Greatest of All Time Grand Slam Final, Runnerup, Single Count [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Greatest of All Time Grand Slam Final, Runnerup, Single Count

lordmanji
08-27-2006, 10:17 PM
Grand Slam Wins/Runner Ups/Total # of Finals/Singles Titles:

Tier I
Sampras - 14/4/18/64
Laver - 11/6/17/39(some estimates put count at around 100)
Borg - 11/5/16/61
Emerson - 12/3/15/25

Tier II
Rosewall - 8/4/12/na
Federer - 8/1/9/40
Agassi - 8/7/15/60
Connors - 8/7/15/101
Lendl - 8/11/19/94
McEnroe - 7/4/11/77
Wilander - 7/4/11/33
Edberg - 6/5/11/42
Becker 6/4/10/49

To add a more statistical perspective to the greatest of all time debate. Interesting insights: Federer wins nearly 90% of his grand slam finals. W/ a couple more gs wins, he'll be in tier I
Laver won two career grand slams
Borg won french opens and wimbledons back to back
Agassi won slams on 4 different surfaces, 17 masters series shields
Connors won most singles titles of any other GOAT player
McEnroe was just as prolific in grandslam doubles titles

R.Federer
08-27-2006, 10:46 PM
You should standardize in some way-- either by years / tournaments played, e.g. Slams won relative to Slams played (I think Borg wins handily in that case).

mecir72
08-27-2006, 11:20 PM
Wilander has won on all surfaces too.

lordmanji
08-28-2006, 04:11 AM
wilander didnt win wimbledon.
and it matters ultimately how many titles they won, not how long it took.

Plastic Bertrand
08-28-2006, 04:13 AM
wilander didnt win wimbledon.
and it matters ultimately how many titles they won, not how long it took.

The Australian Open was played on grass until 1988 when it switched to Rebound Ace afterwards, hence mecir72 is correct in saying that Wilander titles on all surfaces.

JW10S
08-28-2006, 04:19 AM
Something to keep in mind--after Laver won his first Grand Slam he turned pro and was barred from playing the Slams for 8 years while he was in his prime (the Slams were amateur events in those days). One year after Open tennis came about he won his second Grand Slam. One can only imagine how many Slams Laver would have won had he been allowed to play them. Also Emerson won most of his Slams while the best players of his day (Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc.) were playing pro tennis and not allowed to play the Slams--thus I would not categorize him as tier 1.

lordmanji
08-28-2006, 04:33 AM
its interesting to note how history favors winners over runnerups. lendl appeared in 19gs finals but at only 8gs, he can only be considered 2nd tier. had he won w/ the same percentage as sampras, he'd be considered one of the greatest. also, had connors and agassi won their gs finals, they would be up there as well. conversely, if federer had 50% ratio like some of the others, he'd not be so specially regarded.

jw: i believe you're right about emerson. he should at most be at the bottom of tier 2.

about wilander: yes, wilander won on all four surfaces. but i should have stated clearly that i meant four grandslams on different surfaces. wilander's achievement is lesser imo for that reason tho it should be noted he won 3 gs in the same year.

senorgato
08-28-2006, 05:23 AM
Technically, aren't there just 3 Grand Slam surfaces? Agassi only won on 3 different surfaces, not 4. Unless you are saying there's hardcourt type 1 and hardcourt type 2. If that's the case, then we really have about 100 different court surfaces on the tour.

prima donna
08-28-2006, 05:26 AM
Wilander was overrated.

DrJules
08-28-2006, 08:41 AM
Something to keep in mind--after Laver won his first Grand Slam he turned pro and was barred from playing the Slams for 8 years while he was in his prime (the Slams were amateur events in those days). One year after Open tennis came about he won his second Grand Slam. One can only imagine how many Slams Laver would have won had he been allowed to play them. Also Emerson won most of his Slams while the best players of his day (Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc.) were playing pro tennis and not allowed to play the Slams--thus I would not categorize him as tier 1.

Overall mostly true.

Actually 5 years from 1963-1967 inclusive. In the middle of career between grand slams.

Laver almost certainly would have won 15 or more grand slams, probably less up to 1962 (Laver benefited from absence of professionals) but would have won numerous titles during 63-67. Emerson won 10 of his 12 titles from 63-67 having lost in 3 grand slam finals in 62 to Laver; Emerson won none in the professional era of tennis.

Boris Franz Ecker
08-28-2006, 10:12 AM
Laver won two career grand slams



Please, friends, if you make such lists, learn at first some basics, terminology, etc...

Adler
08-28-2006, 10:34 AM
There are awful mistakes in the first post. I wonder why anyone noticed it before

An example for you all:
Connors won 109 tournaments

Dancing Hero
08-28-2006, 05:07 PM
Pretty good list, though I think Newcombe won 7 GS titles as well, including 3 Wimbledons. All his big titles were won on grass courts as far as I know. It's hard to compare the eras. Emerson would be tier 2 for me as well. Sometimes I feel the older time players from the 40's, 50's and 60's get overlooked. Rosewall must have been some player as well to win titles in the 50's and then compete and win big titles twenty years later in the Open era. He was reaching the Wimbledon and US Open finals in his 40th year.

All_Slam_Andre
08-29-2006, 03:53 PM
How many titles did Connors win? The ATP site says 105, the International Tennis Hall of Fame site says 109. As regards to 'Non grand slam' titles, we don't seem to have an accurate source as how many titles players won before the open era. I agree with the first post that there are two tiers are greatness. For me the players who have 10 or more grand slams are in the top tier, and the players who have won 6-9 grand slams are in the second tier.
I don't think the number of grand slam finals reached is that important. For me only titles actually count. You either win a grand slam or you don't IMHO. First is first, second is nowhere.
Dr Jules is right that Laver benefitted in 1961-62 by players like Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales being banned from grand slams. I certainly put Laver above Borg and Emerson, but probably not Sampras.

All_Slam_Andre
08-29-2006, 04:10 PM
Yes it is an interesting case with Wilander. He won the Australian Open twice on grass, but he never went past the quarter-finals at Wimbledon. I suppose this raises the question, what is more important, the surface or the location. Along with Agassi, he is the only player to have won grand slams on 4 different surfaces.
I personally don't think that doubles tennis is that important. For me it is just a sideshow and only singles matter.

lordmanji
08-29-2006, 04:48 PM
History is quite narrow-minded when you take into account how ultimately only grand slams singles titles counts. when commentators now talk of the greatest ever, it's between federer and sampras. nevermind that both haven't won the career slam unlike laver who did it twice in the same year, have half as many singles titles as connors, and less master's series shields than agassi. it's no wonder that players nowadays opt to use all other tournaments as a gauge of their ability and confidence on whether or not they can win a slam like the williamses - basically anyone with a slam count of at least two.

its really a pity that runs to the final (as well as other factors) aren't considered a little more heavily. for example, borg made it to the finals of the us open four times yet that achievement might as well be equal to sampras' one semifinal run at the french.

R.Federer
08-29-2006, 06:50 PM
when commentators now talk of the greatest ever, it's between federer and sampras. nevermind that both haven't won the career slam unlike laver who did it twice in the same year,
How do you win the career slam twice in one year?