Top 5 Open Era Players At Each Slam [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Top 5 Open Era Players At Each Slam

stebs
10-16-2006, 06:43 PM
I have been thinking about this for some time and it is incredibly hard to come to a decision. Who would make up the top 5 for each slam, based on acheivements, open era only counts so Laver will probably not feature. My personal opinions are below.

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Mats Wilander
3 - Stefan Edberg
4 - Roger Federer
5 - Ivan Lendl

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Ivan Lendl
4 - Mats Wilander
5 - Gustavo Kuerten

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Bjorn Borg
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Boris Becker
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - John McEnroe

I put Nadal up to second on the RG list with 4 straight titles and he can't go any higher next year, we have to wait until '10 at least.

Federer is third on the Wimbledon list with basically identical acheivements to Borg, to get ahead an SF, F or W will do in 2009.

At the USO all five men on the list have insane achievements. Federer is still a little behind Connors who also got 5 titles there but with two finals. A sixth title in a row for Federer in 2009 would definately take him second and maybe first, anything less and he would remai in third.

MisterQ
10-16-2006, 08:32 PM
Thanks for your lists, stebs. I essentially agree with them. :)

Jim Courier almost qualifies for that fifth spot on the AO list, but I guess Sampras' 1995 final loss cements him into that position.

If Nadal wins RG next year, will he replace Bruguera? It's hard to judge since he has only played it twice, but won both times!

federerfan7465
10-16-2006, 08:40 PM
Federer ahead of Becker on Wimbledon.

And Fed ahead of Agassi- 3 > 2

stebs
10-16-2006, 08:45 PM
If Nadal wins RG next year, will he replace Bruguera? It's hard to judge since he has only played it twice, but won both times!
Yes, I guess he would.

The criteria I used were: slams won (of course), slam finals, great streaks.

If those couldn't really seperate players I would check further results (semi finals and quarter finals etc...)

Seeing as this is totally based on acheivements another win for Nadal would put him pretty close to Kuerten and maybe ahead. After all, he would equal the slams won and with a good streak going on.

stebs
10-16-2006, 08:46 PM
Federer ahead of Becker on Wimbledon.

And Fed ahead of Agassi- 3 > 2

Federer has won all his finals in both of those tournaments. Becker, however, has 4 finals to go with his three finals and Agassi also has 4 finals at the US Open. This is what puts them above him for now...just.

Dancing Hero
10-16-2006, 09:04 PM
Wimbledon
1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. McEnroe
5. Becker


US Open
1.Connors
2.Sampras
3.Lendl
4.McEnroe
5.Agassi

French Open
1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Wilander
4.Kuerten
5.Bruguera

Australian Open
1.Agassi
2.Wilander
3.Lendl
4.Edberg
5.Sampras

guga2120
10-16-2006, 11:30 PM
Kuerten number 4 in Paris? He would beat down Lendl or Wilander, i think he would beat Borg in his prime on clay.

NYCtennisfan
10-16-2006, 11:42 PM
Good lists Stebs. :) Federer with one more Wimby win would be third and one more USO win would get him into the USO list. Another AO final put him in a tie with Pete and a win at the AO would get him onto that list.

Pete being on top of the Wimby and USO lists is of course quite impressive. 15 finals appearances between those two slams. :eek:

Jimnik
10-17-2006, 01:48 AM
Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Mats Wilander
3 - Stefan Edberg
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - Pete Sampras

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Mats Wilander
4 - Gustavo Kuerten
5 - Sergi Bruguera

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Bjorn Borg
3 - Boris Becker
4 - Roger Federer
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Ivan Lendl
4 - John McEnroe
5 - Andre Agassi
Yup, I think that's spot on. Federer is almost on the AO and USO lists, and Nadal is almost on the RG list.

The AO is interesting. It's only been played on Rebound Ace since 1988 so we can only compare one or two generations. But Agassi is definately the greatest Rebound Ace player, at the moment.

stebs
10-17-2006, 10:17 AM
Kuerten number 4 in Paris? He would beat down Lendl or Wilander, i think he would beat Borg in his prime on clay.

As stated in the top post, these rankings are based on acheivements.

stebs
10-17-2006, 10:18 AM
It would be safe to say that it is likely Federer will end no lower than #3 at Wimbledon and he will probably feature on the AO and USO lists before his number's up.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 10:28 AM
This thread is too thoughtful for MTF.

stebs
10-17-2006, 10:30 AM
This thread is too thoughtful for MTF.

Possibly. I am surprised RFK has not been in here saying Nadal should be at the top of the RG list.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 10:43 AM
Possibly. I am surprised RFK has not been in here saying Nadal should be at the top of the RG list.

See it's well thought out and most of those you listed are very solid cases and RFK well the Da Vinci Code has been cracked with him.

stebs
10-17-2006, 10:47 AM
See it's well thought out and most of those you listed are very solid cases and RFK well the Da Vinci Code has been cracked with him.

The choice most likely to be slated is having Becker above Federer. It is a close thing and I have no doubt that if I were to update this in two years that order would be reversed but for me 3 titles plus 4 finals is just about better than 4 titles.

Whistleway
10-17-2006, 11:15 AM
This thread is too thoughtful for MTF.

My picks:

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Mats Wilander
4 - Stefan Edberg
5 - Roger Federer

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Gustavo Kuerten
4 - Mats Wilander
4 - Sergi Bruguera
5 - Rafael Nadal

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Bjorn Borg
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Boris Becker
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Jimmy Connors
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Pete Sampras
4 - John McEnroe
5 - Roger Federer

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 11:17 AM
Kuerten over Wilander at RG, ahem no.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 11:18 AM
My picks:

US Open

1 - Jimmy Connors
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Pete Sampras
4 - John McEnroe
5 - Roger Federer

Lendl made 8 finals in a row at the US Open, that is something Connors never did and it wasn't like Lendl lost to idiots.

Whistleway
10-17-2006, 11:19 AM
Federer has won all his finals in both of those tournaments. Becker, however, has 4 finals to go with his three finals and Agassi also has 4 finals at the US Open. This is what puts them above him for now...just.

You can't just compare compare active players to retired legends in terms of lifespan, since they obviously played more and hence in more finals etc..

stebs
10-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Kuerten over Wilander at RG, ahem no.

Have to agree. Kuerten has nothing on Wilander at RG. There is no case to be made.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 11:21 AM
You can't just compare compare active players to retired legends in terms of lifespan, since they obviously played more and hence in more finals etc..

Read what stebs said previously when it comes to Federer. Hence that is the reason Becker is ahead of Federer at Wimbledon at the moment, though barring injury that will change very soon.

stebs
10-17-2006, 11:23 AM
You can't just compare compare active players to retired legends in terms of lifespan, since they obviously played more and hence in more finals etc..

Sure you can. They may not compare well due to the fact that they have played less but you can still make the comparison. As of right now that is the case and it is perfectly legitimate to compare in such a way.

Whistleway
10-17-2006, 11:26 AM
Have to agree. Kuerten has nothing on Wilander at RG. There is no case to be made.

I kinda agree with both of you. But my list is more than just slam count. Its kinda like, who are the top 5 that comes to mind as i associate to these grand slams. For some reason, wilander is just always there but didn't have that effect. Ofcourse, it is just me ;)

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 11:28 AM
I kinda agree with both of you. But my list is more than just slam count. Its kinda like, who are the top 5 that comes to mind as i associate to these grand slams. For some reason, wilander is just always there but didn't have that effect. Ofcourse, it is just me ;)

It's at the Slams, not what they did elsewhere. So 3 titles, 2 finals, 1 SF and QF aren't good enough then:)

CmonAussie
10-17-2006, 11:59 AM
I have been thinking about this for some time and it is incredibly hard to come to a decision. Who would make up the top 5 for each slam, based on acheivements, open era only counts so Laver will probably not feature. My personal opinions are below. Of course you are free to discuess them but this is more a thread for you to make your own lists rather than to discuss mine.

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Mats Wilander
3 - Stefan Edberg
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - Pete Sampras

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - Mats Wilander
4 - Gustavo Kuerten
5 - Sergi Bruguera

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Bjorn Borg
3 - Boris Becker
4 - Roger Federer
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Ivan Lendl
4 - John McEnroe
5 - Andre Agassi

Incidentally, Federer is only a win or a final away from edging onto the US Open list and is also close to the Australian Open list where a win or final would also edge him into contention.
:wavey: Good thread stebs mate:cool:
.... I`ll give you my top 6->8;)

AO
1. Agassi
2. Wilander
3. Edberg
4. Lendl & Newcombe & Sampras
7. Federer & Becker & Courier

FO
1. Borg
2. Lendl
3. Wilander
4. Kuerten
5. Courier & Bruguera
7. Nadal

Wimby
1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Becker & McEnroe & Newcombe
7. Edberg & Connors

USO
1. Connors
2. Sampras
3. McEnroe
4. Lendl
5. Newcombe & Federer & Agassi
8. Edberg & Rafter


PS~ I can`t believe everyone left Newcombe:worship: off their lists~ the guy won 7-Slams & another 3-finals:angel:

BlueSwan
10-17-2006, 12:00 PM
It would be safe to say that it is likely Federer will end no lower than #3 at Wimbledon and he will probably feature on the AO and USO lists before his number's up.
I think it's fairly safe to say that Federer will end up being at least #2 on the Wimbledon list. Given his dominance on grass, he really should be able to win a couple more Wimbledon titles during the remainder of his career. It's also fairly safe to say that he'll end up very high on the US Open list, as he's been almost as invincible there as on grass. I'd be surprised if he finishes his career with less than 5 US Open titles, which should put him in 3rd place behind Sampras and Connors - I'd still take 5 titles over Llendl's 3 titles and 5 finals. Finally, he'll probably finish his career with no less than 4 AO titles, which would put him near the very top of the list.

On the other hand, he could lose his motivation tomorrow and never win another slam.

CmonAussie
10-17-2006, 12:06 PM
I think it's fairly safe to say that Federer will end up being at least #2 on the Wimbledon list. Given his dominance on grass, he really should be able to win a couple more Wimbledon titles during the remainder of his career. It's also fairly safe to say that he'll end up very high on the US Open list, as he's been almost as invincible there as on grass. I'd be surprised if he finishes his career with less than 5 US Open titles, which should put him in 3rd place behind Sampras and Connors - I'd still take 5 titles over Llendl's 3 titles and 5 finals. Finally, he'll probably finish his career with no less than 4 AO titles, which would put him near the very top of the list.

On the other hand, he could lose his motivation tomorrow and never win another slam.
:wavey:
He may get injured &/or lose his confidence~~ but there`s no way he`s going to lose his motivation->> not with the Sampras record 14-Slams on the horizon;) !!

buzz
10-17-2006, 12:28 PM
very cool thread!!
I think when you look a little further then just titles and finals etc. and look at the very little number of sets that federer lost in his four years of domination at wimbledon, I think federer deserves the number 3 spot over Becker.

oz_boz
10-17-2006, 03:16 PM
I must spread some Reputation around before giving it to you again stebs. You get the point :)

sawan66278
10-17-2006, 05:49 PM
For me, the U.S. Open should go as follows:

1. Lendl-3 titles (8 finals in a row)
2. Sampras-5 titles
3. Connors
4. McEnroe
5. Agassi

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-17-2006, 06:26 PM
Possibly. I am surprised RFK has not been in here saying Nadal should be at the top of the RG list.

I argue that Nadal has the potential to be the greatest clay player. You said these rankings are based on current achievements. No argument from me.

At least you aren't saying Nadal has no chance to be the best and he is playing in a joke era. GWH seems to hate him for some reason. Glenn's mental problems are well known and he couldn't give Nadal credit for anything.

I will be exagerate because it is the best way to make the average idiot on MTF, pay attention.

BlueSwan
10-17-2006, 06:32 PM
[/B]
:wavey:
He may get injured &/or lose his confidence~~ but there`s no way he`s going to lose his motivation->> not with the Sampras record 14-Slams on the horizon;) !!
Let me clarify: by "losing his motivation" I don't mean that he'll lose interest in pursuing Sampras' record, I just mean that he'll lose the edge. To stay at the very top of any elite sport you don't just need motivation, you need to be an obsessed freak. Sometimes when distractions enter into your life you just lose that edge and your opponents jump on you. It has happened enough times in the past.

Sampras himself said that it demanded tremendous focus and sacrifices for him to stay at the top for as long as he did.

Pfloyd
10-17-2006, 07:17 PM
I argue that Nadal has the potential to be the greatest clay player. You said these rankings are based on current achievements. No argument from me.

At least you aren't saying Nadal has no chance to be the best and he is playing in a joke era. GWH seems to hate him for some reason. Glenn's mental problems are well known and he couldn't give Nadal credit for anything.

I will be exagerate because it is the best way to make the average idiot on MTF, pay attention.

Although GWH is most of the time a very reasonable poster, I agree with you here, although he will deny it and point out that I've personally stated that Rafa is the best clay courter ever (which I have NOT stated), I think that he dislikes Nadal more than he likes him.

stebs
10-17-2006, 07:19 PM
Sampras himself said that it demanded tremendous focus and sacrifices for him to stay at the top for as long as he did.
I bet it did but somehow I can't feel sorry for someone who earnt a fortune playing a game that they love as a living and is free before the age of 35 to do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.

All_Slam_Andre
10-17-2006, 09:51 PM
Nice post. For me:
AUSTRALIAN OPEN
1 - Agassi
2 - Wilander
3 - Edberg
4 - Lendl
5 - Sampras

FRENCH OPEN
1 - Borg
2 - Wilander
3 - Lendl
4 - Kuerten
5 - Courier

WIMBLEDON
1 - Sampras
2 - Borg
3 - Federer
4 - Becker
5 - McEnroe

US OPEN
1 - Sampras
2 - Connors
3 - McEnroe
4 - Lendl
5 - Federer

MisterQ
10-17-2006, 10:35 PM
FRENCH OPEN
1 - Borg
2 - Wilander
3 - Lendl
4 - Kuerten
5 - Courier


Wow, Courier and Bruguera are in a dead heat when it comes to that fifth place spot! They both have:

2 wins
1 final
1 semifinal :eek:

After that, Courier's numbers are slightly better. He has a QF and 3 R16s, whereas Bruguera's next best result is one R16 appearance.

So upon examination, I agree with the choice of Courier, but that sure is close.

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 01:07 AM
Although GWH is most of the time a very reasonable poster, I agree with you here, although he will deny it and point out that I've personally stated that Rafa is the best clay courter ever (which I have NOT stated), I think that he dislikes Nadal more than he likes him.

Do I have quote your post again, where you are going on like he already is the greatest already on that surface, not that you actually said that and yes there is a difference, but you really want to deep down:) . Seriously, what point are you trying to prove.

Does it actually matter whether I like Nadal or not, it's something that is known as irrelevant. I prefered Wilander to Lendl clearly, but don't have a problem with the fact that he is rated above him.

Pfloyd
10-18-2006, 05:47 AM
Do I have quote your post again, where you are going on like he already is the greatest already on that surface, not that you actually said that and yes there is a difference, but you really want to deep down:) . Seriously, what point are you trying to prove.

Does it actually matter whether I like Nadal or not, it's something that is known as irrelevant. I prefered Wilander to Lendl clearly, but don't have a problem with the fact that he is rated above him.


I would like for Nadal to be considered the best clay courter ever once he finishes his career, but based on results.

My question to you, do you like him or no? No neutral response, tell me. I like him, dont like him or slightly like him/ dislike him.

Whats up?

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 05:51 AM
I would like for Nadal to be considered the best clay courter ever once he finishes his career, but based on results.

My question to you, do you like him or no? No neutral response, tell me. I like him, dont like him or slightly like him/ dislike him.

Whats up?

When he wins 7 RG titles then he will have a very good case and as for Nadal, why does it matter to you so much, whether I like him or not. Why does it matter, cause even players I like I criticise them when it's deserved, so I am not some moronic fan boy like a significant percentage of the MTF population.

So you already think he is in the top 5 players of all time at RG already?

Eden
12-20-2007, 02:25 PM
Just discovered this thread. Very interesting one, thanks for starting it Stebs :yeah:

Sometimes it is incredible difficult to decide as some players are equal in their results.

Here are my choices:

Australian Open

1. Agassi (4 titles)
2. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
3. Edberg (2 titles, 3 finals)
4. Federer (3 titles)
5. Lendl/Sampras (2 titles, 1 final)

French Open

1. Borg (6 titles)
2. Lendl (3 titles, 2 finals)
3. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
4. Kuerten (3 titles)
5. Nadal (3 titles)

Wimbledon

1. Sampras (7 titles)
2. Borg (5 titles, 1 final)
3. Federer (5 titles)
4. Becker (3 titles, 3 finals)
5. McEnroe (3 titles, 2 finals)

US Open

1.Sampras (5 titles, 3 finals)
2. Connors (5 titles, 2 finals)
3. Lendl 3 (3 titles, 5 finals)
4. McEnroe (4 titles, 1 final)
5. Federer (4 titles)

Boris Franz Ecker
12-20-2007, 02:54 PM
Just discovered this thread. Very interesting one, thanks for starting it Stebs :yeah:

Sometimes it is incredible difficult to decide as some players are equal in their results.

Here are my choices:

Australian Open

1. Agassi (4 titles)
2. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)


Some Errors, p.e. Sampras has 5 American titles.
And honestly, Federer is ahead of this Wilander Boy.
Wilander just needed to win 6 Matches to win a title in Australia at least two times. Respect the history.

Eden
12-20-2007, 03:02 PM
Some Errors, p.e. Sampras has 5 American titles.


My bad.

jcempire
12-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Great list

stebs
12-20-2007, 07:15 PM
Updated for 2007. Federer rising on three of the lists and Nadal enters.

FedFan_2007
12-20-2007, 07:19 PM
2008 is the year Federer becomes #2 on the AO list, #2 on Wimbledon, #2 US Open. I think 5 straight US Open titles beats a 3-5 for Lendl.

NYCtennisfan
12-20-2007, 07:28 PM
2008 is the year Federer becomes #2 on the AO list, #2 on Wimbledon, #2 US Open. I think 5 straight US Open titles beats a 3-5 for Lendl.

If he wins the AO, SW19, and the USO again, those wlll probably be the rankings other than at the USO where he will be #3.

NYCtennisfan
12-20-2007, 07:29 PM
BTW, great thread. :yeah:

CyBorg
12-20-2007, 07:42 PM
I suppose that if you calculate this in terms of wins and finals appearances then Stebs has it bang on, but when I first saw the thread title I felt that Federer should be tops for the US Open list.

Let's see at the guys ahead of him on Stebs' list. McEnroe won four US Open titles, including three in a row and then after failing to make a final in two straight years he won again in 1984. I suppose that it's the 1985 final appearance which puts him above Federer, but I feel that Roger's streak of four in a row is more impressive than Mac's four wins and one final. However if we're going on a mathematical criteria which grants points based on wins and runner-ups then you have to say that Mac should be ahead.

I would also rate Lendl behind Federer. Even though Ivan reached eight straight finals he only won three of them (in a row). Roger's four in a row I see as the greater accomplishment, but, again, I value peak performance over longevity, whereas Stebs is very much concerned with finals apperances as well - perhaps semifinals as well (although I think that if you calculate accomplishments at this event by a mathematical formula which considers how far each of these players has gone at the US Open over his career it would be Connors who would come out on top, not Sampras - this would be by virtue of his semifinal apperances at the event which are around 15 and at one point I think he got to 11 or 12 semis in a row - so again, I think that wins trump semis and final appearances by far). It is interesting of course that Lendl missed winning four US Opens in a row by a smidgeon, losing that five-setter to Wilander in 1988, so maybe if he hadn't stepped on that crack in the pavement he would have won - was Roger's 2007 opponent, Novak Djokovic, as good an opponent as Mats Wilander was to Lendl? Tough questions.

Sampras won five US Opens, but never more than two in a row. He had a bad loss to Yzaga which was in his peak years, while Roger has been nearly impeccable at the US Open at his best. Connors also has a very good case, in large part due to his consistency, but I wouldn't rate him above Federer, because 82-84 was as good a streak as he ever put together (that's 19 consecute US Open matches won, encompassing two US Opens in a row). Aside from that he had bad losses to Orantes and Vilas, and was worse on the hardcourts than peak Borg and peak McEnroe for many years, but 82 and 83. His sustained dominance was not nearly as great as Federer's.

Of course this is all very debatable. While some feel that we must follow a formula (whether strictly or superficially) which combines peak play and longevity I tend to see sustained dominance as the best indicator. It is for that reason that stebs seems to have Nadal ahead of Kuerten, even though Kuerten, in addition to the 3 RGs, had made a number of QFs in his career that Nadal has yet to reach.

CmonAussie
12-20-2007, 07:48 PM
Just discovered this thread. Very interesting one, thanks for starting it Stebs :yeah:

Sometimes it is incredible difficult to decide as some players are equal in their results.

Here are my choices:

Australian Open

1. Agassi (4 titles)
2. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
3. Edberg (2 titles, 3 finals)
4. Federer (3 titles)
5. Lendl/Sampras (2 titles, 1 final)~~ Lendl has 2 titles & 2 finals

French Open

1. Borg (6 titles)
2. Lendl (3 titles, 2 finals)
3. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
4. Kuerten (3 titles)
5. Nadal (3 titles)

Wimbledon

1. Sampras (7 titles)
2. Borg (5 titles, 1 final)
3. Federer (5 titles)
4. Becker (3 titles, 3 finals)~~ Becker has 3 titles & 4 finals
5. McEnroe (3 titles, 2 finals)

US Open

1.Sampras (5 titles, 3 finals)
2. Connors (5 titles, 2 finals)
3. Lendl 3 (3 titles, 5 finals)
4. McEnroe (4 titles, 1 final)
5. Federer (4 titles)


>>>)))
BTW, my list:



AO:
1.Agassi
2.Wilander
3.Federer
4.Edberg
5.Lendl


FO:
1.Borg
2.Nadal
3.Wilander
4.Lendl
5.Kuerten


Wimby:
1.Sampras
2.Borg
3.Federer
4.Becker
5.McEnroe


USO:
1.Connors
2.Sampras
3.Federer
4.McEnroe
5.Lendl

stebs
12-20-2007, 07:50 PM
I suppose that if you calculate this in terms of wins and finals appearances then Stebs has it bang on, but when I first saw the thread title I felt that Federer should be tops for the US Open list.

Let's see at the guys ahead of him on Stebs' list. McEnroe won four US Open titles, including three in a row and then after failing to make a final in two straight years he won again in 1984. I suppose that it's the 1985 final appearance which puts him above Federer, but I feel that Roger's streak of four in a row is more impressive than Mac's four wins and one final. However if we're going on a mathematical criteria which grants points based on wins and runner-ups then you have to say that Mac should be ahead.

I would also rate Lendl behind Federer. Even though Ivan reached eight straight finals he only won three of them (in a row). Roger's four in a row I see as the greater accomplishment, but, again, I value peak performance over longevity, whereas Stebs is very much concerned with finals apperances as well - perhaps semifinals as well (although I think that if you calculate accomplishments at this event by a mathematical formula which considers how far each of these players has gone at the US Open over his career it would be Connors who would come out on top, not Sampras - this would be by virtue of his semifinal apperances at the event which are around 15 and at one point I think he got to 11 or 12 semis in a row - so again, I think that wins trump semis and final appearances by far). It is interesting of course that Lendl missed winning four US Opens in a row by a smidgeon, losing that five-setter to Wilander in 1988, so maybe if he hadn't stepped on that crack in the pavement he would have won - was Roger's 2007 opponent, Novak Djokovic, as good an opponent as Mats Wilander was to Lendl? Tough questions.

Sampras won five US Opens, but never more than two in a row. He had a bad loss to Yzaga which was in his peak years, while Roger has been nearly impeccable at the US Open at his best. Connors also has a very good case, in large part due to his consistency, but I wouldn't rate him above Federer, because 82-84 was as good a streak as he ever put together (that's 19 consecute US Open matches won, encompassing two US Opens in a row). Aside from that he had bad losses to Orantes and Vilas, and was worse on the hardcourts than peak Borg and peak McEnroe for many years, but 82 and 83. His sustained dominance was not nearly as great as Federer's.

Of course this is all very debatable. While some feel that we must follow a formula (whether strictly or superficially) which combines peak play and longevity I tend to see sustained dominance as the best indicator. It is for that reason that stebs seems to have Nadal ahead of Kuerten, even though Kuerten, in addition to the 3 RGs, had made a number of QFs in his career that Nadal has yet to reach.

Insightful post and yes if you look deeper there are almost endless variables at each different slam and the list can be cvhanged depending on a lot of different things.

I mean, I could make a whole different list based on other categories than accomplishments which would be time consuming but interesting or I might approach that at some point in this topic. Federer would be higher on the USO list for sure and Nadal would probably be higher on the RG list.

As for how I did things, I didn't use a formula but as I was basing JUST acheivements (streaks only being a final tie breaker) it was pretty straightforward for the most part. If I was to use a formula this is what I would use:

W - 20
F - 10
SF - 4
QF - 1

I'd also give bonus points for the following:

Wins in a row
2 - 5
3 - 10
4 - 20
5 - 30

Finals in a row
2 - 3
3 - 6
4 - 10
5 - 15
6 - 21
7 - 28
8 - 36

Dominant slam wins
0 sets dropped - 8
1 set dropped - 6
2 sets dropped - 4
3 sets dropped - 2

When I have some time I will re-order my list sticking to these and see what I get.

CyBorg
12-20-2007, 07:50 PM
Here my RG List:

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Ivan Lendl
4 - Gustavo Kuerten
5 - Mats Wilander (Courier had a more dominant peak, but won only twice)

US Open

1 - Roger Federer
2 - Ivan Lendl
3 - John McEnroe
4 - Pete Sampras
5 - Jimmy Connors (I'm not impressed with his opposition in 1974)

Not much disagreement with the Wimbledon list to really do my own. The Aussie list isn't interesting - just not enough Open Era history. You'd have to include Johan Kriek probably.:)

CyBorg
12-20-2007, 07:56 PM
Insightful post and yes if you look deeper there are almost endless variables at each different slam and the list can be cvhanged depending on a lot of different things.

I mean, I could make a whole different list based on other categories than accomplishments which would be time consuming but interesting or I might approach that at some point in this topic. Federer would be higher on the USO list for sure and Nadal would probably be higher on the RG list.

A very interesting way of rating these players would be by looking at the dominance of single tournament performance - so, this would look into how many sets they won vs lost and how many games they won per set on average. So, from this you could tell who had truly the most dominating US Open of all time. One could then take this from there and apply it either to peak performance or to career (cumulative) performance.

Of course there are other problems with this. For example, Jimmy Connors had a dominating US Open in 1974, helped in large part by the thrashing of Ken Rosewall in the final. But does it matter that Rosewall was 39 years old and that 1974 was smack in the middle of a transitional era? If anything Connors' play that year was proven to be a bit of a fluke and the extent of his US Open win was probably a bit of a fluke as well looking at the fact that opponents would get much better in subsequent years.

NYCtennisfan
12-20-2007, 08:17 PM
I suppose that if you calculate this in terms of wins and finals appearances then Stebs has it bang on, but when I first saw the thread title I felt that Federer should be tops for the US Open list.

Let's see at the guys ahead of him on Stebs' list. McEnroe won four US Open titles, including three in a row and then after failing to make a final in two straight years he won again in 1984. I suppose that it's the 1985 final appearance which puts him above Federer, but I feel that Roger's streak of four in a row is more impressive than Mac's four wins and one final. However if we're going on a mathematical criteria which grants points based on wins and runner-ups then you have to say that Mac should be ahead.

I would also rate Lendl behind Federer. Even though Ivan reached eight straight finals he only won three of them (in a row). Roger's four in a row I see as the greater accomplishment, but, again, I value peak performance over longevity, whereas Stebs is very much concerned with finals apperances as well - perhaps semifinals as well (although I think that if you calculate accomplishments at this event by a mathematical formula which considers how far each of these players has gone at the US Open over his career it would be Connors who would come out on top, not Sampras - this would be by virtue of his semifinal apperances at the event which are around 15 and at one point I think he got to 11 or 12 semis in a row - so again, I think that wins trump semis and final appearances by far). It is interesting of course that Lendl missed winning four US Opens in a row by a smidgeon, losing that five-setter to Wilander in 1988, so maybe if he hadn't stepped on that crack in the pavement he would have won - was Roger's 2007 opponent, Novak Djokovic, as good an opponent as Mats Wilander was to Lendl? Tough questions.

Sampras won five US Opens, but never more than two in a row. He had a bad loss to Yzaga which was in his peak years, while Roger has been nearly impeccable at the US Open at his best. Connors also has a very good case, in large part due to his consistency, but I wouldn't rate him above Federer, because 82-84 was as good a streak as he ever put together (that's 19 consecute US Open matches won, encompassing two US Opens in a row). Aside from that he had bad losses to Orantes and Vilas, and was worse on the hardcourts than peak Borg and peak McEnroe for many years, but 82 and 83. His sustained dominance was not nearly as great as Federer's.

Of course this is all very debatable. While some feel that we must follow a formula (whether strictly or superficially) which combines peak play and longevity I tend to see sustained dominance as the best indicator. It is for that reason that stebs seems to have Nadal ahead of Kuerten, even though Kuerten, in addition to the 3 RGs, had made a number of QFs in his career that Nadal has yet to reach.

I thought about this when the list first came out, but in the end, it was too difficult to overlook the longevity aspect. I think overall winning % coud also be a factor. Like Stebs said, there are a number of ways to go about this and of course increase the complexity. Good post. :)

stebs
12-20-2007, 08:21 PM
A very interesting way of rating these players would be by looking at the dominance of single tournament performance - so, this would look into how many sets they won vs lost and how many games they won per set on average. So, from this you could tell who had truly the most dominating US Open of all time. One could then take this from there and apply it either to peak performance or to career (cumulative) performance.

Of course there are other problems with this. For example, Jimmy Connors had a dominating US Open in 1974, helped in large part by the thrashing of Ken Rosewall in the final. But does it matter that Rosewall was 39 years old and that 1974 was smack in the middle of a transitional era? If anything Connors' play that year was proven to be a bit of a fluke and the extent of his US Open win was probably a bit of a fluke as well looking at the fact that opponents would get much better in subsequent years.

See the edited version of my earlier reply.

Also, in response to your discussion of opposition, I NEVER give opposition a thought when compiling these lists. It results in biased views which can be easily manipulated to suit a viewpoint. I mean, tbink about Gonzalez at this years AO, he was playing outrageous tennis and yet from a statistical viewpoint taking into account ranking at the time (he wasn't top 8), slams (none) and peak ranking (5?) he would be terrible in comparison with a 2003 Phillipoussis who in reality was almost certainly weaker opposition. There are fairer ways to look at opposition but they are EXTREMELY time consuming and still never quite right.

NYCtennisfan
12-20-2007, 08:26 PM
Insightful post and yes if you look deeper there are almost endless variables at each different slam and the list can be cvhanged depending on a lot of different things.

I mean, I could make a whole different list based on other categories than accomplishments which would be time consuming but interesting or I might approach that at some point in this topic. Federer would be higher on the USO list for sure and Nadal would probably be higher on the RG list.

As for how I did things, I didn't use a formula but as I was basing JUST acheivements (streaks only being a final tie breaker) it was pretty straightforward for the most part. If I was to use a formula this is what I would use:

W - 20
F - 10
SF - 4
QF - 1

I'd also give bonus points for the following:

Wins in a row
2 - 5
3 - 10
4 - 20
5 - 30

Finals in a row
2 - 3
3 - 6
4 - 10
5 - 15
6 - 21
7 - 28
8 - 36

Dominant slam wins
0 sets dropped - 8
1 set dropped - 6
2 sets dropped - 4
3 sets dropped - 2

When I have some time I will re-order my list sticking to these and see what I get.

This is a good set of criteria. I would add more points to the '0 sets dropped' win since very few players have ever done it. '1 set dropped' has been done a few more times so I would have at least a 5 point differential between these two and no points for 4 sets dropped.

stebs
12-20-2007, 08:45 PM
This is a good set of criteria. I would add more points to the '0 sets dropped' win since very few players have ever done it. '1 set dropped' has been done a few more times so I would have at least a 5 point differential between these two and no points for 4 sets dropped.

I already have no points for 4 sets dropped, is this a typo?

I would keep it the same personally, I accept that you have a perfectly legitimate point but for me the fact that very few have done it doesn't make it more points worthy. Obviously it makes it a more applauded acheivement but is it really as important as a slam final? I think not personally. Perhaps I should change the lesser ones as follows:

0 sets dropped - 8
1 set dropped - 4
2 sets dropped - 2

thrust
12-20-2007, 09:43 PM
The choice most likely to be slated is having Becker above Federer. It is a close thing and I have no doubt that if I were to update this in two years that order would be reversed but for me 3 titles plus 4 finals is just about better than 4 titles.

I would prefer 4 wins-0 losses to 3 wins- 4 lost finals. But then, Becker had to beat proven grass court players to get to his finals.

NYCtennisfan
12-20-2007, 09:56 PM
I already have no points for 4 sets dropped, is this a typo?

I would keep it the same personally, I accept that you have a perfectly legitimate point but for me the fact that very few have done it doesn't make it more points worthy. Obviously it makes it a more applauded acheivement but is it really as important as a slam final? I think not personally. Perhaps I should change the lesser ones as follows:

0 sets dropped - 8
1 set dropped - 4
2 sets dropped - 2

Yup, it was a typo. Meant to say 3. :) That breakdown looks pretty good. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out when the numbers are crunched.

thrust
12-20-2007, 10:32 PM
Kuerten number 4 in Paris? He would beat down Lendl or Wilander, i think he would beat Borg in his prime on clay.

Sorry, wrong on all counts.

stebs
12-21-2007, 03:25 PM
Okay, this is using my points system but I've only checked the players that were on the lists at the time I originally wrote them and on the revised lists.

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi - 105
2 - Ivan Lendl - 88
3 - Stefan Edberg - 87
4 - Mats Wilander - 85
5 - Roger Federer - 82
6 - Pete Sampras - 62

I knew Lendl would do well with this sytem because he always does when it comes down to the stats but it's interesting to see how very close this list is with the middle four seperated by less than 10. Federer will take 2nd place if he reaches the final in '08 and be top dog if he gets the W.

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg - 170
2 - Ivan Lendl - 101
3 - Mats Wilander - 91
4 - Rafael Nadal - 80
5 - Gustavo Kuerten - 75
6 - Sergi Bruguera - 64

The order didn't change for this one so my intuition was the same as the stats in this case. Borg is ahead by a MILE and just look at this list anyone who says Nadal is already the greatest claycourter ever, he has a distance to go to catch the great Swede. Nadal will rise above Wilander with a final and over Lendl with one more win.

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras - 197
2 - Bjorn Borg - 171
3 - Roger Federer - 160
4 - Boris Becker - 132
5 - John McEnroe - 121

An Amazing list. Compare this with the AO and look at the difference in numbers, so many players have seemingly dominated the grass. Very odd to see Borg with better numbers on the green than on the red. Federer would jump into the number 1 position with another win in '08 and he would be in a very close 2nd with a final. John McEnroe, #5, would be number 1 on the Ao list.

US Open

1 - Jimmy Connors - 178
2 - Ivan Lendl - 174
3 - Pete Sampras - 151
4 - John McEnroe - 128
5 - Roger Federer - 115
6 - Andre Agassi - 102

Some players (Lendl and Connors) have ridiculous longeivety and consistency at the US Open. 8 finals in a row for Lendl and Connors has reached the SF's at the US Open 14 times and at one stage did so 12 years running. Despite this due to his streak bonuses if Federer wins next year he will be about level with Sampras (a win would give him 150 exactly).

buzz
12-21-2007, 06:45 PM
^Thanks Stebs!

Johnny Groove
12-21-2007, 09:24 PM
Nadal = #2 claycourter of all time

DrJules
12-21-2007, 10:24 PM
Okay, this is using my points system but I've only checked the players that were on the lists at the time I originally wrote them and on the revised lists.

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi - 105
2 - Ivan Lendl - 88
3 - Stefan Edberg - 87
4 - Mats Wilander - 85
5 - Roger Federer - 82
6 - Pete Sampras - 62

I knew Lendl would do well with this sytem because he always does when it comes down to the stats but it's interesting to see how very close this list is with the middle four seperated by less than 10. Federer will take 2nd place if he reaches the final in '08 and be top dog if he gets the W.

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg - 170
2 - Ivan Lendl - 101
3 - Mats Wilander - 91
4 - Rafael Nadal - 80
5 - Gustavo Kuerten - 75
6 - Sergi Bruguera - 64

The order didn't change for this one so my intuition was the same as the stats in this case. Borg is ahead by a MILE and just look at this list anyone who says Nadal is already the greatest claycourter ever, he has a distance to go to catch the great Swede. Nadal will rise above Wilander with a final and over Lendl with one more win.

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras - 197
2 - Bjorn Borg - 171
3 - Roger Federer - 160
4 - Boris Becker - 132
5 - John McEnroe - 121

An Amazing list. Compare this with the AO and look at the difference in numbers, so many players have seemingly dominated the grass. Very odd to see Borg with better numbers on the green than on the red. Federer would jump into the number 1 position with another win in '08 and he would be in a very close 2nd with a final. John McEnroe, #5, would be number 1 on the Ao list.

US Open

1 - Jimmy Connors - 178
2 - Ivan Lendl - 174
3 - Pete Sampras - 151
4 - John McEnroe - 128
5 - Roger Federer - 115
6 - Andre Agassi - 102

Some players (Lendl and Connors) have ridiculous longeivety and consistency at the US Open. 8 finals in a row for Lendl and Connors has reached the SF's at the US Open 14 times and at one stage did so 12 years running. Despite this due to his streak bonuses if Federer wins next year he will be about level with Sampras (a win would give him 150 exactly).

Excellent analysis.

Do you also have a top 5 for the 4 grand slams combined.

thrust
12-21-2007, 11:21 PM
True, Connors beat an old man in the 74 USO final but the old man beat Newcombe in the semis. One can^t blame Connors for that. Newcombe then beat Connors in the AO a few months later. Connors won the 74 USO with, I think, all the top players competing. I was never a Connors fan, but I think it is unfair to claim that the 74 USO win is not significant. Thank God I did not see that final, as Rosewall was my tennis idol.

Action Jackson
12-22-2007, 05:25 AM
Nadal = #2 claycourter of all time

Keep dreaming, maybe when he retires, but not now.

stebs
12-26-2007, 12:54 PM
Nadal = #2 claycourter of all time

Not what the stats say my friend, one more RG and your dreams will be realised though.

stebs
12-26-2007, 01:04 PM
Excellent analysis.

Do you also have a top 5 for the 4 grand slams combined.

I can easily add the points that the guys got for each slam and put that as a table but I think it would be far better to add points for consecutive slam wins and finals and for diversity.

With the wins and finals in a row I think it can be agreed that consecutive achievements in varied slams is more rewarded than consecutive acheivements in the same slam. Note, consecutive achievements are not ended by absents, it is just slams the player has played. Yes this whole system is slightly unfair on those who didn't play AO when it was less prestigious but it's the easiest way to do things and I don't have the time to make a more complex system.

Wins in a row
2 - 10
3 - 20

Finals in a row
2 - 5
3 - 10
4 - 16
5 - 23
6 - 31
7 - 39
8 - 48
9 - 58
10 - 69

Variety
2 different slams won + finals of others - 10
3 different slams won - 20
3 different slams won + final of other - 30
4 different slams won - 60

stebs
12-26-2007, 01:37 PM
The players I will do this for are the 8 that have won 8+ grand slams since the beggining of the open era.

Just for future reference and in case someone wishes to point out a mistake, the numbers being added are in the following order (AO, RG, W, USO, Bonus)

Pete Sampras
62 + 7 + 197 + 151 + 80

= 497

Roger Federer
82 + 28 + 160 + 115 + 164

= 549

Bjorn Borg
0 + 170 + 171 + 48 + 94

= 483

Ivan Lendl
88 + 101 + 43 + 174 + 81

= 487

Jimmy Connors
33 + 20 + 103 + 178 + 89

= 423

Andre Agassi
105 + 55 + 54 + 102 + 116

= 432

Unexpected result for me. I predicted Lendl would be top but instead it is Federer and Sampras before Lendl and Borg. Federer got FAR more bonus points than anyone else and with the system that was used he basically got the most points due to his utter dominance for 4 odd years. It would definately be close with Borg if he had been playing the AO.

Black Adam
12-26-2007, 02:22 PM
Nice thread
US Open
1.Connors
2.Lendl (Consecutive finals and semis give him the edge over Pete)
3.Sampras
4.McEnroe
5.Agassi

French Open
1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Nadal
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten

Australian Open
1.Agassi
2.Wilander
3.Lendl
4.Edberg
5.Sampras

Wimbledon
1.Sampras
2.Borg
3.Federer.
4.McEnroe
5.Becker

The top 5 players in Davis Cup would be another great thread.

bokehlicious
12-26-2007, 02:27 PM
US Open
1.Connors
2.Lendl
3.Sampras
4.McEnroe
5.Agassi

French Open
1.Borg
2.Lendl
3.Nadal
4.Wilander
5.Kuerten

Australian Open
1.Agassi
2.Wilander
3.Lendl
4.Edberg
5.Sampras

Wimbledon
1.Sampras
2.Borg
3.McEnroe
4.Becker
5.Nadal


:o :)

Action Jackson
12-26-2007, 02:37 PM
Wilander had exactly the same results as Lendl at RG finals 3 wins and 2 finals, yet Nadal isn't better than Lendl, yet is better than Wilander.

dijus
12-26-2007, 02:45 PM
thanks for that, Stebs :worship:

DrJules
12-26-2007, 03:25 PM
The players I will do this for are the 8 that have won 8+ grand slams since the beggining of the open era.

Just for future reference and in case someone wishes to point out a mistake, the numbers being added are in the following order (AO, RG, W, USO, Bonus)

Pete Sampras
62 + 7 + 197 + 151 + 80

= 497

Roger Federer
82 + 28 + 160 + 115 + 164

= 549

Bjorn Borg
0 + 170 + 171 + 48 + 94

= 483

Ivan Lendl
88 + 101 + 43 + 174 + 81

= 487

Jimmy Connors
33 + 20 + 103 + 178 + 89

= 423

Andre Agassi
105 + 55 + 54 + 102 + 116

= 432

Unexpected result for me. I predicted Lendl would be top but instead it is Federer and Sampras before Lendl and Borg. Federer got FAR more bonus points than anyone else and with the system that was used he basically got the most points due to his utter dominance for 4 odd years. It would definately be close with Borg if he had been playing the AO.

Thanks.

Obviously, the selection of criteria introduces a bias, but it is as good as any other method I have seen to objectively rate players.

Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Borg would be the selection of many.

thrust
12-26-2007, 09:11 PM
Just discovered this thread. Very interesting one, thanks for starting it Stebs :yeah:

Sometimes it is incredible difficult to decide as some players are equal in their results.

Here are my choices:

Australian Open

1. Agassi (4 titles)
2. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
3. Edberg (2 titles, 3 finals)
4. Federer (3 titles)
5. Lendl/Sampras (2 titles, 1 final)

French Open

1. Borg (6 titles)
2. Lendl (3 titles, 2 finals)
3. Wilander (3 titles, 1 final)
4. Kuerten (3 titles)
5. Nadal (3 titles)

Wimbledon

1. Sampras (7 titles)
2. Borg (5 titles, 1 final)
3. Federer (5 titles)
4. Becker (3 titles, 3 finals)
5. McEnroe (3 titles, 2 finals)

US Open

1.Sampras (5 titles, 3 finals)
2. Connors (5 titles, 2 finals)
3. Lendl 3 (3 titles, 5 finals)
4. McEnroe (4 titles, 1 final)
5. Federer (4 titles)

THE CORRECT LIST! If Roger keeps it up though, he will be #1 on all but the FO

Stephan
12-26-2007, 09:19 PM
... Agassi is definately the greatest Rebound Ace player, at the moment.
I agree.
he won all four possible Grand Slams :)
nobody from above lists could do;)

yolis
12-26-2007, 09:51 PM
Very interesting thread, so here is mine:

AUSTRALIAN OPEN
1.Andre Agassi
2.Mats Vilander
3.Stefan Edberg
4.Ivan Lendl
5.Pete Sampras

ROLAND GARROS
1.Bjorn Borg
2.Ivan Lendl
3.Mats Vilander
4.Gustavo Kuerten
5.Rafael Nadal

WIMBLEDON
1.Pete sampras
2.Bjorn Borg
3.Boris Becker
4.John McEnroe
5.Roger Federer

US OPEN
1.Pete Sampras
2.Jimmi Connors
3.Ivan Lendl
4.John McEnroe
5.Roger Federer

Of course, I expect Federer to go upper to become No.1 (except RG maybe)

CyBorg
12-27-2007, 12:52 AM
Wilander had exactly the same results as Lendl at RG finals 3 wins and 2 finals, yet Nadal isn't better than Lendl, yet is better than Wilander.

I would also say that Nadal isn't better than Lendl, but I think that Nadal has been more 'successful' at RG than Lendl, based on his three straight years of dominance. So if you go on results only Rafa I think has had more impressive results, but, partly due to the level of his competition, one cannot yet say that he's proven to be the better clay courter.

DrJules
12-27-2007, 07:55 AM
Nadal = #2 claycourter of all time

Keep dreaming, maybe when he retires, but not now.

Not what the stats say my friend, one more RG and your dreams will be realised though.

Maybe not there yet, but with 3 wins at Roland Garros by the age of 21 Nadal has a very good chance to end his career at least 2nd best. Superceding the 6 wins of Borg is a realistic target.

Action Jackson
12-27-2007, 01:38 PM
I would also say that Nadal isn't better than Lendl, but I think that Nadal has been more 'successful' at RG than Lendl, based on his three straight years of dominance. So if you go on results only Rafa I think has had more impressive results, but, partly due to the level of his competition, one cannot yet say that he's proven to be the better clay courter.

Well this makes sense, well Borg had Vilas. Lendl and Wilander split RGs from 82-88 and Nadal has not had anyone to that level of clay expertise to compete against.

Yes, he has the numbers on the board and that won't be taken away, but as you know there are a lot more factors involved.

bokehlicious
12-27-2007, 01:43 PM
Nadal would make mince meat out of Lendl or Wilander on clay... Both were lucky to play in a weak era :o

Federer is unlucky to run into the best claycourter ever... :o

:p

Action Jackson
12-27-2007, 01:47 PM
Nadal would make mince meat out of Lendl or Wilander on clay... Both were lucky to play in a weak era :o

Federer is unlucky to run into the best claycourter ever... :o

:p

Hahahahahaha

Eden
09-09-2008, 11:37 PM
Time for updates after this year's GS season :)

Sunfire
09-10-2008, 01:41 AM
AUSTRALIAN OPEN
1.Andre Agassi
2.Mats Vilander
3.Stefan Edberg
4.Ivan Lendl
5.Roger Federer

ROLAND GARROS
1.Bjorn Borg
2.Rafael Nadal
3.Ivan Lendl
4.Mats Wilander
5.Gustavo Kuerten

WIMBLEDON
1.Pete sampras
2.Bjorn Borg
3.Roger Federer
4.Boris Becker
5.John McEnroe

US OPEN
1.Roger Federer
2.Pete Sampras
3.Jimmi Connors
4.Ivan Lendl
5.John McEnroe

fast_clay
09-10-2008, 01:53 AM
nice... i fully agree with that...

buzz
09-10-2008, 08:50 AM
well, maybe federer on 2 at wimbledon because he was closer to nr 6 than borg. And I think winning a final is better than reaching 2 or 3 more at AO so he should be 3rd there in my opinion. Otherwise I don't get federer is better than Sampras at USO, if a final is that importand Sunfire

stebs
09-10-2008, 12:22 PM
Lists updated. Federer and Nadal making some moves forward.

Becker's Volleys
09-10-2008, 01:18 PM
Australian Open:

1. Roger Federer
2. Andre Agassi
3. Pete Sampras
4. Ivan Lendl
5. Stefan Edberg

Roland Garros:

1. Rafa Nadal
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Mats Wilander
4. Ivan Lendl
5. Gustavo Kuerten

Wimbledon:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Boris Becker
5. John McEnroe

US Open:

1. Roger Federer
2. Jimmy Connors
3. Pete Sampras
4. Ivan Lendl
5. Andre Agassi

CmonAussie
09-10-2008, 02:23 PM
Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Mats Wilander
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Stefan Edberg
5 - Ivan Lendl

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Ivan Lendl
4 - Mats Wilander
5 - Gustavo Kuerten

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Roger Federer
3 - John McEnroe
4 - Boris Becker
5 - Rod Laver

US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Roger Federer
4 - John McEnroe
5 - Ivan Lendl

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 02:47 PM
For what it's worth, purely points based (win=4, final=3, SF=2, QF=1), the top performers are:

Australian Open:

Edberg 25
Agassi 21
Lendl 21
Wilander 17
Federer 16
Newcombe 16
Sampras 16
Vilas 13
Rosewall 13
Courier 12
Kriek 12

French Open:

Borg 25
Wilander 21
Lendl 20
Vilas 18
Agassi 18
Nadal 16
Courier 14
Kuerten 14
Bruguera 13
Federer 12
Connors 12

Wimbledon:

Connors 33
Sampras 31
Becker 30
McEnroe 25
Borg 25
Federer 24
Edberg 18
Ivanisevic 18
Lendl 16
Agassi 15

US Open:

Connors 43
Sampras 32
Lendl 32
Agassi 31
McEnroe 26
Federer 20
Borg 15
Hewitt 15
Edberg 13
Ashe 13

Of course all with the lknown caveats -- pure attendance of the Aussie Open 1975-82, varying surfaces at the U.S. Open, extraordinary longevity and consistency of someone like Connors that (with this scheme) may get overweighed compared to outstanding peak achievements of players like Borg, McEnroe and Sampras or the still active Federer and Nadal, etc..

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 03:01 PM
And here is my personal ranking -- I disregard Laver, Rosewall as their Open era careers were too short for meaningful comparisons.

Australian Open:

1. Agassi
2. Wilander
3. Federer
4. Edberg
5. Lendl

Honorable mention: Newcombe

French Open:

1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Wilander
4. Lendl
5. Kuerten

Honorable mention: Vilas

Wimbledon:

1. Sampras
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Becker
5. McEnroe

Honorable mention: Connors

US Open:

1. Connors
2. Sampras
3. Federer
4. McEnroe
5. Lendl

Honorable mention: Agassi

At the US Open 1-5 are close. Federer, Nadal can of course still climb higher.

faboozadoo15
09-10-2008, 04:13 PM
For what it's worth, purely points based (win=4, final=3, SF=2, QF=1), the top performers are:


What an absurd point system. Federer could win the US Open again next year (6 in a row) and not crack the top 5. :rolleyes: Winning should be worth 10 times what a QF is worth.
And what's really nutty is that with this list, Federer could win RG and pass Nadal.

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 04:18 PM
What an absurd point system. Federer could win the US Open again next year (6 in a row) and not crack the top 5. :rolleyes: Winning should be worth 10 times what a QF is worth.
And what's really nutty is that with this list, Federer could win RG and pass Nadal.

Aren't you a clever boy. :hug:

MatchFederer
09-10-2008, 04:19 PM
What an absurd point system. Federer could win the US Open again next year (6 in a row) and not crack the top 5. :rolleyes: Winning should be worth 10 times what a QF is worth.
And what's really nutty is that with this list, Federer could win RG and pass Nadal.

I agree the the points system is absurd and seems to be not very well thought out at all. A poor effort I say!

EDIT: However, the same chaps Japanese?? rating idea in another thread is pretty interesting.

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 04:23 PM
I agree the the points system is absurd and seems to be not very well thought out at all. A poor effort I say!

EDIT: However, the same chaps Japanese?? rating idea in another thread is pretty interesting.

Seriously, do you guys bother to read? I wrote explicitely "for what it's worth", offered 10 caveats, did not even write down ranks; and then added my own ranking that is pretty different from the points based thing (basically it looks first at number of wins and then on total points).

MatchFederer
09-10-2008, 05:30 PM
Seriously, do you guys bother to read? I wrote explicitely "for what it's worth", offered 10 caveats, did not even write down ranks; and then added my own ranking that is pretty different from the points based thing (basically it looks first at number of wins and then on total points).

Indeed sir, I saw it. It doesn't change my feelings on your points system. Good day to you sir. :cool:

buzz
09-10-2008, 05:48 PM
Australian Open


Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Roger Federer
3 - John McEnroe
4 - Boris Becker
5 - Rod Laver


Did you forget Borg, or does a wimbledon win only count when you did it with serve and volley?

CyBorg
09-10-2008, 07:07 PM
Did you forget Borg, or does a wimbledon win only count when you did it with serve and volley?

Borg served and volleyed.

groundstroke
09-10-2008, 07:10 PM
You should put Federer higher and Borg never S&V...

MrChopin
09-10-2008, 07:24 PM
US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - John McEnroe

At the USO all five men on the list have insane achievements. Federer is still a little behind Connors who also got 5 titles there but with two finals. A sixth title in a row for Federer in 2009 would definately take him second and maybe first, anything less and he would remai in third.

Nice thread, and I agree with pretty much everything you have here but the USO ordering. What about Sampras's career places him above Connors'? If Fed wins USO '09, I think he gets #1 there (Most titles, CyBorg's peak argument and ~40 matches in a row, approaching Lendl's consistency). A final and it's debatable if he deserves #2 or #3.

Macbrother
09-10-2008, 07:25 PM
Borg served-volleyed off the vast majority of his first serves [on grass], actually.

And certainly, a 6th consecutive US Open championship should put Federer first in the Open era by a mile. I don't see how there's even remotely any room for argument.

groundstroke
09-10-2008, 07:33 PM
How the hell is Borg higher than Federer in Wimbledon? Federer is the best tennis player ever to play the game, his grass game is superb, much better than Borg's..

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 07:36 PM
How the hell is Borg higher than Federer in Wimbledon? Federer is the best tennis player ever to play the game, his grass game is superb, much better than Borg's..

I guess one more good result and most would rank Federer above Borg at Wimbledon. But in his time, Borg was as unbeatable at Wimbledon as Federer was until recently.

Macbrother
09-10-2008, 07:38 PM
I guess one more good result and most would rank Federer above Borg at Wimbledon. But in his time, Borg was as unbeatable at Wimbledon as Federer was until recently.

Agreed. For all intents and purposes right now they are tied, I would say.

CyBorg
09-10-2008, 09:34 PM
Nadal = #2 claycourter of all time

Open era maybe, but it's not a given he's better than Cochet, Trabert and Rosewall. In terms of a sheer volume of clay court accomplishments Rosewall is at the very top.

Another underrated clay great is Pancho Segura and his two-handed forehand.

Knightmace
09-12-2008, 08:43 AM
Fed should be Number one on Wimbledon.

MatchFederer
09-12-2008, 09:22 AM
Fed should be Number one on Wimbledon.

Why?

Bazooka
09-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Agreed. For all intents and purposes right now they are tied, I would say.

No, Federer is above Borg in Wimbledon achievements, simply because he really had big chances to win last final, while Mac really bested Borg in the 81.

JediFed
09-12-2008, 01:25 PM
At the USO all five men on the list have insane achievements. Federer is still a little behind Connors who also got 5 titles there but with two finals. A sixth title in a row for Federer in 2009 would definately take him second and maybe first, anything less and he would remain in third.


No. You have to take in consideration the fact that consecutive wins are more difficult then spread out wins. 4 USO in a row may or may not be greater then 5 wins spread out. 5 USO in a row is definitely greater then 5 spread out.

I would rank them

Federer
Connors
Sampras
Lendl
McEnroe

With Federer being the king of Hardcourts, over Connors.

As for Wimbledon I would rank them:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg.

5 in a row is greater then 4 in a row, but is not greater then 4 in a row AND 3 in a row. 2 more wins at Wimbledon will put Federer ahead of Sampras.

I agree with the assessment of Federer > Borg because he won 2 sets in his Wimbledon final, and damn near won 6 in a row, whereas Borg cannot say the same. Essentially the two men are tied with Federer just nudging him out.

JediFed
09-12-2008, 01:43 PM
I think a better ranking system would be this.

128 points for a win
64 points for a final
32 points for a semifinal
16 points for a quarterfinal
08 points for a R16
04 points for a R32
02 points for a R64
01 points for just showing up

2 wins in a row gives you 2.42 wins

3 wins in a row gives you 3.9 wins

4 wins in a row gives you 5.85 wins

5 wins in a row gives you 8.05 wins

3 wins in a row + 4 wins in a row = 9.75 wins > 5 wins in a row

4 wins in a row > 5 wins, but 3 wins in a row < 4 wins

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 02:55 PM
No, Federer is above Borg in Wimbledon achievements, simply because he really had big chances to win last final, while Mac really bested Borg in the 81.

Incorrect. The 1981 final was pretty intense and hung in the balance for a long time. McEnroe pulled ahead only when he got a break late in the 4th set -- i.e. right at the very end of the match.

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 03:02 PM
I think a better ranking system would be this.

128 points for a win
64 points for a final
32 points for a semifinal
16 points for a quarterfinal
08 points for a R16
04 points for a R32
02 points for a R64
01 points for just showing up



So basically 8-4-2-1.

Many points scores can devised, none will ever be entirely satisfying. The primary difficulty with a points system is not the weighting scheme but the fact that some players had very long careers compared to others. Unless you consider only GS wins, Connors will always come out ahead of Borg in a points based system, for example, because Connors was around for almost to decades and over this period reached 31 GS semfinals and 41 quarterfinals -- compared to Borg's 17/21.

Johnny Groove
09-12-2008, 03:03 PM
Open era maybe, but it's not a given he's better than Cochet, Trabert and Rosewall. In terms of a sheer volume of clay court accomplishments Rosewall is at the very top.

Another underrated clay great is Pancho Segura and his two-handed forehand.

Why people continue to bring up the ancient legends is beyond me.

Watch Nadal on clay now and watch Rosewall back in the day. You don't seriously think Rosewall is better, do you?

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Why people continue to bring up the ancient legends is beyond me.

Watch Nadal on clay now and watch Rosewall back in the day. You don't seriously think Rosewall is better, do you?

It's simply incomparable. If you would give Nadal the racket Rosewall played with at the time, Rosewall would wipe the floor with Nadal -- and vice versa, of course. But Rosewall was the leading clay courter of his era as Nadal is of his.

groundstroke
09-12-2008, 04:21 PM
I guess one more good result and most would rank Federer above Borg at Wimbledon. But in his time, Borg was as unbeatable at Wimbledon as Federer was until recently.
If Federer makes QF, SF, F next year, he has a better record than Borg at Wimbledon right?

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 04:32 PM
If Federer makes QF, SF, F next year, he has a better record than Borg at Wimbledon right?

Say F.

David Kenzie
09-12-2008, 05:59 PM
It's simply incomparable. If you would give Nadal the racket Rosewall played with at the time, Rosewall would wipe the floor with Nadal -- and vice versa, of course. But Rosewall was the leading clay courter of his era as Nadal is of his.
Nadal would wipe the floor with Rosewall with whatever racket you give him.

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 06:18 PM
Nadal would wipe the floor with Rosewall with whatever racket you give him.

Sure -- just as Nadal would wipe the floor with Ma Lin in table tennis.

Nadal would have to learn the game with a wooden racket first, which would make his agressive topspins far less effective, and most of his passing shots simply unplayable. Nadal's game is inseparetely linked to today's racket technology, as was Rosewall's to the technology of his time.

Fedex
09-12-2008, 06:32 PM
Borg served-volleyed off the vast majority of his first serves [on grass], actually.


True. One of the biggest misconceptions is that Borg won 5 straight Wimbledons by playing from the baseline. Borg did quite a bit of serve-volleying, especially off the first serve as you pointed out. Borg may not have been a pure serve and volley player, but he changed his game accordingly to succeed at Wimbledon. Other than perhaps his first Wimbledon title in 2003, Borg came to the net far more often (esp. serving and volleying) than Federer has in any of his title runs.

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 07:04 PM
True. One of the biggest misconceptions is that Borg won 5 straight Wimbledons by playing from the baseline. Borg did quite a bit of serve-volleying, especially off the first serve as you pointed out. Borg may not have been a pure serve and volley player, but he changed his game accordingly to succeed at Wimbledon. Other than perhaps his first Wimbledon title in 2003, Borg came to the net far more often (esp. serving and volleying) than Federer has in any of his title runs.

Ivan Lendl, of all people, played serve and volley at Wimbledon. This just shows how much the development in racket technology has favored the returner.

CyBorg
09-12-2008, 07:13 PM
Why people continue to bring up the ancient legends is beyond me.

Watch Nadal on clay now and watch Rosewall back in the day. You don't seriously think Rosewall is better, do you?

I guess this means Nadal will be irrelevant 30 years from now. Thanks for letting me know of how you feel.

CyBorg
09-12-2008, 07:15 PM
Borg's Wimbledon streak (in terms of matches) is longer than Federer's. Borg won 41 in a row. Federer 40.

Not that I think this is important in any way, but as long as the federtard kiddies here are nitpicking I thought I'd upset their timing a little bit.

crude oil
09-12-2008, 07:16 PM
Why people continue to bring up the ancient legends is beyond me.

Watch Nadal on clay now and watch Rosewall back in the day. You don't seriously think Rosewall is better, do you?

william renshaw would wipe the court with federer, sampras and nadal on grass.

renshaw was the GOAT

Fedex
09-12-2008, 07:19 PM
Ivan Lendl, of all people, played serve and volley at Wimbledon. This just shows how much the development in racket technology has favored the returner.

He did but that was not Lendl's natural game and he wasn't very comfortable doing it. I've always thought that if Lendl had played on the grass court conditions of today, he could have won multiple Wimbledons. He would have been able to dominate the rallies from the baseline with an occasional foray to the net, much like Federer has at Wimbledon.

The only guys that I can remember winning Wimbledon by playing strictly baseline tennis, were Agassi and Nadal, and only Agassi was able to do so on an extremely fast court.

Fedex
09-12-2008, 07:28 PM
william renshaw would wipe the court with federer, sampras and nadal on grass.

renshaw was the GOAT

Renshaw won 6 straight Wimbledons, encompassing a total of 13 matches played. I generally don't just totally disregard one's accomplishment (even if it happened before the Open Era) but I will here. Renshaw played nearly 90 years before the Open Era started. They didn't even start having the 128 player draws until 1922.

Of course, I don't think you were being serious anyway. Just trolling.

Henry Kaspar
09-12-2008, 07:38 PM
He did but that was not Lendl's natural game and he wasn't very comfortable doing it. I've always thought that if Lendl had played on the grass court conditions of today, he could have won multiple Wimbledons. He would have been able to dominate the rallies from the baseline with an occasional foray to the net, much like Federer has at Wimbledon.

The only guys that I can remember winning Wimbledon by playing strictly baseline tennis, were Agassi and Nadal, and only Agassi was able to do so on an extremely fast court.

.... provided the "courts have slowed down" business is true, which I doubt. I rather think the development of the game and especially racket technology has favored returs and passing shots, hence players are more cautious to rush to the net than they used to. This, in turn, creates the impression of a slower game even though it isn't.

BIGMARAT
09-12-2008, 08:40 PM
For me- I will put more emphasis on consecutive finals appearances as it really means dominance, so I have my own order of greatness.

Federer and Lendl are for me the greatest of all time.

Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi- 4 titles
2 - Mats Wilander- 3 titles- 1 final
3 - Roger Federer- 3 titles
4 - Stefan Edberg- 2 titles- 3 finals
5 - Ivan Lendl- 2 titles- 2 finals

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg- 6 titles
2 - Rafael Nadal- 4 titles
tied 3 - Ivan Lendl- 3 titles 2 finals
Mats Wilander- 3 titles 2 finals
5 - Gustavo Kuerten- 3 titles

Wimbledon

Tied at 1
Bjorn Borg- 5 titles- 5 consecutive- 1 final- 6 years consecutive finalist
Roger Federer- 5 titles- 5 consecutive - 1 final- 6 years consecutive finalist
3 - Pete Sampras- 7 titles- 4 consecutives
4 - Boris Becker- 3 titles- 4 finals
5 - John McEnroe- 3 titles 1 final

US Open
1 - Ivan Lendl- 3 titles 5 finals- 8 years consecutive finals appearance
2 - Roger Federer- 5 titles consecutive
3 - Pete Sampras - 5 titles 3 finals
4 - Jimmy Connors- 5 titles 2 finals
5 - John McEnroe- 4 titles 1 final

JediFed
09-13-2008, 03:12 AM
Borg's Wimbledon streak (in terms of matches) is longer than Federer's. Borg won 41 in a row. Federer 40.


Yes, thank Haas for that. I really don't see any fundamental difference between the two streaks, other then the fact that Federer made a 5th set, and nearly won it whereas Borg got smoked.

JediFed
09-13-2008, 03:17 AM
Many points scores can devised, none will ever be entirely satisfying. The primary difficulty with a points system is not the weighting scheme but the fact that some players had very long careers compared to others. Unless you consider only GS wins, Connors will always come out ahead of Borg in a points based system, for example, because Connors was around for almost to decades and over this period reached 31 GS semfinals and 41 quarterfinals -- compared to Borg's 17/21.


The ranking system I proposed accounts for that. Borg still ranks above Connors in both RG and Wimbly, and is behind Connors in the USO. Overall, the rankings still put Borg ahead of Connors, due to the fact that Borg had 5 finals on top of the 12 GS wins.

You would have a better case that Connors' career length places him above Sampras at the USO, but that's debatable. The real factor is not Connors, but Lendl at the USO.

As for ranking Lendl above Federer, I don't think 3 and 5 is greater then 5 straight. Again, you have to award more points for streaks.

CyBorg
09-13-2008, 03:56 AM
Yes, thank Haas for that. I really don't see any fundamental difference between the two streaks, other then the fact that Federer made a 5th set, and nearly won it whereas Borg got smoked.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Henry Kaspar
09-13-2008, 04:10 AM
The ranking system I proposed accounts for that. Borg still ranks above Connors in both RG and Wimbly, and is behind Connors in the USO. Overall, the rankings still put Borg ahead of Connors, due to the fact that Borg had 5 finals on top of the 12 GS wins.

Sorry but this is just untrue. With 8-4-2-1 Borg has 114 points, while Connors has 134.

JediFed
09-13-2008, 04:20 AM
Sorry but this is just untrue. With 8-4-2-1 Borg has 114 points, while Connors has 134.


That's why you award for sequences to compensate...

Arkulari
09-13-2008, 08:40 AM
Australian Open

1 - Andre Agassi
2 - Mats Wilander
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Stefan Edberg
5 - Ivan Lendl


Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Gustavo Kuerten
4 - Mats Wilander
5 - Ivan Lendl

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Roger Federer
3 - Bjorn Borg
4 - Boris Becker
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Roger Federer
2 - Pete Sampras
3 - Jimmy Connors
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - John McEnroe

Fedex
09-13-2008, 09:56 AM
.... provided the "courts have slowed down" business is true, which I doubt. I rather think the development of the game and especially racket technology has favored returs and passing shots, hence players are more cautious to rush to the net than they used to. This, in turn, creates the impression of a slower game even though it isn't.

Ugh, the courts have definitely slowed down. Wimbledon has even admitted to slowing the grass in recent years. The fluffier balls also help to slow the conditions down.

If Wimbledon were played in the conditions it was in the 90's, chances are you would see a lot more players serve and volley on the surface, especially Federer.

Arkulari
09-13-2008, 07:51 PM
Why do you think Rafa won Wimby? 'cuz it was almost like playing in clay, the surface is really slow nowadays

I love Rafa, but I don't think he would be able to defeat Roger in a fast-surface GS, at least not right now ;)

Eden
07-07-2009, 12:09 AM
Thought to bring up this quite interesting thread by stebs for further discussion :)

rocketassist
07-07-2009, 12:22 AM
AO

1 Agassi
2 Lendl
3 Wilander
4 Federer
5 Laver (won a couple in the open era)

RG

1 Borg
2 Lendl
3 Wilander
4 Nadal (controversial but I reckon Mats/Ivan faced tougher and much better competition at RG)
5 Kuerten

W:

1 Sampras
2 Federer
3 Borg
4 McEnroe
5 Becker

USO:

1 Federer
2 Sampras
3 Connors
4 McEnroe
5 Lendl

Roger The Great
07-07-2009, 01:32 AM
Just today I was wondering when someone would revive this thread. :) For some reason I had thought Whitler was the one who started it. Is Stebs even still around?

luie
07-07-2009, 02:06 AM
AO
Agassi
Lendl
Fed
Emerson
Laver

FO
Borg
Lendl
Gustavo
Wilander
Nadal ( no competion on clay) his backgroud is mysterious with a lot of allegations surrounding his career.

W
Sampras
Fed
Borg
edberg
becker

USO
Fed
sampras
lendl
Agassi
J mac

JediFed
07-07-2009, 02:07 AM
AO

1 Agassi
2 Federer
3 Wilander
4 Lendl
5 Edberg

RG

1 Borg
2 Lendl
3 Wilander
4 Nadal
5 Kuerten

W:

1 Sampras
2 Federer
3 Borg
4 Becker (7 finals!)
5 McEnroe

USO:

1 Connors (13 consecutive SFs).
2 Sampras
3 Lendl (8 consecutive Fs).
4 McEnroe
5 Federer

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-07-2009, 02:24 AM
Australian Open

1 - Rosewall 1962
2 - Safin 2005
3 - Roger Federer 2006
4 - Agassi 1995
5 - Laver 1967


Roland Garros

1 - Rosewall 1962
2 - Muster 1995
3 - Nadal 2006
4 - Laver 1967
5 - Federer 2006
6- Lendl 1986
7- Borg 1981 :D

Wimbledon

1= Sampras 1999
1 - Stitch 1991
2- Mcenroe 1984
2 - Kraijek 1996
3- Federer 2006
3 - Nadal 2008
4 - Rosewall 1962
5 - Laver 1967
5- Borg 1980

US Open

1- Federer 2004
1- Mcenroe 1984
1 - Sampras 1995
2 - Edberg 1992
3 - Lendl 1986
4- Laver 1967
4- Rosewall 1962
5- Connors 1974

buzz
01-31-2010, 03:14 PM
AO is the first slam where Federer has accomplished the the most of all players in the open era.

Australian Open

1 - Roger Federer
2 - Andre Agassi
3 - Mats Wilander
4 - Stefan Edberg
5 - Ivan Lendl

Roland Garros

1 - Bjorn Borg
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Mats Wilander
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - Gustavo Kuerten

Wimbledon

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Roger Federer
3 - Bjorn Borg
4 - Boris Becker
5 - John McEnroe

US Open

1 - Pete Sampras
2 - Jimmy Connors
3 - Roger Federer
4 - Ivan Lendl
5 - John McEnroe