open ROger!

ChinoRios4Ever
07-31-2008, 05:15 AM
unreal :tape:

propi
07-31-2008, 05:16 AM
Bruguera behind Roddick, Chang or Ivanisevic?? :o

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 05:21 AM
Bruguera behind Roddick, Chang or Ivanisevic?? :o

Too much of a one-surface pony to be ranked higher up, imo. Also, theother guys you mention advanced to GS quarterfinals 13 or 14 times in their careers, and to semifinals 7 or 8 times, while Bruguera -- (both) 4 times.

ChinoRios4Ever
07-31-2008, 05:22 AM
Rios almost tied with... Gonzo! :o

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 05:27 AM
Rios almost tied with... Gonzo! :o

Well, both players' career highlight was a lost Aussie Open final. Apart from that they reached a few GS quarterfials.

propi
07-31-2008, 05:28 AM
Too much of a one-surface pony to be ranked higher up, imo. Also, theother guys you mention advanced to GS quarterfinals 13 or 14 times in their careers, and to semifinals 7 or 8 times, while Bruguera -- (both) 4 times.
Yet he's got one more GS and an Olympic silver ;)
Anyway it's your ranking :p

Sebby
07-31-2008, 09:41 AM
Yet he's got one more GS and an Olympic silver ;)
Anyway it's your ranking :p

For some posters here Olympic Gold is shit, so an Olympic silver : :spit:

jpatatsos
07-31-2008, 10:11 AM
good effort mate:)

marcos at 79 he made it lol

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 10:22 AM
Change the thread title, it's misleading.

FairWeatherFan
07-31-2008, 10:46 AM
26 Andy Roddick

:haha::haha::haha:

bokehlicious
07-31-2008, 10:47 AM
federer shoud be behind becker in here

Yeah, Djokovic should also be ahead of him :yeah:


:retard:

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:24 PM
Change the thread title, it's misleading.

1) What is misleading (because the list is "only" based on GSs?)?
2) Dummy question: how do I change a title? Clicking "edit" in the opening post doesn't allow me do it.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:36 PM
:haha::haha::haha:

Seems that several find this amusing -- bother to elaborate? Former world #1, 4 grand slam finals, winning one of them; a very regular participant in GS semi- and quarterfinals (14 times overall) -- #26 this is just where this gets him. Further down there may be a few players with more talent and versatility, but not with more success.

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 02:45 PM
1) What is misleading (because the list is "only" based on GSs?)?
2) Dummy question: how do I change a title? Clicking "edit" in the opening post doesn't allow me do it.

Use the term Slams in the thread title, then people will know exactly what it's about. However like the court speed theory, this leaves out the variables, which need to be factored in.

Example: Agassi had better results at RG than Muster, only a deluded fool would say he was better on clay. There are many other factors well. If this was done say by the individual Slam and not overall, then the example I used would be a result, which isn't true.

Got to edit post in the first one, then it should have Advanced Options, click on that, then you should be able to adjust the thread title, then save.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:52 PM
Use the term Slams in the thread title, then people will know exactly what it's about. Got to edit post in the first one, then it should have Advanced Options, click on that, then you should be able to adjust the thread title, then save. However like the court speed theory, this leaves out the variables, which need to be factored in. Example: Agassi had better results at RG than Muster, only a deluded fool would say he was better on clay.

Just changed it. Only a deluded fool though would say that this list is only based on pure face-value GS stats -- as I've written earlier (start with page 1, post 7) this is not the case. Hence this

If this was done say by the individual Slam and not overall, then the example I used would be a result, which isn't true.

.... is simply wrong.

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 02:55 PM
So what other categories were taken into account, then?

Johnny Groove
07-31-2008, 02:56 PM
When discussing this subject, Federer, Laver, Borg, and Sampras HAVE TO BE in the top 4, the order notwithstanding. Anything beyond that is open to interpretation.

I love how Nadal is the 14th best player of all time and he's only 22 :lol:

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:56 PM
So what other categories were taken into account, then?

Why don't you read first before you rant. Page one, post 8.

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 02:57 PM
It's my own ranking, but it's based on their results in GS tournaments.

The forensic above says that this list was based on GS tournaments.

Sunset of Age
07-31-2008, 02:58 PM
When discussing this subject, Federer, Laver, Borg, and Sampras HAVE TO BE in the top 4, the order notwithstanding. Anything beyond that is open to interpretation.

I love how Nadal is the 14th best player of all time and he's only 22 :lol:

Pretty sure Rafa will climb a bit on the rankings here in due time. :D

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 02:59 PM
The forensic above says that this list was based on GS tournaments.

Now move your mouse down a little further..... you'll get there.

thrust
07-31-2008, 03:05 PM
at least 20 top players on becker era vs just nadal ;)

GOOD POINT! More like 10 than 20, I would say. Federer, as good as he is, was lucky in his competition. The same was true with Graf after the Seles incident.

thrust
07-31-2008, 03:12 PM
And BigMac, it seems.

INDEED! Another senior moment-lol!! Interesting to compare Mac and Borg. Borg has a great record with more Slams than Mac but was probably driven out of the game, at a young age, because he realized he could not quite compete with Mac anymore. Borg would always have the advantage on clay, but Mac would have the advantage on grass and hard courts?

Sebby
07-31-2008, 03:21 PM
Now move your mouse down a little further..... you'll get there.

wow it's getting hot :aplot:

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 03:27 PM
Now move your mouse down a little further..... you'll get there.

It's Ok, you can use whatever criteria you like and dress it up however you want, but it's still flawed. Cyborg and Voo highlighted the problems with it, especially over the time period taken.

If you say it's based on GS results, which has already been quoted than that's what it's based on and that's fine.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 03:48 PM
For what it's worth, here are a few thoughts that went into the ranking of the top 40 (further down, players are so close that +- 5 positions could easily be argued in most cases)

Active players in italics.

1 Rod Laver
2 Roger Federer
3 Pete Sampras
4 Bjorn Borg

The 4 demi-gods of open era tennis, can be re-ordered in various ways. There are good arguments in favor or each at #1: Laver's clean slam in 69 and his long dominance on the pro tour; Federer's 10 consecutive GS finals (with 8 wins); Sampras' record number of slam titles; and Borg's unrivaled achievements by age 25 -- even though he didn't even play the Aussie Open.

5 Ivan Lendl
6 Ken Rosewall

Rosewall is hard to rank: probably the world's best for a short period in the early 1960s, then second fiddle to Laver on the pro tour. Managed to win four more slam titles in the open era while already in his mid-30s.

7 Jimmy Connors
8 Andre Agassi

7, 8 are about even.

9 John McEnroe

Arguably higher in terms of talent, but not in terms of results.

10 Mats Wilander

11 Boris Becker
12 Stefan Edberg

11, 12 are about even.

13 John Newcombe

Another hard-to-rank fellow. 5 GS titles in the open era, always dangerous but a tad inconsistent. 2 more slams as an amateuer in 1967, but I tend to discount these as he probably wouldn't have won with Laver in the field.

14 Rafael Nadal

Let's see how far further up he can go... This year's Wimbledon title got him from #16 to #14 on my list.

15 Jim Courier
16 Guillermo Vilas
17 Arthur Ashe
18 Ilie Nastase
19 Jan Kodes

Kodes has 3 slam titles compared to Nastase's 2, but one was the largely boycotted Wimbledon tournament of 1973.

20 Lleyton Hewitt

21 Marat Safin
22 Pat Rafter
23 Stan Smith
24 Gustavo Kuerten
25 Yevgeni Kafelnikov

20-25 are close. The ranking may be a tad rough on Kafelnikov, and a tad generous on Safin/Rafter/Smith -- but then, Smith didn't play the Aussie Open. Kuerten has 3 titles compared to 2 for the others, but all his major successes were at Roland Garros -- he didn't get further than the QFs anywhere else.

26 Andy Roddick
27 Michael Chang
28 Goran Ivanisevic

26-28 are close.

29 Tony Roche
30 Andres Gimeno

Both are hard to rank, as a substantial part of their careers was in the pre-open era -- Roche as an amateur, Gimeno on the pro tour.

As a side note, I did not incude Ray Emerson, Fred Stolle and Pancho Gonzalez in the ranking -- while they played a few tournaments in the open era, they had all major successes before that.

31 Vitas Gerulaitis
32 Michael Stich
33 Pat Cash
34 Roscoe Tanner

31-34 are close. Gerulaitis and Tanner won depleted Aussie Opens in 77 (Dec/Jan), maybe this should result in larger discounts. But then they performed well also at the other slams, being stopped only by the likes of Borg and McEnroe. A case could -- actually maybe should -- be made for Gerulaitis at #33, Stich and Cash one up. Actually I just convinced myself and changed this.

35 Sergi Bruguera

The ultimate one-surface player who did nothing remarkable at slams outside RG -- hence in the 30s in spite of 2 GS titles.

36 Juan Carlos Ferrero

Could be above Bruguera.

37 Johan Kriek

The lowest ranked 2-GS-title holder, but Kriek won his 2 titles at the poorly attended Aussie Open in 81 and 82, otherwise he didn't go beyond semifinals in slams. Could be placed even lower.

38 Carlos Moya
39 Richard Krajicek
40 Novak Djokovic

There are arguments in favor of putting Djokovic higher -- few players reached 5 subsequent GS seminfals. But take this as a promise for the great things to come.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 03:51 PM
It's Ok, you can use whatever criteria you like and dress it up however you want, but it's still flawed. Cyborg and Voo highlighted the problems with it,

Voo applauded me for dicounting the Australian Open in the 70s/early 80s. CyBorg threw around wild anti-factual criticism, obviously without fully understanding what he was talking about.

If you say it's based on GS results, which has already been quoted than that's what it's based on and that's fine.

It is. But not in a mechnanical title-counting manner, as you or Cyborg seem(ed) to think.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 04:13 PM
INDEED! Another senior moment-lol!! Interesting to compare Mac and Borg. Borg has a great record with more Slams than Mac but was probably driven out of the game, at a young age, because he realized he could not quite compete with Mac anymore. Borg would always have the advantage on clay, but Mac would have the advantage on grass and hard courts?

Maybe, these are obviously interesting speculations. But let me play devil's acvocate for a sec:

-- Mac won nothing in 82 (the year after Borg retired). Instead Borg's old rival Connors won Wimbledon and the US Open, and Borg tended to have the edge over Connors -- thus maybe Borg WOULD have won more titles had he stayed?

-- Borg would probably have had the advantage over McEnroe on clay -- but also over Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander, who were just breaking through at the time?

Pity that we didn't get to see this...

Boris Franz Ecker
07-31-2008, 07:25 PM
The lowest ranked 2-GS-title holder, but Kriek won his 2 titles at the poorly attended Aussie Open in 81 and 82, otherwise he didn't go beyond semifinals in slams. Could be placed even lower.


Does not seem to be a problem when ranking Rosewall so high.
Remember, even French Open were nearly dead until Borg saved the tournament.

You don't know what you want.

Henry Kaspar
07-31-2008, 09:07 PM
Does not seem to be a problem when ranking Rosewall so high.
Remember, even French Open were nearly dead until Borg saved the tournament.

You don't know what you want.

??????

Here is the seeding list for the 1968 French Open (that Rosewall won):


1 Rod Laver, (Finals)
2 Ken Rosewall, (Champion)
3 Andres Gimeno, (Semifinals)
4 Roy Emerson, (Quarterfinals)
5 Richard Pancho Gonzales, (Semifinals)
6 Fred Stolle, (Second Round)
7 Lew Hoad, (First Round)
8 Bob Hewitt, (Third Round)
9 Ion Tiriac, (Quarterfinals)
10 Wilhelm Bungert, (First Round)
11 Nicola Pietrangeli, (First Round)
12 Istvan Gulyas, (Fourth Round)
13 Cliff Richey, (Fourth Round)
14 Ray Ruffels, (Fourth Round)
15 Jan Kodes, (First Round)
16 Alex Metreveli, (First Round)

Nastase, Orantes, Franulovic were there but not seeded. You call this a poorly attended tournament?

The 1971 Australian Open were also superbly attended. The real crisis years of the Aussie Open were from about 1975 to 1982.

Alonsofz
08-01-2008, 01:55 AM
Federer better than Sampras at GS? mmmm...

Sebby
08-01-2008, 09:46 AM
Federer better than Sampras at GS? mmmm...

More regularity I guess. 10 GS finals in a row.

Damn
08-01-2008, 12:41 PM
Now move your mouse down a little further..... you'll get there.

wow it's getting hot :aplot:

:haha: :haha: Good one.

Henry Kaspar
08-03-2008, 04:04 AM
I added a top 101 list also for the ladies, but here is of course not the place to discuss it. If you are interested, just follow the link in my signature.

Cheers,
HK

Henry Kaspar
08-03-2008, 02:13 PM
Federer better than Sampras at GS? mmmm...

I have no problem if one orders them the other way round. As said elsewhere, the ## 1-4 stand out and can be ordered in various ways. The reason for Federer>Sampras in my ranking is, as someone else has noticed, greater dominance. 10 GS finals in a row is quite extraordinary.