The Top 101 Grand Slam Players of the Open Era -- an Update Post AO 2009, UO 2008 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Top 101 Grand Slam Players of the Open Era -- an Update Post AO 2009, UO 2008

Henry Kaspar
02-05-2009, 10:37 PM
The main changes (or absence thereof):

Roger Federer (W UO, F AO; 13W-5F-3S-2Q) unchanged at #2 -- behind Laver, slightly ahead of Sampras and Borg (but the 3 could also be ordered differently). Would need to win the FO or close to 20 slams to pass Laver.

Rafael Nadal (SF, W; 6-2-2-2) one up to #13, sandwiched between Edberg and Newcombe. Has 6 GS titles now, like Becker and Edberg, but many years ahead of him to add to this. 7 titles would get him to #11, 8 to #9, 9 to #7, 10 to #5 (currently Lendl).

Andy Roddick (QF, SF; 1-3-5-7) unchanged at #26. Is already the highest ranked one-slam champion of the openera, would need a second title to pass the players ahead of him (Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Smith, Rafter).

Novak Djokovic (SF, QF; 1-1-4-1) to #37 from #40, now between Ferrero and Kriek.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (-, QF; 0-1-0-1) and Andy Murray (F, -; 0-1-0-1) enter the ranking at #95 and #96, respectively. To make room, Aaron Krickstien and Jose Higueras drop out of the top 101.

Other still active players with a ranking in the top 101 are: Lleyon Hewitt (20), Marat Safin (21), Juan Carlos Ferrero (36), David Nalbandian (56), Nikolay Davydenko (64), Fernando Gonzalez (74), Marcos Baghdatis (78), Tommy Haas (84), Rainer Schuttler (86), and Arnaud Clement (88).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 Cliff Richey
92 Wayne Ferreira
93 Tom Gorman
94 John Alexander
95 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
96 Andy Murray
97 Greg Rusedski
98 Niki Pilic
99 Michael Pernfors
100 Alberto Berasetegui
101 Dick Stockton

102 Aaron Krickstein
103 Jose Higueras

FedFan_2007
02-05-2009, 10:44 PM
Did you have a point system to come up with this list?

Montego
02-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Let me ask you. Where are:


- Hernandez
- Bogdanovic
- Guccione ?




:wavey:

fast_clay
02-05-2009, 10:51 PM
89 - Kim Warwick

1980: Australian Open - Semi-Final
KIM WARWICK beat (defending champion) GUILLERMO VILAS 6-7, 6-4, 6-2, 2-6, 6-4

:worship:

Henry Kaspar
02-05-2009, 10:52 PM
Did you have a point system to come up with this list?


I started with a points system for successes at the slams, but then made adjustments (for example, Aussie Open 1975-82 have less weight, 2 titles at the same tournament have less weight than 2 titles at different tournaments, and so on).

Thus, in spite of trying to be objective there is unavoidably a good degree of subjectivity, and it's purely for fun.

Henry Kaspar
02-05-2009, 10:54 PM
Let me ask you. Where are:


- Hernandez
- Bogdanovic
- Guccione ?




:wavey:

Neither of them made it ever to a GS quarterfinal, if I'm not mistaken, hence they wouldn't be in the top 200. Probably not even top 300.

Crazy Girl
02-05-2009, 10:54 PM
The main changes (or absence thereof):

Roger Federer (W UO, F AO; 13W-5F-3S-2Q) unchanged at #2 -- behind Laver, slightly ahead of Sampras and Borg (but the 3 could also be ordered differently). Would need to win the FO or close to 20 slams to pass Laver.

Rafael Nadal (SF, W; 6-2-2-2) one up to #13, sandwiched between Edberg and Newcombe. Has 6 GS titles now, like Becker and Edberg, but many years ahead of him to add to this. 7 titles would get him to #11, 8 to #9, 9 to #7, 10 to #5 (currently Lendl).

Andy Roddick (QF, SF; 1-3-5-7) unchanged at #26. Is already the highest ranked one-slam champion of the openera, would need a second title to pass the players ahead of him (Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Smith, Rafter).

Novak Djokovic (SF, QF; 1-1-4-1) to #37 from #40, now between Ferrero and Kriek.

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (-, QF; 0-1-0-1) and Andy Murray (F, -; 0-1-0-1) enter the ranking at #95 and #96, respectively. To make room, Aaron Krickstien and Jose Higueras drop out of the top 101.

Other still active players with a ranking in the top 101 are: Lleyon Hewitt (20), Marat Safin (21), Juan Carlos Ferrero (36), David Nalbandian (56), Nikolay Davydenko (64), Fernando Gonzalez (74), Marcos Baghdatis (78), Tommy Haas (84), Rainer Schuttler (86), and Arnaud Clement (88).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 Cliff Richey
92 Wayne Ferreira
93 Tom Gorman
94 John Alexander
95 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
96 Andy Murray
97 Greg Rusedski
98 Niki Pilic
99 Michael Pernfors
100 Alberto Berasetegui
101 Dick Stockton

102 Aaron Krickstein
103 Jose HiguerasNikolay, WHY??????? Also your name wasted!!:crying2::bigcry::bigcry::bigcry::crying2:

Montego
02-05-2009, 10:55 PM
This list of yours is close to my "intuitional" list of all-time greats, really.

Montego
02-05-2009, 10:57 PM
Neither of them made it ever to a GS quarterfinal, if I'm not mistaken, hence they wouldn't be in the top 200. Probably not even top 300.


Ah, sorry. They are MTF all-time greats :)

Voo de Mar
02-05-2009, 11:07 PM
Interesting list Henry, reasonable and reliable :wavey:

philosophicalarf
02-06-2009, 12:12 AM
Interesting. However, the problem with any sort of systemic approach is you end up with apparent absurdities, eg:

Tim Henman, 0 grand slam finals, 1 masters title, highest ranking 4

....is 10 places higher than.....

Marcelo Rios, 1 grand slam final, 5 masters titles, highest ranking 1



Or the more intuitive kneejerk reaction: if Moya was a better player than Mecir then I'm a Swedish bellydancer.

Voo de Mar
02-06-2009, 12:18 AM
I don't think it's the absurdity. The ranking considers Grand Slam tournaments :shrug:

fast_clay
02-06-2009, 12:36 AM
Interesting. However, the problem with any sort of systemic approach is you end up with apparent absurdities, eg:

Tim Henman, 0 grand slam finals, 1 masters title, highest ranking 4

....is 10 places higher than.....

Marcelo Rios, 1 grand slam final, 5 masters titles, highest ranking 1



Or the more intuitive kneejerk reaction: if Moya was a better player than Mecir then I'm a Swedish bellydancer.

if it were better careers... no problem with the lists...

talent or prowess is too subjective to judge tho i agree with both your examples... though, not sure talent is how henry judge's these things...

Experimentee
02-06-2009, 12:54 AM
Could you post your points system for this ranking?

RagingLamb
02-06-2009, 01:01 AM
Could you post your points system for this ranking?


I agree. I think what's more interesting than the list itself is how it was created.

ChinoRios4Ever
02-06-2009, 01:33 AM
How in the earth Rios and Gonzo are almost tied? :o

RedFury
02-06-2009, 02:15 AM
Manolo Santana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Santana) surely needs to be on that list as the all-time second best Spanish player.

Beyond that, why are you calling it best players of the "Open Era" when you have Laver and Rosewall in your top-ten? They were well past their prime in 1968 when said era began.

IOW, what you have now is a mishmash of players since the fifties.

El Legenda
02-06-2009, 02:19 AM
change the title to top 101 Grand Slam Players of the Open era

wilmar
02-06-2009, 02:27 AM
change the title to top 101 Grand Slam Players of the Open era

I agree.
It would be a nightmare to calculate the points for all the tournaments in tennis history. And since the Slams are the biggies and what matters most, it should serve as a general indicator.

I have no problem with this list, and my take is that his point system rewards CONSISTENCY at Grand Slam Levels.

So perhaps that should be made clear at the start of the rankings to avoid the issues of the why's.

TeamID
02-06-2009, 07:09 AM
I'm curious as to why Baghdatis is higher ranked than both Tsonga and Murray.

Baghdatis has a slam final, a slam semi, and a slam quarter, but no master series.

Tsonga has a slam final, a slam quarter, a masters series title, and a showing in Shanghai. His highest ranking is better than Baggys. Isn't this a better resume?

Murray has a slam final, a slam quarter, two masters series titles, and an end of year ranking in the top five. His career hasn't been better?

wilmar
02-06-2009, 07:37 AM
I'm curious as to why Baghdatis is higher ranked than both Tsonga and Murray.

Baghdatis has a slam final, a slam semi, and a slam quarter, but no master series.

Tsonga has a slam final, a slam quarter, a masters series title, and a showing in Shanghai. His highest ranking is better than Baggys. Isn't this a better resume?

Murray has a slam final, a slam quarter, two masters series titles, and an end of year ranking in the top five. His career hasn't been better?

I think only Grand Slam results count as points.
Masters and Year-end Top 8 Masters not included.

Kalinikos
02-06-2009, 07:55 AM
I think its absurd at this point to have Federer ahead of Sampras.

Mĺnu
02-06-2009, 08:25 AM
I think its absurd at this point to have Federer ahead of Sampras.

It actually makes a lot of sense with the fact that Fed has so much better results at RG!

Purple Rainbow
02-06-2009, 12:19 PM
Great thread, nice list.
Why don't you put the entire thread in the Statistics forum?

I've made a similar list, but only took results since 1990. The top of my list looks like this:

1) Federer, Roger............3735
2) Sampras, Pete.............3710
3) Agassi, Andre..............3392
4) Nadal, Rafael...............2049
5) Courier, Jim................. 1898
6) Becker, Boris............... 1868
7) Hewitt, Lleyton............1797
8) Edberg, Stefan............1777
9) Roddick, Andy..............1708
10) Chang, Michael...........1685

11) Kafelnikov, Yevgeny......1677
12) Ivanisevic, Goran..........1564
13) Muster, Tomas..............1476
14) Kuerten, Gustavo..........1333
15) Safin, Marat..................1323
16) Moya, Carlos................1313
17) Ferrero, Juan Carlos....1217
18) Krajicek, Richard...........1210
19) Stich, Michael................1185
20) Rafter, Patrick...............1114

21) Nalbandian, David........1105
22) Henman, Tim.................1103
23) Ferreira, Wayne............1049
24) Rios, Marcelo................1021
25) Bruguera, Sergi............1001
26) Djokovic, Novak............978
27) Corretja, Alex................976
28) Martin, Todd..................967
29) Enqvist, Thomas............965
30) Davydenko, Nikolay.......903

The entire list is posted here:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043

HattonWBA
02-06-2009, 12:49 PM
Interesting LOL, took me a while to figure it out tho

Voo de Mar
02-06-2009, 12:54 PM
Manolo Santana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Santana) surely needs to be on that list as the all-time second best Spanish player.

Beyond that, why are you calling it best players of the "Open Era" when you have Laver and Rosewall in your top-ten? They were well past their prime in 1968 when said era began.

IOW, what you have now is a mishmash of players since the fifties.

Good point. The list isn't bad but the title of thread maybe is a little bit inadequate to the list.

Certinfy
02-06-2009, 04:13 PM
Tsonga higher than Murray =/

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Interesting. However, the problem with any sort of systemic approach is you end up with apparent absurdities, eg:

Tim Henman, 0 grand slam finals, 1 masters title, highest ranking 4

....is 10 places higher than.....

Marcelo Rios, 1 grand slam final, 5 masters titles, highest ranking 1



Well this is because I looked only at Grand Slam results (otherwise the information becomes just unprocessable), and Rios is a player who chronically underperformed at the slams. So the comparison here is Henman: 6 semis and 4 quarters vs. Rios: 1 final and 5 quarters.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 04:23 PM
Could you post your points system for this ranking?

As simple as it gets: 4 W, 3 F, 2 S, 1 Q. But then I reshuffled. Effectively, one title trumps two semis but not three, for example.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 04:26 PM
Manolo Santana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Santana) surely needs to be on that list as the all-time second best Spanish player.

Beyond that, why are you calling it best players of the "Open Era" when you have Laver and Rosewall in your top-ten? They were well past their prime in 1968 when said era began.

IOW, what you have now is a mishmash of players since the fifties.

The criterion is whether they had substantial successes in the open era. If yes (e.g., Laver, Rosewall) I included them but tried to assess their entire careers. If no (e.g., Emerson, Pancho Gonzalez) I did not rank them.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 04:28 PM
I agree. I think what's more interesting than the list itself is how it was created.

I'd be happy to post the spreadsheet that I used to come up with the list, if this is of interest and if you can tell me how to post it.

JolánGagó
02-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Or the more intuitive kneejerk reaction: if Moya was a better player than Mecir then I'm a Swedish bellydancer.

Rankings are about results, "better" and "worse" belong in the realm of private delusions.

The Yokozuna ranking is way more objective though.

CyBorg
02-06-2009, 04:34 PM
Good list. I have no major objections to anything. Some thoughts:

- are Laver and Rosewall judged by their open era results only? If so, then why is Laver in front of Federer? If not then Rosewall should be ahead of Federer.

- I prefer McEnroe to Connors and Agassi. Simply a better peak player - was world's best in 81, 83, 84 - that's three out of four years in his peak; a strong #2 in 1980 and probably 1979 as well. Compare this Agassi's longevity but lack of real dominance and Connors' lack of sustained peak (and, again, longevity)

- Nadal has fewer years as the best than McEnroe, so he should be behind him (as you have him), but I think he's already better than Edberg. As many grand slam titles; Edberg never won two in the same year; lacked truly dominant years. Nadal has also reached heights that Becker never had; has as many grand slam titles; is better on his weakest surface than Becker was on his. I think Newcombe is probably behind Rafa now as well, but that's debatable.

- Gimeno, again, fantastic player, but if we're looking open-era only he should probably be even lower

CyBorg
02-06-2009, 04:38 PM
Well this is because I looked only at Grand Slam results (otherwise the information becomes just unprocessable)

Ah, I missed this part.

MacTheKnife
02-06-2009, 04:53 PM
Very good list. Pretty much like I would expect. I think it's really impressive that guys like Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Conners, Agassi, and McEnroe all stayed so high when you consider the length of their careers. Guys just don't seem to be playing that long anymore and to perform at that level for those number of years is just incredible.

And good point Cyborg. Would like to see something that figures in slam performance in terms of longevity. Borg for example, great results but walked away so early it's hard for me to put him in there with the likes of these guys.

CyBorg
02-06-2009, 06:04 PM
Very good list. Pretty much like I would expect. I think it's really impressive that guys like Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Conners, Agassi, and McEnroe all stayed so high when you consider the length of their careers. Guys just don't seem to be playing that long anymore and to perform at that level for those number of years is just incredible.

And good point Cyborg. Would like to see something that figures in slam performance in terms of longevity. Borg for example, great results but walked away so early it's hard for me to put him in there with the likes of these guys.

Actually, with me it's the peak consistency that matters. The longevity of peak and other quality years matters as well - you'll notice that with the better players the peak consistency/longevity when the player is at the top is close to three years, consecutive. Borg had this - 1978-1980.

Borg also had overall longevity - eight years between 1974-1981; where he was objectively in the top three without fail (and won a major in all of those years).

He retired young, but he started young, so I discard age and focus on longevity in quality years, not overall years.

Now adjust for the fact that the Australian Open must be disregarded in this era and one has to acknowledge that Borg's accomplishments are right there with that of Sampras and, to date, Federer - in my opinion better than both.

MacTheKnife
02-06-2009, 06:16 PM
I'm not diminishing Borg's accomplishments in any way. Those are my favorite days of tennis and he was a great champion. He just never had to deal with the decline in his skills like the other guys at the top of this list. He basically walked away while still at, or at least "near" top form. I admire the guys that really tough it out and continue to play even though they really have to face the fact they are not on the same level as days past. We're seeing Federer begin to have to face that now. It will be very interesting to see how he responds to it.

CyBorg
02-06-2009, 06:31 PM
I'm not diminishing Borg's accomplishments in any way. Those are my favorite days of tennis and he was a great champion. He just never had to deal with the decline in his skills like the other guys at the top of this list. He basically walked away while still at, or at least "near" top form. I admire the guys that really tough it out and continue to play even though they really have to face the fact they are not on the same level as days past. We're seeing Federer begin to have to face that now. It will be very interesting to see how he responds to it.

As far as I'm concerned, Federer just needs to stack up on some quality years to pass Borg. He has four great peak years, but lacks quantity to surround that. I've been ready to put him ahead of Borg for a while now, but the guy's kind of fallen off. If things go according to plan then Federer will pass Borg.

As of now, Borg has eight quality years (74-81); Federer has six (2003-2008). It's close.

If Roger doesn't win another major, then I don't see why he should get any extra credit for sticking around. But I think he will win another two or so.

cane_cattivo
02-06-2009, 06:48 PM
Nice list with some (unavoidably) counterintuitive results. For instance: Courrier ahead of Vilas and Nastase; Rafter ahead of Kuerten.

Cheers!

RagingLamb
02-06-2009, 06:52 PM
I'd be happy to post the spreadsheet that I used to come up with the list, if this is of interest and if you can tell me how to post it.

I don't think the whole spread sheet will be necessary (nice of you to offer though). If you could just let us know in general how you computed each person's place on your list, it will be more than sufficient. Thanks.

star
02-06-2009, 07:08 PM
Ah, I missed this part.

But still, I think one of your points had merit. There should be some weight given to winning multiple slam tournaments in one year. I don't think this would make much difference at the very top, but it would make some adjustment down the line.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 09:23 PM
Nice list with some (unavoidably) counterintuitive results. For instance: Courrier ahead of Vilas and Nastase; Rafter ahead of Kuerten.

Cheers!

Courier ahead of Vilas seems quite clear to me -- Courier had a short period in which he dominated the game, Vilas always had Borg an Connors ahead of him.

Rafter ahead of Kuerten -- difficult one. Kuerten actually has 3 slams to Rafters 2 and I flipped them. The reason is that Kuerten achieved very little in GS tennis outside the FO, while Rafter reached the fial of every GS tournament. For the same reason I rank Bruguera behind most other 2-slam winners and also behind some one-slam champs.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 09:28 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Federer just needs to stack up on some quality years to pass Borg. He has four great peak years, but lacks quantity to surround that. I've been ready to put him ahead of Borg for a while now, but the guy's kind of fallen off. If things go according to plan then Federer will pass Borg.

As of now, Borg has eight quality years (74-81); Federer has six (2003-2008). It's close.

If Roger doesn't win another major, then I don't see why he should get any extra credit for sticking around. But I think he will win another two or so.

For my part, if I did the list again I would probably flip Borg and Sampras. Sampras was limited on clay, while Borg could do everything, grass, clay and hard. Federer and Borg I'd have roughly level.

But plus minus one or two ranks is within the margin of error anyway -- at the top. Further down (say, around 30 or 40) the margin of error is more like plus minus five ranks, and in the lower half of the list it's easily plus minus 10.

Henry Kaspar
02-06-2009, 09:34 PM
I don't think the whole spread sheet will be necessary (nice of you to offer though). If you could just let us know in general how you computed each person's place on your list, it will be more than sufficient. Thanks.

The basic principles are:

1) 3 finals >= title >= 2 finals
3 semis >= final >= 2 semis
and so on.

2) Malus for players who did well at one particular GS only.

3) Malus for results at the Australian Open 1975-82 and some other tournaments (for example, Wimbledon 1973 -- hence Kodes behind Nastase). Some bonus for players who had their biggest successes in 75-82 and did not play the AO.

4) Some bonus for players who are ranked Y in my Yokozuna-Ranks over O, O over S, S over K, as a higher Yokozuna-Rank suggests higher peak quality.

fast_clay
02-06-2009, 09:45 PM
i like courier where he is... brutal domination... and a top little streak it was too... first time i ever felt sorry for a pro player was when he dismantled korda in a night match at the AO... oh man... ouch...

Tom_Bombadil
02-06-2009, 09:49 PM
Very good list. I think the fact that you only take into consideration the majors it's a very good approach. It's not necessary to make the list more complex, as the majors are always what make or break a tennis player.

But... why not also count the Davis Cups or the Olympics? I think they're not as important as majors, but they are important as a decisive factor to break ties when you're not so sure which player goes ahead.

Voo de Mar
02-06-2009, 09:56 PM
But... why not also count the Davis Cups or the Olympics? I think they're not as important as majors, but they are important as a decisive factor to break ties when you're not so sure which player goes ahead.

I think Davis Cup is important but extremely hard to count. I see in your sig Nadal as a Davis Cup champion twice... In Davis Cup a winning team has to win 4 matches in a row (sometimes 5 if begins the winning streak in playoffs - Croatia case in 2004/2005).
But what's more important, for example in Nadal's case? His winning match against Roddick in the Davis Cup final or his winning matches in 2008 despite he didn't participate in the final? I don't know which criteria use in Davis Cup to say authoritarlly this or that player won Davis Cup :shrug:

Tom_Bombadil
02-06-2009, 10:03 PM
I think Davis Cup is important but extremely hard to count. I see in your sig Nadal as a Davis Cup champion twice... In Davis Cup a winning team has to win 4 matches in a row (sometimes 5 if begins the winning streak in playoffs - Croatia case in 2004/2005).
But what's more important, for example in Nadal's case? His winning match against Roddick in the Davis Cup final or his winning matches in 2008 despite he didn't participate in the final? I don't know which criteria use in Davis Cup to say authoritarlly this or that player won Davis Cup :shrug:

Yeah, I can see that. That would only be applied in extreme cases, and as a minor factor to decide which player goes ahead when they're close enough.

Also, being Davis Cup a team competition, you're always gonna depend on how good are your countrymen. One example of this would be Roger Federer.

Yeah, it's more complex than what I thought at first. ;)

fast_clay
02-06-2009, 10:42 PM
I think successful Davis Cup players are burdoned heavily... especially when they are in competition with a near rival at the top of the game... like Tom said, a great tie breaker... 5 set matches + sudden changes of surfaces 3 or 4 times per year must count for something... it is taxing and historic enough...

MisterQ
02-06-2009, 11:26 PM
That's a good list. It's possible to quibble about a thing or two, but the basic order jibes with my overall impressions (a mixture of subjective and objective elements) of these players.

The criterion is whether they had substantial successes in the open era. If yes (e.g., Laver, Rosewall) I included them but tried to assess their entire careers. If no (e.g., Emerson, Pancho Gonzalez) I did not rank them.

There's no way to deal with this issue without raising some objections. I like the way you handled it. :cool:

andylovesaustin
02-06-2009, 11:40 PM
See, I put Borg over Sampras because Borg came closer to winning the U.S. Open more than Pete ever came to winning the French Open.

But... of course, Borg didn't longevity of Pete either.

At least Roger has made it into the finals of the French Open a couple of times, so he deserves to be ahead of Borg.

Oh.. and I rank Andre Agassi higher because at least he had a career grand slam. And I would also rank Rafa higher, too, since now he has won 3 out of the 4.

Another edit, but I would definitely rank Andre over Connors. I was just looking at their records, and to me Andre has a better record??

Oh.. and Johnny Mac over Connors, too! I think it should be Andre, Johnny Mac, and Connors.. I can't recall Lendl's record.. I just looked it up: he never won Wimbledon?! Is that right? Mmmmm wow. I didn't know that.

I have no idea how this list should go, but I think Andre should be ranked higher than Johnny Mac or Connors.

I think it's a big deal if a player can't manage to win the French Open. But then again, I love the French Open.

Henry Kaspar
02-07-2009, 12:00 AM
Lot's of good comments...

See, I put Borg over Sampras because Borg came closer to winning the U.S. Open more than Pete ever came to winning the French Open.

As written in another post, I lean this direction now too, but they are close and there are good arguments either way.

Oh.. and I rank Andre Agassi higher because at least he had a career grand slam. Another edit, but I would definitely rank Andre over Connors. I was just looking at their records, and to me Andre has a better record??


Very similar records. 8-7-16-10 (Connors) vs. 8-7-11-10 (Agassi). Both had a brief period as the udisputed #1, both with extraordinary longevity.

And I would also rank Rafa higher, too, since now he has won 3 out of the 4.

So have Becker and Edberg, although over longer time frames. But I think Rafa will move up automatically as time goes on. To me the interesting question is whether he can make the top 5. In my book he needs 10 titles to get there.

andylovesaustin
02-07-2009, 12:07 AM
Lot's of good comments...



As written in another post, I lean this direction now too, but they are close and there are good arguments either way.



Very similar records. 8-7-16-10 (Connors) vs. 8-7-11-10 (Agassi). Both had a brief period as the udisputed #1, both with extraordinary longevity.



So have Becker and Edberg, although over longer time frames. But I think Rafa will move up automatically as time goes on. To me the interesting question is whether he can make the top 5. In my book he needs 10 titles to get there.


I looked and Connors didn't have a career grand slam? I just think Andre is often overlooked for this accomplishment.

I agree with you about Rafa.

And yeah.. Borg v Pete has always been a difficult call.

Henry Kaspar
02-07-2009, 12:12 AM
Great thread, nice list.
Why don't you put the entire thread in the Statistics forum?

I've made a similar list, but only took results since 1990. The top of my list looks like this:

1) Federer, Roger............3735
2) Sampras, Pete.............3710
3) Agassi, Andre..............3392
4) Nadal, Rafael...............2049
5) Courier, Jim................. 1898
6) Becker, Boris............... 1868
7) Hewitt, Lleyton............1797
8) Edberg, Stefan............1777
9) Roddick, Andy..............1708
10) Chang, Michael...........1685

11) Kafelnikov, Yevgeny......1677
12) Ivanisevic, Goran..........1564
13) Muster, Tomas..............1476
14) Kuerten, Gustavo..........1333
15) Safin, Marat..................1323
16) Moya, Carlos................1313
17) Ferrero, Juan Carlos....1217
18) Krajicek, Richard...........1210
19) Stich, Michael................1185
20) Rafter, Patrick...............1114

21) Nalbandian, David........1105
22) Henman, Tim.................1103
23) Ferreira, Wayne............1049
24) Rios, Marcelo................1021
25) Bruguera, Sergi............1001
26) Djokovic, Novak............978
27) Corretja, Alex................976
28) Martin, Todd..................967
29) Enqvist, Thomas............965
30) Davydenko, Nikolay.......903

The entire list is posted here:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043


Interesting. That's an ELO-type rating?

Henry Kaspar
02-07-2009, 12:19 AM
I looked and Connors didn't have a career grand slam? I just think Andre is often overlooked for this accomplishment.

That's true. But Connors won on clay (he won the US Open on all three surfaces). That's pretty much as good as a Career Grand Slam in my book.

This said, I have no difficulties if someone swaps Agassi and Connors. And, btw, also not if someone puts Big Mac ahead of both of them. At his peak Big Mac was more dominant than these guys, but this period was so disappointingly short, while Agassi and Connors stand very much out in terms of longevity. They played top notch world class tennis for more than 10 years. Lendl clearly belongs above any of these players though. 19 GS finals speak for themselves.

andylovesaustin
02-07-2009, 12:19 PM
That's true. But Connors won on clay (he won the US Open on all three surfaces). That's pretty much as good as a Career Grand Slam in my book.

This said, I have no difficulties if someone swaps Agassi and Connors. And, btw, also not if someone puts Big Mac ahead of both of them. At his peak Big Mac was more dominant than these guys, but this period was so disappointingly short, while Agassi and Connors stand very much out in terms of longevity. They played top notch world class tennis for more than 10 years. Lendl clearly belongs above any of these players though. 19 GS finals speak for themselves.


But Lendl never won Wimby? Well, he was in the final though. I have never been a much of a Lendl fan, so that's why he's unfamiliar to me.

I am weird, I guess, because I don't necessarily value the number of titles over the variety of titles. For me, having a career Grand Slam.. or proving in some other way that one can win against the best players on all surfaces is important over. Dominance and longevity are important, too. But to me someone like Pete never proved he could win on clay against the best players on clay even though he was dominant on the fast courts. To me, that's a big problem.

It's not a problem for Roger though. And it's not a problem for Agassi. But the problem with Agassi is that Pete dominated him in their match-ups, the same way Rafa is starting (or continuing depending upon how one looks at it) Roger.

I am new at this.. discussing and comparing players' accomplishments, so I have odd ideas! LOL

MacTheKnife
02-07-2009, 01:27 PM
As I stated earlier, I am very impressed with this list and now I'm even more impressed with the thread itself. Great discussion, no name calling or the usual BS we see on MTF. Top shelf thread !!

thrust
02-07-2009, 02:25 PM
For my part, if I did the list again I would probably flip Borg and Sampras. Sampras was limited on clay, while Borg could do everything, grass, clay and hard. Federer and Borg I'd have roughly level.

But plus minus one or two ranks is within the margin of error anyway -- at the top. Further down (say, around 30 or 40) the margin of error is more like plus minus five ranks, and in the lower half of the list it's easily plus minus 10.

Borg never won a hard court Slam. Pete won 3 of 4 Slams at least twice. Borg won 2 of 4. Pete has 6 consecutive years at #1, Roger-4, Borg had 2 or 3. Pete had 276 weeks at #1 Roger-237. Pete has 14 Slams, Borg-11, Roger-13, before Nadal against Tier II players. Slams are very important but not Everything when considering a players greatness. Winning finals of Slams is more impressive than reaching semis of losing finals. Pete has the best % of Slam final wins than anyone since 1990 and probably in the Modern era.

andylovesaustin
02-07-2009, 02:46 PM
Borg never won a hard court Slam. Pete won 3 of 4 Slams at least twice. Borg won 2 of 4. Pete has 6 consecutive years at #1, Roger-4, Borg had 2 or 3. Pete had 276 weeks at #1 Roger-237. Pete has 14 Slams, Borg-11, Roger-13, before Nadal against Tier II players. Slams are very important but not Everything when considering a players greatness. Winning finals of Slams is more impressive than reaching semis of losing finals. Pete has the best % of Slam final wins than anyone since 1990 and probably in the Modern era.

Yeah, but didn't Borg make into the U.S. Open finals on hard court?

I completely forgot the USO was also played on clay?

My point is that Pete really never did well on clay at all where as Borg had some success of faster surfaces.

After reading some of the other threads, there are so many variables. It's really amazing and difficult to say except for sure Laver.. and I guess Roger since he has at least made it to the final of a clay court tournament, only to be beaten by the best in the world--probably of all time on clay.

Henry Kaspar
02-07-2009, 03:25 PM
Borg never won a hard court Slam. Pete won 3 of 4 Slams at least twice. Borg won 2 of 4.

Well in effect Borg won 2 of 3, because he didn't play the AO (most leading players didn't at the time), and in the third tournament (UO) he reached the final 4 times (losing twice to Connors and twice to McEnroe). Besides, Borg won plentiful other important tournaments on his "weak" surface (hard, and also on carpet)), thus he was truly an all-surface player, while Sampras never could quite adapt to clay.

This said, and as I wrote earlier....

Pete has 6 consecutive years at #1, Roger-4, Borg had 2 or 3. Pete had 276 weeks at #1 Roger-237. Pete has 14 Slams, Borg-11, Roger-13, before Nadal against Tier II players. Slams are very important but not Everything when considering a players greatness. Winning finals of Slams is more impressive than reaching semis of losing finals. Pete has the best % of Slam final wins than anyone since 1990 and probably in the Modern era.

.... there are good arguments in favor of Sampras, as you correctly point out. It's a question how one weights the different arguments, which, in turn, depends much on personal preferences. In my mind, there is no doubt that Laver, Federer, Borg, Sampras are the "big 4" of the open era (Lendl falls just short of memerbship in this club); how one rates these relative to one another is difficult.

Purple Rainbow
02-07-2009, 05:14 PM
Interesting. That's an ELO-type rating?

I had to look what an ELO type rating actually is, the only ELO I know plays symphonic rock music. :)

But it's not, it just counts the results of players at slams and TMS events.

Federerhingis
02-07-2009, 06:53 PM
Borg never won a hard court Slam. Pete won 3 of 4 Slams at least twice. Borg won 2 of 4. Pete has 6 consecutive years at #1, Roger-4, Borg had 2 or 3. Pete had 276 weeks at #1 Roger-237. Pete has 14 Slams, Borg-11, Roger-13, before Nadal against Tier II players. Slams are very important but not Everything when considering a players greatness. Winning finals of Slams is more impressive than reaching semis of losing finals. Pete has the best % of Slam final wins than anyone since 1990 and probably in the Modern era.

While the numbers at simple glance magnify Sampras' career you must make sure to consider that while yes he was dominant for six years, he was never as dominant as Roger week in and week out, in Fact both Connors and Lendl were more dominant than Sampras week in and out. I believe Sampras' longest run being ranked number one consecutively was 80 weeks more or less. Furthermore of Sampras' total slam count 86% of those slams came from two slam venues, far less varied and only shows his dominance on faster surfaces where his magnificent serve was enhanced.

Therefore while his career is illustrious many arguments can be made against him being possibly ranked as the all time greatest tennis player even of the Open Era. On another note he still is the male player with the most slams, that will be his for about another season or so.

I think Agassi should be ranked higher in general for the simple fact of having won all the four slams. That's an underlooked variable most of the time. Otherwise I agree very much with the two lists on this thread.

thrust
02-08-2009, 04:30 PM
While the numbers at simple glance magnify Sampras' career you must make sure to consider that while yes he was dominant for six years, he was never as dominant as Roger week in and week out, in Fact both Connors and Lendl were more dominant than Sampras week in and out. I believe Sampras' longest run being ranked number one consecutively was 80 weeks more or less. Furthermore of Sampras' total slam count 86% of those slams came from two slam venues, far less varied and only shows his dominance on faster surfaces where his magnificent serve was enhanced.

Therefore while his career is illustrious many arguments can be made against him being possibly ranked as the all time greatest tennis player even of the Open Era. On another note he still is the male player with the most slams, that will be his for about another season or so.

I think Agassi should be ranked higher in general for the simple fact of having won all the four slams. That's an underlooked variable most of the time. Otherwise I agree very much with the two lists on this thread.

A player has to be judged by his complete carrer. Neither Pete or Roger won a clay Slam. Both won on grass, and slow and fast hard courts. Pete's competition, especially on grass, was far superior to Roger's competition. Roger could improve enough to surpass Pete in the catagories I listed in my previous post. My main point is that Roger cannot
be considered the GOAT yet, until he surpasses Pete in these catagories and especially until he can get a winning H-H against Nadal. How can Roger be the GOAT when he is being dominated by Nadal? As of now I still consider Laver the GOAT, followed closely by Rosewall, then Sampras. Just because Agassi got lucky and won a single French Open, cannot place him above Sampras in accomplishment. In probably every other statistic Pete is vastly superior to Andre- SORRY!!

Henry Kaspar
02-08-2009, 04:37 PM
A player has to be judged by his complete carrer. Neither Pete or Roger won a clay Slam. Both won on grass, and slow and fast hard courts. Pete's competition, especially on grass, was far superior to Roger's competition.

That's in the eye of the beholder. I consider the late 1990s and early 2000s the weakest period of the open era. By contrast, this current period is pretty good.

My main point is that Roger cannot
be considered the GOAT yet, until he surpasses Pete in these catagories and especially until he can get a winning H-H against Nadal. How can Roger be the GOAT when he is being dominated by Nadal?

This is not a good point. Borg was domianted by McEnroe at the end of his career, and yet most rank Borg ahead of McEnroe. Lendl was dominated by Becker, same thing. There is little point in comparing a past-peak with a peaking player.

thrust
02-08-2009, 04:54 PM
That's in the eye of the beholder. I consider the late 1990s and early 2000s the weakest period of the open era. By contrast, this current period is pretty good.



This is not a good point. Borg was domianted by McEnroe at the end of his career, and yet most rank Borg ahead of McEnroe. Lendl was dominated by Becker, same thing. There is little point in comparing a past-peak with a peaking player.

Agassi in the late nineties and early 2000's was far superior to anyone Roger had to compete with till Nadal came along. Lendl leads Becker H-H. Borg was not much older than McEnroe. One can debate forever, but it is the final carrer stats that count.

Henry Kaspar
02-08-2009, 06:13 PM
Agassi in the late nineties and early 2000's was far superior to anyone Roger had to compete with till Nadal came along.

On grass???

Lendl leads Becker H-H.

11-10, but most of this was at smaller tournaments. At the slams Becker leads Lendl by a whopping 5-1.

Borg was not much older than McEnroe.

2 1/2 years. Given that a player's prime rarely lasts longer than 3-5 years, this makes all the difference.

One can debate forever, but it is the final carrer stats that count.

In my view they are one and probably the most important aspect, but by no means the only one. Peak dominance, variety across surfaces, success relative to number of tournaments played, all this enters the computation.

Henry Kaspar
02-09-2009, 06:21 AM
Agassi in the late nineties and early 2000's was far superior to anyone Roger had to compete with till Nadal came along.

The late 90s -- the era of "great Sampras Agassi domination" -- were the time when players like Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya and Thomas Muster crept to #1 in the world rankings, players who have left almost no imprint on the game.

Even though there were two top dogs of sort, this was not a strong era. A bit like today's ladies tennis: yes, there is Serena who can win almost anything when she's fit and has her mind set on it. Yes, there is Venus who is near-unbetable on grass if the real Venus shows up. Yes, there is the brilliant Maria Sharapova who unfortunately is injured all the time.

But none of these players has the consistency to impose themselves in the way, say, Federer and Nadal do, or a Steffi Graf or Monica Seles or Martina Navratilova did. Hence lesser players like Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Dementieva make it to #1 (or almost), even though they have absolutely no business there.

wilmar
02-09-2009, 07:05 AM
In my view they are one and probably the most important aspect, but by no means the only one. Peak dominance, variety across surfaces, success relative to number of tournaments played, all this enters the computation.

Thanks for working out this list. What is your point system, btw?

And from what you've mentioned, I gather you'd give added Bonus points when a player wins a 2nd, 3rd, 4th....successive title at the SAME Grand Slam? To reward excellence at one particular Slam.

Also, added bonus points when a player wins a 2nd, 3rd and 4th DIFFERENT Grand Slam? To reward variety of surface.

These Bonuse points would further bring out the career differences at the Slam Level I think.

Henry Kaspar
02-09-2009, 01:45 PM
Thanks for working out this list. What is your point system, btw?

And from what you've mentioned, I gather you'd give added Bonus points when a player wins a 2nd, 3rd, 4th....successive title at the SAME Grand Slam? To reward excellence at one particular Slam.

Also, added bonus points when a player wins a 2nd, 3rd and 4th DIFFERENT Grand Slam? To reward variety of surface.

These Bonuse points would further bring out the career differences at the Slam Level I think.

The ranking system is explained further above in this thread, forgive me if I don't write it down again.

In pratice there is a bonus for variety in my ranking system but not for specialization -- I wouldn't know how you could have both. This said, on my web page (see signature) I have something of this sort. There I assign ozumo-type career ranks (Yokozuna, Ozeki, etc.) to players, mainly for their overall grand slam careers, but -- thanks to the idea of a poster here, fast clay -- also for their tournament-specific careers. The overall Yokozuna (Grand Champion) Rafael Nadal, for example, is also a French Open Yokozuna, a Wimbledon and Australian Open Ozeki (Champion) and a US Open Sekiwake (Junior Champion I). The overall Yokozuna Roger Federer is a specialist Yokozuna at the AO, UO and Wimbledon, and an Ozeki at the FO. Maybe you're interested in this.

Cheers,
HK

Federerhingis
02-12-2009, 01:14 AM
A player has to be judged by his complete carrer. Neither Pete or Roger won a clay Slam. Both won on grass, and slow and fast hard courts. Pete's competition, especially on grass, was far superior to Roger's competition. Roger could improve enough to surpass Pete in the catagories I listed in my previous post. My main point is that Roger cannot
be considered the GOAT yet, until he surpasses Pete in these catagories and especially until he can get a winning H-H against Nadal. How can Roger be the GOAT when he is being dominated by Nadal? As of now I still consider Laver the GOAT, followed closely by Rosewall, then Sampras. Just because Agassi got lucky and won a single French Open, cannot place him above Sampras in accomplishment. In probably every other statistic Pete is vastly superior to Andre- SORRY!!

I am not saying Roger should be placed above Sampras or Agassi
above Sampras. I too agree Laver is the man when it comes to tennis, I highly doubt it that anyone will be able to win the slam more than twice, as it's proving to be an extremely difficult task to achieve it even once, winning all four in one year. Laver did it twice. Now that's an achievement. :worship:

As it stands in my opinion I rank them as follows:

Laver undisputed champion.
-
-
-
-

Sampras is simply the next best thing because he's won the most but he's far from being top3.

Roger comes next and possibly could make better arguments than Pete on whether he should be considered top three all time.

Borg I would place him above either Roger or Sampras but logically is does not seem right. :lol:

I definitely think Agassi should be in the top 8 no questions asked.

andylovesaustin
02-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Question:

I was talking to a friend of mine about this topic, and he said that during Borg's time, the Italian Open was more popular than the Australian Open?

I don't know exactly what he was getting at :lol:.. but.. is that true? I just thought I would throw it out there.

ReneP
02-13-2009, 03:50 PM
If your base was a W > 2 F > 4 SF > 8 QF, why not begin with giving :
1 W = 8 points , 1 F = 4, 1 SF = 2 and 1 QF = 1 rather than respectively 4, 3, 2, 1 ?

Henry Kaspar
02-13-2009, 03:59 PM
If your base was a W > 2 F > 4 SF > 8 QF, why not begin with giving :
1 W = 8 points , 1 F = 4, 1 SF = 2 and 1 QF = 1 rather than respectively 4, 3, 2, 1 ?

With hindsight, maybe this would have been smarter.... ;-)

CyBorg
02-13-2009, 11:50 PM
Borg never won a hard court Slam. Pete won 3 of 4 Slams at least twice. Borg won 2 of 4. Pete has 6 consecutive years at #1, Roger-4, Borg had 2 or 3. Pete had 276 weeks at #1 Roger-237. Pete has 14 Slams, Borg-11, Roger-13, before Nadal against Tier II players. Slams are very important but not Everything when considering a players greatness. Winning finals of Slams is more impressive than reaching semis of losing finals. Pete has the best % of Slam final wins than anyone since 1990 and probably in the Modern era.

Borg played the Australian once as a 17 year old. Your facts are misleading.

Borg, more accurately, was 2 out of 3 in grand slam events. Not 2 out of 4. And in his worst event, the US Open, he was better than Pete was in his worst event, the French open.

I prefer to look at things not in terms of majors, though, but in terms of surfaces. Borg has the edge in terms of surface distribution.

tennisvideos
02-17-2009, 11:16 AM
A player has to be judged by his complete carrer. Neither Pete or Roger won a clay Slam. Both won on grass, and slow and fast hard courts. Pete's competition, especially on grass, was far superior to Roger's competition. Roger could improve enough to surpass Pete in the catagories I listed in my previous post. My main point is that Roger cannot
be considered the GOAT yet, until he surpasses Pete in these catagories and especially until he can get a winning H-H against Nadal. How can Roger be the GOAT when he is being dominated by Nadal? As of now I still consider Laver the GOAT, followed closely by Rosewall, then Sampras. Just because Agassi got lucky and won a single French Open, cannot place him above Sampras in accomplishment. In probably every other statistic Pete is vastly superior to Andre- SORRY!!

I tend to agree with you Thrust. I certainly rank Laver & Rosewall at the head of the bunch ... Rosewall has 23 Majors if you count his amateur and pro "Slam" equivilents. Laver has 2 x Calendar Grand Slams although I only truly count 1 as relevant (1969). The other time Rosewall and Gonzales were playing the pro tour.

Baghdatis#1
02-17-2009, 05:13 PM
Pete#3:D
Andre#8:D
Mark#51:D
Marcos#78:D

petar_pan
02-17-2009, 05:15 PM
in split,croatia,summer on hard court.

Henry Kaspar
02-18-2009, 05:55 PM
Several participants here asked what a formal ranking system would spit out. Here is one with win 27 points -- final 9 points --seminfinal 3 points --quarterfinal 1 point. The resultis relatively close to my overall ranking (closerthan 8-4-2-1 or 4-3-2-1), but many issues are not solved in a satisfactory manner: there remains an unduely large premium on longevity; versatility accross surfaces is not taken into account; players who skipped the AO 75-82 get an unwarranted malus, those who succeded there unwarranted bonus; players with important parts of their careers pre-open era get screwed, etc..

In a nutshell, no point system, no matter how well devised, can substitute for judgement.

1 Pete Sampras 435
2 Roger Federer 407
3 Bjorn Borg 349
4 Ivan Lendl 348
5 Jimmy Connors 337
6 Andre Agassi 322
7 John McEnroe 256
8 Mats Wilander 240
9 Stefan Edberg 238
10 Boris Becker 227
11 Rafael Nadal 191
12 John Newcombe 170
13 Guillermo Vilas 163
14 Ken Rosewall 161
15 Jim Courier 151
16 Rod Laver 145
17 Arthur Ashe 119
18 Jan Kodes 106
19 Lleyton Hewitt 90
19 Ilie Nastase 90
21 Gustavo Kuerten 86
22 Marat Safin 83
23 Pat Rafter 81
24 Yegveni Kafelnikov 79
25 Andy Roddick 76
26 Stan Smith 74
27 Michael Chang 71
28 Goran Ivanisevic 70
29 Johann Kriek 69
30 Sergi Bruguera 66
31 Vitas Gerulaitis 63
32 Michael Stich 58
33 Juan Carlos Ferrero 56
34 Pat Cash 55
35 Roscoe Tanner 53
36 Novak Djokovic 50
37 Tony Roche 46
37 Manuel Orantes 46
39 Carlos Moya 44
40 Andres Gimeno 43
41 Richard Krajicek 41
41 Thomas Muster 41
43 Petr Korda 40
44 Yannick Noah 38
45 Adriano Panatta 36
46 Thomas Johansson 35
46 Mark Edmondson 35
48 Todd Martin 34
49 Albert Costa 33
50 Andres Gomez 32
51 Brian Teacher 29
52 Cedric Pioline 28
53 Manuel Okker 27
53 Miroslav Mecir 27
53 Gaston Gaudio 27
56 David Nalbandian 26
57 Alex Corretja 24
58 Henri Leconte 23
59 Tim Henman 22
59 Kevin Curren 22
61 Mark Philippoussis 21
62 Alex Metreveli 20
62 Harold Solomon 20
64 Steve Denton 18
65 Sebastian Grosjean 17
66 Nicolas Davydenko 16
67 Raul Ramirez 15
67 Brian Gottfried 15
67 Phil Dent 15
67 Andrei Medvedev 15
71 Marcelo Rios 14
71 Guillermo Coria 14
71 Dick Crealy 14
74 Tim Mayotte 13
74 Fernando Gonzalez 13
74 Onny Parun 13
74 Magnus Norman 13
74 Zeljko Franulovic 13
74 Marcos Bagdhatis 13
74 Patrick Proisy 13
81 Tommy Haas 12
81 Kim Warwick 12
81 Victor Pecci 12
81 Rainer Schuettler 12
85 Jonas Bjorkman 11
85 Eddie Dibbs 11
85 John Alexander 11
85 Thomas Enqvist 11
85 Arnaud Clement 11
85 John Sadri 11
85 John Lloyd 11
92 Roger Taylor 10
92 Cliff Richey 10
92 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 10
92 Andy Murray 10
92 Greg Rusedski 10
92 Niki Pilic 10
92 Michael Pernfors 10
92 Alberto Berasetegui 10
92 Washington 10
101 Clark Graebner 9
101 Wayne Ferreira 9
101 Tom Gorman 9
101 Hank Pfister 9
101 Lewis 9
101 Marks 9
101 Anderson 9
101 Tsonga 9
101 Verkerk 9
101 Puerta 9
111 Dick Stockton 8
111 Aaron Krickstein 8
111 Jose Higueras 8
114 Sven Schalken 7
114 Kiefer 7
114 Jarryd 7
114 Ruffels 7
114 Zivojinovic 7
114 Svensson 7
114 Masur 7
114 Barazzutti 7
122 McNamara 6
122 Ferrer 6
122 Hrbaty 6
122 Dibley 6
122 Ralston 6
122 Larsson 6
122 Chesnokov 6
122 Clerc 6
130 Forget 5
130 Wheaton 5
130 Novacek 5
130 Case 5
130 S.Mayer 5
130 Escude 5
130 Kucera 5
130 Ancic 5
138 Fibak 4
138 G.Mayer 4
138 Teltscher 4
138 Drysdale 4
138 El Anayoui 4
138 Stolle 4
138 Amitraj 4
138 Emerson 4
138 Arazi 4
138 Robredo 4
138 Youzny 4
138 Dupre 4
138 Froehling 4
138 Rosset 4
138 Jauffret 4
138 Giltinan 4
138 Scanlon 4
138 McNamee 4
138 Frawley 4
138 Lutz 4
138 P. Gonzales 4
138 Lapentti 4
138 Arias 4
138 Ljubicic 4
138 Dewulf 4
138 P.McEnroe 4
138 Volkov 4
138 Mantilla 4

Ilovetheblues_86
02-18-2009, 05:58 PM
175 Melengeni 0 0 1 0 K 3

Meligeni ;).

Ilovetheblues_86
02-18-2009, 06:02 PM
55 Tim Henman 0 0 6 4 S 19
64 Sebastian Grosjean 0 0 4 5 S 15
65 Nicolas Davydenko 0 0 4 4 S 14
75 Tommy Haas 0 0 3 3 S 11
78 Jonas Bjorkman 0 0 2 5 S 10


Never reached a final, but got a lot of fans.:)