The Top 50 Singles Players of the Open Era [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Top 50 Singles Players of the Open Era

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:11 PM
The three main factors beside the names are career-high ranking, number of Slams won and number of titles won:

1. Pete Sampras (#1, 14 Slams, 64 titles)
2. Rod Laver (#3*, 11 Slams, 39 titles*)
3. Bjorn Borg (#1, 11 Slams, 62 titles)
4. Andre Agassi (#1, 8 Slams, 60 titles)
5. Ivan Lendl (#1, 8 Slams, 94 titles)
6. Jimmy Connors (#1, 8 Slams, 109 titles)
7. John McEnroe (#1, 7 Slams, 77 titles)
8. Mats Wilander (#1, 7 Slams, 33 titles)
9. John Newcombe (#1*, 7 Slams, 31 titles*)
10. Ken Rosewall (#2*, 8 Slams, 25 titles*)
11. Boris Becker (#1, 6 Slams, 49 titles)
12. Stefan Edberg (#1, 6 Slams, 42 titles)
13. Roger Federer (#1, 5 Slams, 31 titles)
14. Guillermo Vilas (#2, 4 Slams, 62 titles)
15. Jim Courier (#1, 4 Slams, 23 titles)
16. Gustavo Kuerten (#1, 3 Slams, 20 titles)
17. Lleyton Hewitt (#1, 2 Slams, 23 titles)
18. Ilie Nastase (#1, 2 Slams, 52 titles)
19. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (#1, 2 Slams, 26 titles)
20. Marat Safin (#1, 2 Slams, 15 titles)
21. Arthur Ashe (#2, 3 Slams, 33 titles)
22. Patrick Rafter (#1, 2 Slams, 11 titles)
23. Stan Smith (#3, 2 Slams, 35 titles)
24. Sergi Bruguera (#3, 2 Slams, 14 titles)
25. Andy Roddick (#1, 1 Slam, 15 titles)
26. Juan Carlos Ferrero (#1, 1 Slam, 11 titles)
27. Carlos Moya (#1, 1 Slam, 17 titles)
28. Manuel Orantes (#2, 1 Slam, 33 titles)
29. Goran Ivanisevic (#2, 1 Slam, 22 titles)
30. Thomas Muster (#1, 1 Slam, 44 titles)
31. Michael Chang (#2, 1 Slam, 34 titles)
32. Rafael Nadal (#2, 1 Slam, 10 titles)
33. Vitas Gerulaitis (#3, 1 Slam, 24 titles)
34. Michael Stich (#2, 1 Slam, 18 titles)
35. Yannick Noah (#3, 1 Slam, 23 titles)
36. Richard Krajicek (#4, 1 Slam, 17 titles)
37. Andres Gomez (#4, 1 Slam, 21 titles)
38. Petr Korda (#2, 1 Slam, 10 titles)
39. Roscoe Tanner (#4, 1 Slam, 16 titles)
40. Pat Cash (#4, 1 Slam, 7 titles)
41. Marcelo Rios (#1, 1 Slam final, 18 titles)
42. Alex Corretja (#2, 2 Slam finals, 17 titles)
43. Brian Gottfried (#3, 1 Slam final, 25 titles)
44. Miloslav Mecir (#4, 2 Slam finals, 11 titles)
45. Thomas Enqvist (#4, 1 Slam final, 19 titles)
46. Jan Kodes (#5, 3 Slams, 8 titles)
47. Johan Kriek (#7, 2 Slams, 14 titles)
48. Albert Costa (#6, 1 Slam, 12 titles)
49. Thomas Johansson (#7, 1 Slam, 8 titles)
50. Gaston Gaudio (#8, 1 Slam, 3 titles)




*Open Era only - Laver, Newcombe and Rosewall all won Slams before tennis turned professional in 1968, but their "career-high" rankings only date from after the rankings system was introduced in 1973, and their titles won outside the Slams all date from post-1968 as well.

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 10:13 PM
why is agassi before lendl?

4. Andre Agassi 1 8 59
5. Ivan Lendl 1 8 94

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:15 PM
The career Slam. As usual I have no idea how to format a post properly, so I'll do it again...

Blaze
11-27-2004, 10:15 PM
This you make this up or got it from somewhere?

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 10:16 PM
The career Slam. As usual I have no idea how to format a post properly, so I'll do it again...

hmmm. :rolleyes:
the career slam is enough to outweigh the discrepancy between 59 and 94 titles and put Agassi in front of Lendl, but laver's career slam(s) are not enough to put him ahead of Pete?

The debate has commenced.... comment?

Fedex
11-27-2004, 10:21 PM
hmmm. :rolleyes:
the career slam is enough to outweigh the discrepancy between 59 and 94 titles and put Agassi in front of Lendl, but laver's career slam(s) are not enough to put him ahead of Pete?

The debate has commenced.... comment?
It is very debatable whether Agassi should be in front of Lendl, but I give Lendl the slight edge, because of the difference in titles between him and Agassi.

Blaze
11-27-2004, 10:22 PM
hmmm. :rolleyes:
the career slam is enough to outweigh the discrepancy between 59 and 94 titles and put Agassi in front of Lendl, but laver's career slam(s) are not enough to put him ahead of Pete?

The debate has commenced.... comment?


True, I also think since she is obviously ordering them according to Grandslam, the nature of the slam shouldn't matter as long as you have more slam then another. If the slams are tied, then you consider other titles, if that too is the same, you can use their highest ranking and probably longevity at that position as a tiebreaker.

MisterQ
11-27-2004, 10:41 PM
thanks, Sjengster. who made this list?

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:42 PM
"She"... I must be giving off the wrong vibe in my posts.

Don't roll your eyes at me mitalidas, there is an inevitable element of subjectivity in trying to create a list like this. IMO, 35 more titles (which is what Lendl has over Agassi) is not of greater values than 3 more Slams (which is what Sampras has over Laver).

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:44 PM
thanks, Sjengster. who made this list?

Who do you think, Q? ;)

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 10:44 PM
far too much weight on slam titles (they're important yes, but when someone accumulates double the number of "other" titles, they can't be penalized this way).


4. Andre Agassi (#1, 8 Slams, 59 titles)
5. Ivan Lendl (#1, 8 Slams, 94 titles)
6. Jimmy Connors (#1, 8 Slams, 109 titles)

i say these 3 tie, at best

MisterQ
11-27-2004, 10:45 PM
Who do you think, Q? ;)

The "she" had me confused... ;)

MisterQ
11-27-2004, 10:51 PM
I think sorting out the order between Agassi, Lendl, Connors and McEnroe is VERY difficult. Each one has some some strong arguments for and against him.

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:52 PM
far too much weight on slam titles (they're important yes, but when someone accumulates double the number of "other" titles, they can't be penalized this way).


4. Andre Agassi (#1, 8 Slams, 59 titles)
5. Ivan Lendl (#1, 8 Slams, 94 titles)
6. Jimmy Connors (#1, 8 Slams, 109 titles)

i say these 3 tie, at best

I tried to take into account both quality AND quantity in this list, the number of titles won isn't everything. Anyway, I don't mind people criticising my order, but at least no-one will be able to accuse me of favouring players I like over those I don't. ;)

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 10:55 PM
One thing about Connors' amazing number of titles is that he won a lot of events set up on a separate tour to the ATP, I think run by his promoter - I'm not sure of the details, but not all of them are ATP events. The player with the biggest number of tour titles is Lendl.

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 10:56 PM
I tried to take into account both quality AND quantity in this list, the number of titles won isn't everything. Anyway, I don't mind people criticising my order, but at least no-one will be able to accuse me of favouring players I like over those I don't. ;)

nono, no criticism
earlier I was not sure what the rank order was based on
but now i can tell that iso ("in sjengster's opinion"), the importance is (generally): the # of slams, the highest ranking, and only then the "other" titles

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 10:58 PM
also, i would put Ashe and Hewitt ahead of Kuerten
Hewitt has 1 fewer slam, but they're on different surfaces. he ranked #1 twice, and much earlier than Kuerten, in his career

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 11:04 PM
To use an example: Rios and Brian Gottfried, both have 1 Slam final to their name and Gottfried has more titles, but I wouldn't call him a greater player.

I was debating about Ashe, it was only because of his #2 ranking that I put him below Kafelnikov - maybe he deserves higher. I rate Kuerten above Hewitt because of the extra Slam and the fact that, although he's only won at RG, he has done much better on hard than Hewitt has on clay: a TMC indoors, a TMS title in Cincinnati, finals at all the North American TMS events. Plus QFs at Wimbledon and the US Open aren't bad for someone whose best surface is clay.

TennisLurker
11-27-2004, 11:18 PM
Lendl said Agassi had a better career than him because although they both won 8 slams, Agassi has the career slam.

Flibbertigibbet
11-27-2004, 11:40 PM
Wow, very interesting. Go for making this list, Sjengster. People here do have some good points, though - it comes to different views and outlooks. Seriously, I'd like it if we could have a good discussion about players' strengths, weaknesses, titles, Slams, whatever, and try to maybe make the list together somehow? This is more interesting than some of the topics we have now. :-P

BlackSilver
11-28-2004, 12:07 AM
also, i would put Ashe and Hewitt ahead of Kuerten
Hewitt has 1 fewer slam, but they're on different surfaces. he ranked #1 twice, and much earlier than Kuerten, in his career


No way Hewitt should be in the front of Guga. If Guga didn't have his contusion, would have been much difficult for Hewitt to finish 2001 as number 1. Besides this, Guga won a lot more of masters series than Hewitt, that only won one more Masters cup and smaller titles

I think that Lendl and Connors should be in front of Agassi, a carrer slam for me isn't nearly as important to justify the difference in number of titles

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 12:12 AM
No way Hewitt should be in the front of Guga. If Guga didn't have his contusion, would have been much difficult for Hewitt to finish 2001 as number 1. Besides this, Guga won a lot more of masters series than Hewitt, that only won one more Masters cup and smaller titles

well, we cannot account for illness and injury --its like saying, if only Nalbandian was not injured, he *might* have won a couple slams this year. We can only go with what they did achieve

And my point was that Guga's slams, and really most of his big Masters wins, are clay. Hewitt is so much more versatile, and has got two slams on 2 different surfaces. Not to mention finishing #1 2 years in a row.

BlackSilver
11-28-2004, 12:27 AM
well, we cannot account for illness and injury --its like saying, if only Nalbandian was not injured, he *might* have won a couple slams this year. We can only go with what they did achieve

And my point was that Guga's slams, and really most of his big Masters wins, are clay. Hewitt is so much more versatile, and has got two slams on 2 different surfaces. Not to mention finishing #1 2 years in a row.

Well, if you consider versatility more important than raw number of titles (I don't agree with that, personally), I think that following this kind of thought, both should be on the same level.

Your example of Nalbandian was a bad comparision, would have been 50x times hard to him to do this than Guga collect a few points here and there to finish 2001 a number 1. Anyway, your point still makes sense, this is the reason for that in somecases, the number of weeks as number one of world in one year should be more important (and Guga was number 1 in 2001 for a considerable more amount of time than hweitt I think)

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 12:32 AM
my point about nalbandian was just heuristic --- only to illustrate that your saying "If Guga had not had his contusion then it would have been difficult for Hewitt to finish #1"
The point is -- we are not in a position to say What if, etc. We can only go with what they did achieve

Guga has 3 slams, and hewitt only 2. but Guga has achieved that on "only" clay, and so i agree -- those two cancel each other out and its a toss up (so: tie)

JeNn
11-28-2004, 12:35 AM
Great List.

I suppose a lot of people are going to deal with the top 20 or so.
But this seemed an oddity to me. Surely if all these players stopped playing now then:


29. Goran Ivanisevic (#2, 1 Slam, 22 titles)
30. Thomas Muster (#1, 1 Slam, 44 titles)
31. Michael Chang (#2, 1 Slam, 34 titles)

would be ranked above:


24. Marat Safin (#1, 1 Slam, 14 titles)
25. Andy Roddick (#1, 1 Slam, 15 titles)
26. Juan Carlos Ferrero (#1, 1 Slam, 11 titles)
27. Carlos Moya (#1, 1 Slam, 17 titles)

I understand that number one could be a factor. However I could not possibly see any arrangement of the facts that would see Moya ranked above Ivanisevic, Muster and Chang who had much fuller careers, all the while in Sampras' shadow.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 12:46 AM
JeNn, you might also ask why Safin is ahead of Roddick (both 1 slam, both #1, but roddick more titles --and in shorter time i guess)

but I will infer from your avatar, that this mis-ranking might be alright with you :)

JeNn
11-28-2004, 01:22 AM
JeNn, you might also ask why Safin is ahead of Roddick (both 1 slam, both #1, but roddick more titles --and in shorter time i guess)

but I will infer from your avatar, that this mis-ranking might be alright with you :)

:wavey:


There is a case to have Roddick above Safin defnitely. Marat has better GS results overall, but Safin has that extra title. Your right though, I don't mind that much ;)

My point was more that there was a current player bias in the post. Chang, Ivanisevic, Muster have had much fuller careers than the 4 active players at this point in time.

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 01:27 AM
Looking even further down the list...

What are your thoughts on Jan Kodes, who won 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon and made 2 USO finals, but is ranked on your list below people who only made finals?

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 01:32 AM
Great List.

I suppose a lot of people are going to deal with the top 20 or so.
But this seemed an oddity to me. Surely if all these players stopped playing now then:



would be ranked above:



I understand that number one could be a factor. However I could not possibly see any arrangement of the facts that would see Moya ranked above Ivanisevic, Muster and Chang who had much fuller careers, all the while in Sampras' shadow.

It seems that Moya's two weeks at No. 1 have helped him out against those players who spent a lot of time at No. 2 but couldn't quite push through. Fate is cruel to the Changs and Ivanisevices :sad: But I can't blame Sjengster for considering reaching No. 1 as a significant feat, no matter how brief. :)

makro120
11-28-2004, 01:46 AM
I think we should remember that Lendl was in GS 19 finals, several times on every grand slam, by this he has the record. Don't know how many finals Agassi has, but I would have Lendl ahead of Agassi, he dominated the 80s, while Agassi has almost his whole career beeing nr2.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 01:52 AM
I think we should remember that Lendl was in GS 19 finals, several times on every grand slam, by this he has the record. Don't know how many finals Agassi has, but I would have Lendl ahead of Agassi, he dominated the 80s, while Agassi has almost his whole career beeing nr2.
not just the GS finals, but 59 titles to 94. I mean, Lendl's only penalty is not winning a career slam , but i think 94-to-59 takes care of that

Action Jackson
11-28-2004, 01:55 AM
I would have Lendl in front of Agassi, sure he didn't win the career Slam, but he made more Slam finals.

Interesting list for sure.

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 02:02 AM
I think we should remember that Lendl was in GS 19 finals, several times on every grand slam, by this he has the record. Don't know how many finals Agassi has, but I would have Lendl ahead of Agassi, he dominated the 80s, while Agassi has almost his whole career beeing nr2.

Agassi made 14 total GS finals.

The arguments for putting Lendl ahead of Agassi are strong, as much as I hate to say it. :p ;)

ivan also had 270 weeks at the top (behind only sampras), while andre has had 101 weeks.

J. Corwin
11-28-2004, 02:33 AM
Very interesting list. :)

I'd put both Connors and Lendl above Agassi, cuz I think Connors and Lendl's weeks at #1, years ending #1, and # of titles over-ride Agassi's career slam. :cool: I'd put Andre a little above JMac though, since JMac has only won 2 of the 4 slams, while Andre has ALL 4...plus that extra slam. That's why it's so important for Andre to win another slam to put him more definitively above the Connors/Lendls/McEnroes... ;)

I'd also put Chang a lot closer to Rafter. Rafter may have won that extra slam, but Chang did reach 4 GS finals, and won so many more titles (including 7 TMS titles)....while Rafter "only" really has won a handful.

I can comment on some other parts of the list but I'll stop for now. ;)

WyveN
11-28-2004, 04:35 AM
You have to keep in mind that Connors and Borg and Mcenroe for example only played the AO a couple of times. You can't penalise them for not winning it (Connors actually won it in one of his only attempts).

Billabong
11-28-2004, 04:36 AM
Guga #16:D

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 06:09 AM
You have to keep in mind that Connors and Borg and Mcenroe for example only played the AO a couple of times. You can't penalise them for not winning it (Connors actually won it in one of his only attempts).

That is something worth keeping in mind.

Of course, Agassi also skipped the AO the first 9 years of his career. ;)

Leena
11-28-2004, 06:24 AM
Why is Muster so low?

I know he didn't reach the later rounds in many slams, and many of those 44 titles are dinky clay tournies.

Unless you're considering the potential that Roddick, Safin, Moya, Ferrero, etc... will accomplish more things... Muster is the better player.

Action Jackson
11-28-2004, 06:37 AM
Why is Muster so low?

I know he didn't reach the later rounds in many slams, and many of those 44 titles are dinky clay tournies.

Unless you're considering the potential that Roddick, Safin, Moya, Ferrero, etc... will accomplish more things... Muster is the better player.

Ask anyone of the people that posted here that I am one of Muster's biggest fans and unlike yourself it's not a lust thing. :devil:

The thing it's not the toughest or the most determined player if that was the case then he would be a lot higher and in the top 3.

That being said I do find it hard to put him much higher than #30. he had those 2 great years of 95-96 on clay where he owned nearly everyone, but his FO performances apart from 95 and 90 did let him down and I do know the reasons for that.

Yes, he won Monte Carlo 3 times and Rome twice, plus managed to win Miami and was a finalist there and in Cincinatti plus made 2 semis in Aus.

I would say already Ferrero has had better Slam results than Muster has, then again those players you mentioned have all reached number 1 at some point.

Leena
11-28-2004, 06:49 AM
I'm talking about results, though. I know Muster played way above his potential with his fighting spirit and insanity.

Muster has also won more Masters Series/Super 9/Whatever they were called back then tournies.

Action Jackson
11-28-2004, 06:58 AM
Your initial point about the potential of the others that you mentioned earlier has to be taken into consideration, but say if Muster won RG twice as he should have then I would have no problem putting him above Moya and the like.

Sure he won 44 titles, but those guys have had better results I mean Moya has won a Slam, made a final of a Slam and the end of season champs something Muster was never able to do and I would have Ivanisevic and Muster higher than they are, but not that much higher than they were put on this list.

Chloe le Bopper
11-28-2004, 07:27 AM
also, i would put Ashe and Hewitt ahead of Kuerten
Hewitt has 1 fewer slam, but they're on different surfaces. he ranked #1 twice, and much earlier than Kuerten, in his career

I don't think that when a player peaks necessarily has any bearing on how great they were overall.

Experimentee
11-28-2004, 12:24 PM
17. Lleyton Hewitt (#1, 2 Slams, 23 titles)
18. Ilie Nastase (#1, 2 Slams, 52 titles)
19. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (#1, 2 Slams, 26 titles)
20. Arthur Ashe (#2, 3 Slams, 33 titles)

Looking at this section, why is Hewitt above Nastase even though the latter has more than double the number of titles?
And I would put Ashe higher based on his having more Slams than some people above him, and more titles than Kafelnikov at least.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 01:36 PM
I don't think that when a player peaks necessarily has any bearing on how great they were overall.

no, but when they are roughly "equal" based on the GS, reaching #1, and other titles, it surely helps the player who's played for longer to accumulate more points and get to #1. the player (hewitt in this example) who has not had tonnes of time, has to do much better, and sooner.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 02:26 PM
Great List.

I suppose a lot of people are going to deal with the top 20 or so.
But this seemed an oddity to me. Surely if all these players stopped playing now then:



would be ranked above:



I understand that number one could be a factor. However I could not possibly see any arrangement of the facts that would see Moya ranked above Ivanisevic, Muster and Chang who had much fuller careers, all the while in Sampras' shadow.

I do think that the number of titles won has a lot to do with the depth of opposition, which I think has been tougher for the New Balls than it was for Chang, Muster et al at times, so I took that into account. Ivanisevic and Muster's only Slam wins and Slam finals came at one GS, Wimbledon and RG respectively, while Safin, Roddick, Ferrero and Moya have all been in finals at two different Slams. And as you mention, there's the bonus of no. 1. Had Chang ever reached the top spot then I could definitely put him above the younger players.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 02:32 PM
JeNn, you might also ask why Safin is ahead of Roddick (both 1 slam, both #1, but roddick more titles --and in shorter time i guess)

but I will infer from your avatar, that this mis-ranking might be alright with you :)

I thought this might be controversial - I put Safin first because he has more TMS titles and better overall Slam results, which I thought compensated for the 1 less title. Also, although Roddick's achievement as year-end no. 1 cannot be devalued, he's only actually been no. 1 on the computer for 5 more weeks than Safin.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 02:37 PM
Looking even further down the list...

What are your thoughts on Jan Kodes, who won 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon and made 2 USO finals, but is ranked on your list below people who only made finals?

This was interesting, because when I looked at his highest ranking (no. 5) and the fact that he won only 8 titles overall in his career, I realised that maybe he was lacking consistency compared to players with fewer Slams. I know for a fact that the Wimbledon title he won in 73 was during a player boycott when a lot of the top players were not present, so that devalues the achievement somewhat.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 02:42 PM
17. Lleyton Hewitt (#1, 2 Slams, 23 titles)
18. Ilie Nastase (#1, 2 Slams, 52 titles)
19. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (#1, 2 Slams, 26 titles)
20. Arthur Ashe (#2, 3 Slams, 33 titles)

Looking at this section, why is Hewitt above Nastase even though the latter has more than double the number of titles?
And I would put Ashe higher based on his having more Slams than some people above him, and more titles than Kafelnikov at least.

Again, I take into account depth of competition when looking at the number of titles, so Nastase winning 52 in the early 70s could well be comparable to Hewitt winning 23 around the turn of the millennium. Ashe, well, like Chang being below some of the New Balls, if he had been no. 1 at some point he would be higher for sure.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 05:03 PM
Lendl arguably played in a tour that had as much depth as the on in which agassi did/does, and still got almost DOUBLE the titles, and as many slams. he should be ahead of agassi

Chloe le Bopper
11-28-2004, 05:06 PM
no, but when they are roughly "equal" based on the GS, reaching #1, and other titles, it surely helps the player who's played for longer to accumulate more points and get to #1. the player (hewitt in this example) who has not had tonnes of time, has to do much better, and sooner.

Seeing as the rankings aren't cumulative past 52 weeks, I just don't think it's that relevant. Some players peak younger than others. I don't think it's necessarily anymore impressive. We just happen to live in a culture that is fascinated by youth. Frankly, I think that Agassi's peak in his late 20s is far more impressive than people who peaked in their late teens/early 20s (although that is slightly OT since he isn't being compared to either Guga or Hewitt :p).

I can agree to disagree :p

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 05:16 PM
Seeing as the rankings aren't cumulative past 52 weeks, I just don't think it's that relevant. I can agree to disagree :p

True about 52 weeks' counting. but when you have played previously, you don't have to get through qualifying and when you dont have to get through qualifying, you play between 4-7 matches to win, not between 8-11 matches to win. Surely, the latter (which would be the case for Hewitt --who had to qualify when Guga didn't) is harder

but, lets shake on that.... agree to disagree, and disagree to agree :kiss:

Chloe le Bopper
11-28-2004, 05:18 PM
It's worth noting that when you are a younger player the "book" on you is a lot thinner. :p

tennischick
11-28-2004, 05:19 PM
why is the Duck ranked higher than Rios or Muster :confused:

Domino
11-28-2004, 05:29 PM
Because Sjengster is basing this all off numbers, which doesn't necessarily mean Duck is better than those two, especially Rios

Pea
11-28-2004, 05:30 PM
Sjengster, Alex Corretja was close to being number one, but he never got there.:'(

Domino
11-28-2004, 05:34 PM
I know I am going to get burned for this, but I believe Courier should be higher up. He had four slams, PLUS two other finals in the two slams he didn't win. He also has more titles than Federer, which is not to say that Federer wont surpass that mark, but since Roger has yet to make the final of Roland Garros, I think you should give credance to Jim's career for now.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 05:36 PM
Courier had more titles in his *entire* career, relative to Federer's young career. Also, less impact in his entire career than Federer has already had with the kinds of records he has already broken (13-straight finals, back to back wins on grass, clay and hard, etc)

Domino
11-28-2004, 05:42 PM
I know, but I still put Courier's career higher than Federer's so far because of his majors results. If Federer wins AUS 05, then yes, Jim has nothing on him.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 05:57 PM
Somhow I dont think courier should be given **credit** for being whipped up 6-2, 6-4, 6-0 in the USO final
It is almost something to penalize him for --granted, getting to a GS final is great, but to show you're a class apart from your opponent...

Domino
11-28-2004, 06:04 PM
Again, I know, and actually, I forgot that Jim made another final at Roland Garros, so there's another thing to add to his resume. He went very far on not so much talent, but I say that his career at the majors is still pretty big, not as polished as Roger's, but so far, more illustrious.

liptea
11-28-2004, 06:36 PM
Why is Ferrero ahead of Moya?

Domino
11-28-2004, 06:42 PM
I am guessing because of the variety of MS titles, and number of them.

Chloe le Bopper
11-28-2004, 07:04 PM
Ferrero was also number 1 longer :p

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 08:08 PM
what was it --8 days for ferrero versus 7 days for moya? they're equally deserving (should tie, I would say). 1 slam each, 2 slam finals each, a few days of #1 ranking each, equally cute

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 08:37 PM
ATP TOTAL WEEKS AT NO. 1

* *
PLAYER WEEKS
NO. 1
Pete Sampras (USA)
286
Ivan Lendl (CZE)
270
Jimmy Connors (USA)
268
John McEnroe (USA)
170
Bjorn Borg(SWE)
109
Andre Agassi (USA)
101
Stefan Edberg (SWE)
72
Lleyton Hewitt (AUS)
80
Jim Courier (USA)
58
Gustavo Kuerten (BRA)
43
Roger Federer (SWI) 43**
Ilie Nastase (ROM)
40
Mats Wilander (SWE)
20
Andy Roddick (USA) 13
Boris Becker (GER)
12
Marat Safin (RUS)
9
Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) 8
John Newcombe (AUS)
8
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
6
Thomas Muster (AUT)
6
Marcelo Rios (CHI)
6
Carlos Moya (ESP)
2
Patrick Rafter (AUS) 1
* *
** Thru week of November 22, 2004

http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 08:43 PM
yet another resounding reason that Lendl (270 weeks!!!!) should undoubtedly be ahead of Agassi ("only" 101 weeks) in the rankings

Agassi really is misplaced in Sjengster's list, relative to lendl

alfonsojose
11-28-2004, 08:47 PM
26. Juan Carlos Ferrero (#1, 1 Slam, 11 titles)
27. Carlos Moya (#1, 1 Slam, 17 titles)

It's "choking" a criteria here :p ? Moya has been around longer.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 08:47 PM
Seeing as the rankings aren't cumulative past 52 weeks, I just don't think it's that relevant. Some players peak younger than others. I don't think it's necessarily anymore impressive. We just happen to live in a culture that is fascinated by youth. Frankly, I think that Agassi's peak in his late 20s is far more impressive than people who peaked in their late teens/early 20s (although that is slightly OT since he isn't being compared to either Guga or Hewitt :p).

I can agree to disagree :p

Just saw in Mr Q's posting, that another reason Lleyton should be higher than Guga, is the enormous difference in weeks at #1 (almost double!!) 43 versus 80.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 08:52 PM
So there we go, Ferrero had 6 more weeks at no. 1 than Moya. It's amazing to think that these two have virtually identical results in big events - they both won RG, made the final of one hardcourt Slam and the semi of the other (USO and AO for Ferrero, the reverse for Moya), had a best showing of the 4th round at Wimbledon, lost the final of the YEC in five sets when they should both have won... I just think Ferrero has already equalled everything Moya has achieved and bettered him in some departments as well, at a younger age.

Federer is guaranteed to overtake Courier for weeks at no. 1, he'll have close to 50 weeks at the top by the end of this year and his ranking won't be threatened until at least IW in March. I hope that he can surpass Hewitt eventually, but that won't be easy with the amount of points he has to defend all through next year.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 08:55 PM
I get the message mitalidas (it's been rather hard to avoid), but I'm not changing it. Maybe if Lendl comes out of retirement and tunes up that volley for Wimbledon... After Sampras, the next three players have all managed to win both RG and Wimbledon, and that's an achievement I valued highly.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 09:10 PM
the irony is that i was never a fan of Lendl's! but okay --this is your subjective ranking. i suppose i should come up with my own

Wulfram
11-28-2004, 09:23 PM
Why does Berasategui get on your list, but Rusedski not?

They've got the same number of titles and pretty much the same slam results (One Final, one quarter at a differant slam, mediocre otherwise), but Rusedski had a better career high ranking.

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 10:03 PM
Why, that's a good point... I was juggling quite a few names at the end (people who didn't quite make it were Gilbert, Mecir, Medvedev and Rusedski), and it didn't really occur to me that Berasategui's achievements were no greater than Rusedski's. OK, I'll change that. Ha ha, it would seem that despite all the scorn, Rusedski IS one of the Top 50 players of all time, if only just...

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 10:09 PM
Why, that's a good point... I was juggling quite a few names at the end (people who didn't quite make it were Gilbert, Mecir, Medvedev and Rusedski), and it didn't really occur to me that Berasategui's achievements were no greater than Rusedski's. OK, I'll change that. Ha ha, it would seem that despite all the scorn, Rusedski IS one of the Top 50 players of all time, if only just...

The Top 50 just lost its most fascinating forehand... :sad:

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 10:14 PM
I know, I know... but it gained surely the best headband/hairstyle combination that man has ever achieved.

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 10:18 PM
:lol:

Domino
11-28-2004, 10:21 PM
Ferrero should be ahead of Moya also because he had another slam final, RG 2002.

bandabou
11-28-2004, 10:24 PM
Wow...sjengster, what´s the point of making a list..when it isn´t objective?

Lendl totally blows Agassi...yeah, Andre won all 4 majors...but has Andre ever dominated? 19 finals, 90+ titles, second longest run at no.1....I mean this isn´t even close.

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 10:34 PM
the point of a list such as this is to inspire debate, which it has...

Sjengster
11-28-2004, 10:39 PM
It's impossible to make a completely objective list when there are so many overlapping areas of contention, I had to make judgements here and there and I did. Ranking, Slams won and titles won have all been used at one time or another to separate one player from another, it depends on the individual comparison.

Domino, I'd completely forgotten about that RG final in 2002 - I'm sure a lot of Ferrero fans have done their best to, as well...

MisterQ
11-28-2004, 10:40 PM
As I posted earlier, I think there are plenty of arguments in favor of putting Lendl ahead of Agassi. But Agassi does have breadth (as opposed to depth) of accomplishment in his favor. No other modern player has come as close to winning EVERY important tournament, and on all surfaces: Andre has all four majors, the Olympics, Davis Cup, the Tennis Masters Cup, and 7 of the 9 masters series. Only Monte Carlo and Hamburg have eluded him.

mitalidas
11-28-2004, 10:40 PM
Ferrero should be ahead of Moya also because he had another slam final, RG 2002.

That choking should be enough to put him well below Moya.... (Okay, just kidding)

Leena
11-28-2004, 11:09 PM
Muster is still massively disrespected.

He should be ahead of Marat... and I love both guys, so there's no favoritism there.

Remember that Thomas had much of his career stolen from him... and judging by his results, '89 was likely to be a huge year for him.

But, whatever. :p

JeNn
11-28-2004, 11:50 PM
I do think that the number of titles won has a lot to do with the depth of opposition, which I think has been tougher for the New Balls than it was for Chang, Muster et al at times, so I took that into account. Ivanisevic and Muster's only Slam wins and Slam finals came at one GS, Wimbledon and RG respectively, while Safin, Roddick, Ferrero and Moya have all been in finals at two different Slams. And as you mention, there's the bonus of no. 1. Had Chang ever reached the top spot then I could definitely put him above the younger players.

This is interesting and I actually tend to think, and historical patterns would suggest, that the opposite is true.

When you look at the achievements of the new balls mentioned - their GS titles, their weeks at #1, and most of their titles - you will see that all the most important ones thus far have come in the five years between 1999-2003. If Federer sustains any kind of dominance as he looks destined to, then it is very likely that this 5 year period will come to be known as a small window after the decline of Sampras (AS) and before the rise of Federer (BF), where lesser lights stock piled achievements. You don't really have to look much further for evidence than the fact that Sampras is #1 on the list, and Federer destined to end his career among the top 5, while the two players who were most prominent during this period are 16 and 17 and unlikely to go much higher.

Also look at the fact that Goran's only major title also came AS and BF, despite the fact that he was well past his best by then, that Chang's only major title came BS (Before Sampras) despite the fact he probably didnt play his best tennis until the mid nineties, and that Muster's only GS title came on a surface where Sampras was a non-factor. This speaks volumes about how dominant Sampras was and how he tarnished the record of his contemporaries. Without Sampras, its hard to imagine that Chang and Ivanisevic (who probably would have been a multiple Wimbledon Champion) at least wouldn't have much better CV's.

As to the number one ranking, again this can be explained within terms of AS and BF. Moya, Safin, Roddick and Ferrero all held number one during this period, and the way things are looking they are unlikely to hold it again, if the Federer era eventuates. Chang and Ivanisevic meanwhile peaked during the Sampras era at #2, and Muster should be given credit for being, along with Agassi, the only player capable of wresting the number one ranking from Sampras during his peak years.

All this is not to say that we should penalise the new balls because their era of achievement was in the absence of a true all time great, if their achievements are clearly superior (as say Hewitt's are). However when others have what would appear on their face to be superior achievements to new balls, then I don't think that we should penalise them simply because they played in an era of the best player ever and never got to number one.

mitalidas
11-29-2004, 12:10 AM
I think Sjengster has met his match in JeNn, in lengths of posts. Man, you guys write a lot!!!!

JeNn
11-29-2004, 12:20 AM
Also, surely there is a place for Cash in this list, though most of us want to block him out :p

mitalidas
11-29-2004, 12:38 AM
who is cash? pat cash? Is there a member Cash? Don't think I've seen him post in the same forums i've been on

J. Corwin
11-29-2004, 01:09 AM
One thing about Connors' amazing number of titles is that he won a lot of events set up on a separate tour to the ATP, I think run by his promoter - I'm not sure of the details, but not all of them are ATP events. The player with the biggest number of tour titles is Lendl.

But I think all 109 ARE ATP tour tournaments. I remember reading somewhere that Connors had won 150 or something total tournaments, but "only" 109 ATP level tournaments. I may be totally wrong of course.

Oh, and I'm still waiting and hoping (and wishing? ;) ) for Andre to win one more major. :cool:

J. Corwin
11-29-2004, 01:17 AM
Ha ha, it would seem that despite all the scorn, Rusedski IS one of the Top 50 players of all time, if only just...

Careful there...not all time... ;)

If there was an all-time list that would be great too. :cool:

MisterQ
11-29-2004, 01:36 AM
But I think all 109 ARE ATP tour tournaments. I remember reading somewhere that Connors had won 150 or something total tournaments, but "only" 109 ATP level tournaments. I may be totally wrong of course.

Oh, and I'm still waiting and hoping (and wishing? ;) ) for Andre to win one more major. :cool:

Atptennis.com (http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/Titles/default.asp?playernumber=C044) lists 105 career singles titles for Connors.

Tenniscorner.net (http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=M&action=players&playerid=COJ007) lists 69 career singles titles.

I have often heard the number 109 quoted.

So I really have no idea about the nature of those titles. But if you go to those links it lists them...

JeNn
11-29-2004, 03:59 AM
who is cash? pat cash? Is there a member Cash? Don't think I've seen him post in the same forums i've been on

My point exactly :haha:

bandabou
11-29-2004, 12:42 PM
As I posted earlier, I think there are plenty of arguments in favor of putting Lendl ahead of Agassi. But Agassi does have breadth (as opposed to depth) of accomplishment in his favor. No other modern player has come as close to winning EVERY important tournament, and on all surfaces: Andre has all four majors, the Olympics, Davis Cup, the Tennis Masters Cup, and 7 of the 9 masters series. Only Monte Carlo and Hamburg have eluded him.

If we go by that then why not make Andre greater than Pete too, then?

I mean if 40+ more titles couldn´t tip the scales in favor of Lendl then I don´t see how 6 majors more could do so in favor of Pete...plus Pete doesn´t have the career slam either and nor does he have a olympic medal or 7 of the 9 masters series.

MisterQ
11-29-2004, 01:42 PM
If we go by that then why not make Andre greater than Pete too, then?

I mean if 40+ more titles couldn´t tip the scales in favor of Lendl then I don´t see how 6 majors more could do so in favor of Pete...plus Pete doesn´t have the career slam either and nor does he have a olympic medal or 7 of the 9 masters series.

Because we weigh majors much more highly than other tournaments...

But anyway, I'm not saying that Agassi SHOULD go ahead of Lendl. I'm just saying there are a number of arguments in his favor. Actually, as I said before, I think it's very hard to sort out these four: McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi. You could put them in almost any order and have a decent case.

bandabou
11-29-2004, 02:28 PM
Because we weigh majors much more highly than other tournaments...

But anyway, I'm not saying that Agassi SHOULD go ahead of Lendl. I'm just saying there are a number of arguments in his favor. Actually, as I said before, I think it's very hard to sort out these four: McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi. You could put them in almost any order and have a decent case.

O.k...

crimson
11-29-2004, 04:22 PM
Why, that's a good point... I was juggling quite a few names at the end (people who didn't quite make it were Gilbert, Mecir, Medvedev and Rusedski), and it didn't really occur to me that Berasategui's achievements were no greater than Rusedski's. OK, I'll change that. Ha ha, it would seem that despite all the scorn, Rusedski IS one of the Top 50 players of all time, if only just...

Sjengster, I think Mecir should be on the list ahead of Rusedski: Mecir reached two slam finals, won the Olympics, won 3 TMS events, Hamburg, Miami and Indian Wells (I know they weren't called TMS in name back then but they were still prestigious events) and 11 titles overall. The number of slam finals he reached and the number of prestigious events he won should get him a place in the top 50, definitely ahead of Rusedski anyway. Rusedski won 3 more ATP titles than Mecir, but Mecir won more prestigious events (Olympics + 3 TMS, compared to Rusedski's 1 TMS) and reached more slam finals, and I think that should place him ahead of Rusedski.

TheBoiledEgg
11-29-2004, 04:48 PM
who is cash? pat cash? Is there a member Cash? Don't think I've seen him post in the same forums i've been on

Pat's doing a newspaper column on this and making snide remarks on all 50 players sex lives :devil:

Hendu
11-29-2004, 05:24 PM
why is Hewitt before Nastase?

17. Lleyton Hewitt (#1, 2 Slams, 23 titles)
18. Ilie Nastase (#1, 2 Slams, 52 titles)

Action Jackson
11-30-2004, 12:55 AM
Mecir should be in this list as he did make at least the semis of every slam once something Rusedski hasn't done plus the other stuff crimson already stated.

Sjengster
11-30-2004, 03:18 PM
Woh, Mecir did all that? I wasn't doing my research properly... OK, I'll put him there instead.

Whoops, I'd also forgotten about Cash completely - but then wouldn't we all like to do that?

alfonsojose
11-30-2004, 09:17 PM
This thread is :bowdown: Sjengster, but i think should be re-named "the top 50 singles players of the Open Era". If you bring doubles stats there, Kafelnikov, McEnroe and others would move up. IMO, it's pretty important when a player is able to suceed in both areas. I would like to see Sampras and Agassi GS titles if they had played doubles at the same time, like Yevgeny and McEnroe did.
I know this is :topic:, it's about WTA but it's related to what i said. I'm a big fan of Lindsay and i know she has 3 GS, but what a diference between her no. 1 now and Clijsters last year. When Kim reached no. 1 last year without having a GS tittle, everybody jumped on her and few people talked about her doubles ranking. While Juju and the Williams sisters were playing only singles, Kim/Ai kicked butts last year and they reached no. 1 (i know, i know, maybe she's paying the price for that now). IMO, being no. 1 in both rankings at the same time is amazing and :worship:. We all know that singles GS are the most important thing, and like it or not, Costa and ToJo will be ever ahead of Kim :scratch: :tape: :sad: (i can't think of a male Kim, somebody top-ranked in both rankings, I guess Kafelnikov was the last one :sad: :worship: )

I hope u guys can get my point of view :hug: :wavey:

MisterQ
11-30-2004, 09:27 PM
That's an interesting point, alfonso. Clearly we are talking about singles here, so a thread title amendment would be appropriate.

I don't think you can penalize some of the more recent players for their lack of doubles play, since playing seriously in both has ceased to become the norm in today's pro tennis culture.

However, if doubles were included, McEnroe would probably move to the top of the list. He is third in career titles in both singles and doubles, and for the combined total he comes out on top. pretty impressive!

Most career singles and doubles* titles: men
1. John McEnroe 152
2. Jimmy Connors 128
3. Ilie Nastase 108
4. Tom Okker 108
5. Stan Smith 100

bandabou
12-01-2004, 12:26 AM
Wow.....and suddenly Todd Woodbridge´s record isn´t that impressive anymore. Imagine if John only focused on doubles....

WyveN
12-01-2004, 02:45 AM
Wow.....and suddenly Todd Woodbridge´s record isn´t that impressive anymore. Imagine if John only focused on doubles....

I think a lot of top singles players would become all time greats in doubles if they focused on doubles as much as they did on singles.

Action Jackson
12-01-2004, 02:48 AM
Woh, Mecir did all that? I wasn't doing my research properly... OK, I'll put him there instead.

Whoops, I'd also forgotten about Cash completely - but then wouldn't we all like to do that?

Miloslav Mecir was one of the most talented players of all, but yes he made the finals of the AO and the US Open only to be crushed by Lendl. He lost the RG semi to Lendl as well, and led Edberg 2 sets to love at Wimbledon and crumbled.

Plus winning Hamburg, Indian Wells, Miami and the Olympics.

bandabou
12-01-2004, 12:56 PM
I think a lot of top singles players would become all time greats in doubles if they focused on doubles as much as they did on singles.

Yep...and the same can´t be said of the doubles specialist if they focused on singles.