Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Simple question what are your minimum achievements that a tennis player must achieve for them to be considered an all-time great? For me its not just about slam numbers, the wider picture of a players career must be taken into consideration, for example I think Murray just about makes it for me whereas Courier does not.

In general though 6 slams is usually a bench mark to work from for me, unless they've achieved amazing results outside of slams.

For reference my list:

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Laver
Gonzalez
Sampras
Rosewall
Borg
Connors
Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Murray

(+Tilden, Emerson, Perry, Vilas and Budge, not sure where id place them)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
OP's list is pretty good. Perhaps my standards are a bit lower but I would add 3 names.

Courier made 6 GS finals (reaching the final in all 4 GS tournaments), won 4 of them. #1 in the world for close to 2 years and very much the guy to beat, doing well across all surfaces which was/is extremely rare for an American. Longevity is not great, but still he was dominant for about 3 years.

I would consider Hewitt as well. Youngest #1 ever, which he held for longer (consecutive weeks) than many ATGs like Agassi, Nadal or JMac to name a few. He also has a very decent career win%, especially considering the fact he played for years as an injured, shadow of himself. 2 consecutive WTFs.

Vilas? Extremely dominant on clay, only won 1 RG but 2 AO and 1 USO. And 1 WTF, something which still eludes some ATGs. Never got to #1 but those were the Connors/Borg years, RG/WIM were untouchable. 12th best win%, 9th most titles of the open era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
Simple question what are your minimum achievements that a tennis player must achieve for them to be considered an all-time great? For me its not just about slam numbers, the wider picture of a players career must be taken into consideration, for example I think Murray just about makes it for me whereas Courier does not.

In general though 6 slams is usually a bench mark to work from for me, unless they've achieved amazing results outside of slams.

For reference my list:

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Laver
Gonzalez
Sampras
Rosewall
Borg
Connors
Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Murray
Apples and oranges, all "ATG".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,400 Posts
Interesting thread.

For me it's a bunch of different metrics.

I think the minimum would be at least 1 slam, 5 slam finals, 10 slam semifinals, 500 match wins, 100 match wins in slams, 30 titles and reached number 1 at some point in time.

Only guy who makes my list who doesn't make your list is Roddick. The only one I'd submit who deserves consideration is Hewitt (who falls short of my measure in having only 8 GS SFs, and 4 GS finals, but has the 500/100 and 30.

Wawrinka has 9 GS SFs and 4 GS Finals. Would need another GS final, 13 match wins, and 14 titles. The title count is why he doesn't deserve consideration as an ATG.
 

·
The special one
Joined
·
14,024 Posts
I would definitely have Andy as an ATG. You have to remember he won all of his slams in the era of arguably the 3 greatest players to ever play, and reached no1 after having a major surgery, I would have him above Courier despite having 1 less slam.

To me its not as black and white as slam count, if for example, if Zverev wins 4 slams in a far weaker era without fedalovic does that make him greater that Murray, no way. Context needs to be taken here in terms of strength of era they played in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,311 Posts
Where is Emerson? (12 GS titles, a record before Sampras)
Where is Tilden? (10 GS titles, absolute legend of ancient times)
Where is Budge? (6 GS in a row (!), career interrupted by WWII)
Where is Perry? (8 GS titles)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,311 Posts
I would definitely have Andy as an ATG. You have to remember he won all of his slams in the era of arguably the 3 greatest players to ever play, and reached no1 after having a major surgery, I would have him above Courier despite having 1 less slam.

To me its not as black and white as slam count, if for example, if Zverev wins 4 slams in a far weaker era without fedalovic does that make him greater that Murray, no way. Context needs to be taken here in terms of strength of era they played in.
Agreed. Murray has 1 GS less than Courier by was RU 8 times and SF-ist 10 times (in Big3 era). Two OG, WTF title and bunch of Masters1000 cannot be neglected as well. His career is more impressive.
 

·
The special one
Joined
·
14,024 Posts
Agreed. Murray has 1 GS less than Courier by was RU 8 times and SF-ist 10 times (in Big3 era). Two OG, WTF title and bunch of Masters1000 cannot be neglected as well. His career is more impressive.
Exactly, also the strength of his finals opponents, lost 6 HC finals against the 2 greatest players to play on the surface and lost a Wimbledon final to the greatest grass player.

Also as you mention his career outside the slams is very impressive, kinda a shame he wasn't 10 years younger, I think he would've cleaned up if he was the same as the next gen guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Where is Emerson? (12 GS titles, a record before Sampras)
Where is Tilden? (10 GS titles, absolute legend of ancient times)
Where is Budge? (6 GS in a row (!), career interrupted by WWII)
Where is Perry? (8 GS titles)
You are correct Im not sure where id place them but these do belong up there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Emerson has got to be there. He might be like the only good Aussie without an arena named after them or a medal (Newcombe Medal) or big competition (Laver Cup) but technically he has the most grand slams in mens. Yet in brisbane they name their arena Pat Rafter and not Emerson while Laver gets all the love only cause he has 1 NCYGS in the Open Era while no1 cares about the other if it's not in the Open Era. Rosewell also gets his own area but poor Emerson is still stuck with nothing. Even Newcombe has got his medal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,174 Posts
First criteria: Minimum of 6 Slams.

Second criteria: Minimum of 3 Slams. # of Slams + 3 times other big title wins (Masters 1000s and Tour Finals) for the number that falls short of 6 slams. For instance, Murray won 3 slams. He needed to win at least 9 (3 X 3) titles (of Masters and Tour Finals) for falling short of the first criteria by 3 slams. (P.S. 2 times other big title wins for every missing slam seems too low).

Exceptions are players like Courier and Vilas, with 4 slams each. They both fall short of the second criteria, but they have passed the barrier of minimum of 3 slams as per the second criteria.

Hewitt is a great player, but All-Time Great? 2 slams are too low, and that will put him out of ATG contention, IMO. Hewitt is a Hall of Fame candidate though. Minimum of 3 slams. If you win less than 3 slams, you are out of ATG. A majority of prior greats in the OP that made it to the ATG list have won at least 6 slams, so, the "3 slam minimum" is a must. Sorry Lleyton.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
Second criteria: Minimum of 3 Slams. # of Slams + 3 times other big title wins (Masters 1000s and Tour Finals) for the number that falls short of 6 slams. For instance, Murray won 3 slams. He needed to win at least 9 (3 X 3) titles (of Masters and Tour Finals) for falling short of the first criteria by 3 slams. (P.S. 2 times other big title wins for every missing slam seems too low).
Murray was under unique pressure to win a Slam though, with his country hosting the most prestigious Slam but not having won it for decades. Then you have to consider the level of competition on each surface in various eras. So not all Slams are exactly equal I would say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,400 Posts
Vilas should definitely be on your list as well. 4 slams, 8 slam finals, 12 slam semifinals, 62 titles, 949 match wins. 139 slam wins.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top