Rank the No.1s

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Michael Bluth, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    I've seen questions asking about the weakest no.1 or the GOAT, but haven't seen something like this before, so here goes:



    Here's how I would rank them:

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Lendl
    5. Connors
    6. McEnroe
    7. Agassi
    8. Nadal
    9. Edberg
    10. Becker
    11. Wilander
    12. Newcombe
    13. Courier
    14. Kuerten
    15. Nastase
    16. Roddick
    17. Safin
    18. Muster
    19. Ferrero
    20. Kafelnikov
    21. Rafter
    22.Moya
    23. Rios
     
    #1
  2. stanfordtennis alum

    stanfordtennis alum Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,821
    Location:
    on a tennis court
    i put rafter, safin and kafelnikov in front of roddick.. great list though!
     
    #2
  3. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    Well I rank them on how strong a #1 they were, which isnt entirely the same as how great a player they were. Granted the list is mostly in order of how I would rank them as players but a few exceptions for those whose overall careers rank as more impressive than their tenure at #1.

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. McEnroe- not a greater player than Lendl or Connors overall, but an even more emphatic #1 when he was there
    5. Lendl
    6. Connors
    7. Nadal- very strong impact as #1 player in 2008-early 2009
    8. Becker
    9. Edberg
    10. Wilander
    11. Courier- very strong hold as #1 player in 92-early 93
    12. Hewitt- not that great career wise but a very strong and decisive #1 from late 2001-early 2003
    13. Newcombe
    14. Agassi- great player overall, never a really strong #1 though
    15. Nastase
    16. Kuerten
    17. Roddick
    18. Ferrero
    19. Safin
    20. Muster
    21. Rafter
    22. Moya
    23. Kafelnikov
    24. Rios
     
    #3
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,465
    Define Better

    Is the better player the one who at their absolute peak was better than another player eg Mac 1984 was at his absolute peak and performed at a level not matched throughout the rest of his career. Or Lew Hoad at times in the late 1950's. Or is the better player the player with better career achievements (including issues such as longevity at a high level)? By this latter measure you have to rate Connors and Lendl over McEnroe.

    So it all depends on how you define it.

    Hence - peak level greatness you'd have to rate McEnroe very high, but in terms of career achievement not as high (even though he still achieved a lot!).

    Both are valid assessements but you have to define your terms first. My list of number ones would very greately due to that criteria.

    To illustrate further Rios would have to be rated much higher in terms of his peak playing ability, also Safin
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2009
    #4
  5. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    Rios never once brought his peak playing ability to a slam though. He only made it past a slam quarterfinal once. And the time he did he struggled through a farcial draw, tough 4 setter with Berasetegui (this is hard courts remember) in the quarters and another vs Escude in the semis, before being absolutely destroyed by a 30 year old Petr Korda who won his only slam title that day, Rios only getting a mere 6 games. His peak level was shown in Masters events a few times, but without ever showing it a slam where it really mattered even that shouldnt help him much. Safin atleast brought that peak level when it really counted to the slams a few times.
     
    #5
  6. boris becker 1

    boris becker 1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    1. sampras
    2. Borg
    3. Federer
    4. Agassi
    5. Becker. Massively underachieved and should have had 9 or 10 slams
    6. Lendl
    7. Mc Enroe
    8. Connors
    9 Edberg
    10 courier
    11 Nadal
    12 Wilander
    13. Newcombe
    14. Guga
    15. Nastase
    16. Rafter
    17. Hewitt.
    18 Moya. would be higher if not always injured.
    19 Safin. massively under achieved.
    20 Roddick
    21 Kafelnikov. got the most out of his talent.
    22 Muster. only good on clay
    23 Ferero. won 1 slam. ranked around 20 rest of his career
    24 rios. Never won a slam
     
    #6
  7. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    To be fair Korda was juicing at the time. But yeah it is pretty pathetic that he needed four sets to beat a post-prime Berasategui on hardcourts. I agree with your assesment otherwise, without a doubt the weakest no.1 ever in my book.
     
    #7
  8. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    If Korda was juicing than Korda or Bjorkman was robbed of the 98 AO title. Rios wouldnt have come close to beating either in that final the way he played, unless he wouldnt have tanked vs one of those guys and just decided to tank once he felt Korda was a bit too strong that day to beat even if he tried (which could well be the case).
     
    #8
  9. Michael Bluth

    Michael Bluth Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    758
    I'm guessing you mean Kucera.
     
    #9
  10. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Here's how I would rank them:

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Lendl
    5. Connors
    6. McEnroe
    7. Nadal
    8. Wilander
    9. Newcombe
    10. Edberg
    11. Becker
    12. Courier
    13. Nastase
    14. Agassi

    I wouldn't bother with the rest.
     
    #10
  11. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    Why are people ranking guys like Becker, Edberg, and Courier over Agassi? Even if Agassi is overrated by some he isnt that overrated.
     
    #11
  12. the little dasher

    the little dasher New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    62
    I guess tennis was invented in 1973.
     
    #12
  13. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    No, but the official computerized ranking system was.
     
    #13
  14. the little dasher

    the little dasher New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    62
    Fair enough. In that case Borg, Fed then Sampras with little btwn Edberg, Wilander, J Mac, Connors, Lendl, Newc and Agassi thereafter. Becker and Nadal just behind that group.
     
    #14
  15. Cosmic Charlie

    Cosmic Charlie New User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    54
    1. Federer
    2. Lendl
    3. Sampras
    4. Borg, Connors, McEnroe
    7. Courier
    8. Nadal
    9-23: too close to call.

    I've considered #1 to be a relative ranking (to the rest of the field). I've ranked the #1's according to the command they held while at the top. So I consider the ranking in this post to be a function of the duration spent as #1, and the lead over the #2. Federer was unchallenged for 3 1/2 years (during his first stint), and Lendl, 2 1/2. Down to Nadal at 8, who had the better part of a year with a huge lead over the #2. The others had relatively brief stints of unchallenged supremacy.
     
    #15
  16. Kick_It

    Kick_It Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    442
    Perhaps I am confused (it happens more often now that i'm older) - I guess I don't clearly understand OP's goal. I read rank the #1s and GOAT yet I don't see Laver on the list. I also didn't see 1973 listed in OP - hence my confusion.
     
    #16
  17. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,465
    #17
  18. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,465
    Nastase vs Guga

    Most of the lists had Guga ahead of Nastase. I don't think this is correct. Sure Nastase only had 2 Grand Slams (compared to 3 for Guga). But Nastase also had 3 runner ups (including one where he only lost 7-5 in the fifth. Nastase skills extended to Grass Court and Clay. Also he won the Masters 4 times, Guga only once. And he had a lot more tournament wins than Guga. He also had a very good record against top 10 players - I believe better than Guga. He had a winning record against Connors for instance.
     
    #18
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    Nastase at his best was incredible. He was a player of immense gifts and was superior to most of the players on that list in my opinion.

    A Federer against Nastase match on any surface in their primes would have been fun to watch.
     
    #19
  20. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    While I mostly agree with you I have a problem with inconsistent underachieving players being rated by more about what they are capable on their best day then what they actually were on a regular basis. The same reason I find Goolagong and Mandlikova overrated on the womens side. Based on his actual results and place in the game at any given point in time alone Nastase was never a particularly strong #1.
     
    #20
  21. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    Whilst Agassi is the greater player overall, Courier's period as no.1 was more impressive. The year Courier finished no.1 in 92 was much stronger than Agassi's in 99, plus Agassi was lucky that Sampras missed the US open. Courier had a brutal draw at the 92 French Open having to beat having to go through Muster, Mancini, Medvedev, Ivanisevic and Agassi, he beat Edberg impressivley at both the 92 and 93 Australian Open finals, whilst Agassi beat past his prime choking Medvedev in the French Open final in 99 and past his prime Todd Martin at the US Open final in 99.
     
    #21
  22. federerfanatic

    federerfanatic Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,046
    Agassi was a strong #1 for most of 1995 though when he was reigning Champion of both hard court slams- 94 U.S Open and 95 Australian Open, and dominating hard courts while posting very good results on all surfaces. Unfortunately for him he lost that status when Pete beat him in the 95 U.S Open final, before losing his official #1 ranking at years end.
     
    #22
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Here's another way to rank them.

    Most years as world no. 1--
    1. Gonzales/Laver (tied with 8 years each)
    2. Tilden (7 years)
    3. Riggs/Kramer/Sampras (6 years)
    4. Vines/Perry/Budge/Rosewall/Lendl/Federer (tied with 5 years each)
    5. Borg (4 years)
    6. Cochet/Connors/McEnroe (tied with 3 years each)
    7. Lacoste/Kovacs/Sedgman/Segura/Wilander/Edberg/Hewitt (tied with 2 years each)
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2009
    #23
  24. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,387
    List

    Aside from leaving some of the early greats off this list, I think there are some problems. 4/5/6 should be Connors/Lendl/Mac...Lendl and Jimmy tied on GS titles, but Connors w/the 2 wimbys, I still think counts for something more. And, worth more than the RG titles, which I think Jimmy offsets via 3 USOs on 3 surfaces, 1 being a win over the truly great Bjorn, on clay. And, Jimmy & Ivan have similar tenures at #1, but Jimmy w/more longevity, more years in Top 4, Top 10, etc. I even have to struggle a bit w/putting Ivan ahead of John, but at the end of the day, Ivan accomplished more.

    And, as much as I like Nadal, I think it is a little premature to put him in the Top 10..YET..I do think Edberg and Becker still have an edge over him, but not for long. Agassi at #7 will be hotly debated; you could easily place him at 10, based on rationale. But I am ok w/#7. And while I love Andy, he belongs lower on the list....more like 19/20...Rafter w/2 USOs and 2 wimby finals is debatedly a better achievement.

    I also think I'd put Nastase ahead of Kuerten...
     
    #24
  25. the little dasher

    the little dasher New User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    62
    Rafter definately better than Roddick at this stage of the latter's career.
     
    #25
  26. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,387
    becker

    um..boris at #5...no way
    woulda coulda shouldas don't count, sorry
     
    #26
  27. MuseFan

    MuseFan Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    706
    Why is Federer on these lists? He's a CURRENT pro. Same thing with Nadal. FAIL thread.
     
    #27
  28. Henry Kaspar

    Henry Kaspar Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Something like this.

    1. Federer
    2. Borg
    3. Sampras
    4. Lendl
    5. Connors
    6. McEnroe
    7. Agassi
    8. Wilander
    9. Nadal
    9. Edberg
    11. Becker
    12. Newcombe
    13. Courier
    14. Nastase
    15. Hewitt
    16. Safin
    17. Kuerten
    18. Kafelnikov
    19. Rafter
    20. Roddick
    21. Ferrero
    22. Muster
    23.Moya
    24. Rios
     
    #28
  29. Marshredder

    Marshredder Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    London, UK
    My top 10 would be...

    1. Sampras
    2. Federer
    3. Borg
    4. McEnroe
    5. Aggasi
    6. Nadal
    7. Lendl
    8. Connors
    9. Becker
    10. Edberg.

    The current pro's are on these lists because their current achievements, in the opinion of the poster, are more significant than those number ones below them, they can only go up!
     
    #29
  30. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    "The present looms too large in our perspective, and thus always creates distorted proportions. One needs the proper lens of chronological distance to render accurate measurements."
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2009
    #30
  31. Harry_Wild

    Harry_Wild Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,172
    Here's how I would rank them:

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Lendl
    5. Connors
    6. McEnroe
    7. Agassi
    8. Courier
    9. Nadal
    10. Edberg
    11. Becker
    12. Nastase
    13. Wilander
    14. Muster
    15. Kuerten
    16. Roddick
    17. Safin
    18. Newcombe
    19. Rafter
    20. Kafelnikov
    21. Ferrero
    22.Moya
    23. Rios
     
    #31
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    Agreed. It seems every number one is ranked by many at that time to be the GOAT. It cannot be true all the time.
     
    #32
  33. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,722
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Excellent way to look at number ones.
    I will consider this for a possible reranking of my GOATs list ...
    Maybe Sampras should be ranked higher than Budge ?
    Maybe I gave too much weight to his dual grand slams ?

    I think this is another factor showing how great Sampras was to get 6 compared to Federer's 5 against stronger competition IMO
     
    #33
  34. FlamEnemY

    FlamEnemY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,554
    That's quite misleading; The year-end ranking surely is a nice stat, but one can basically end 2 years as number one and yet be #1 only 2 months in total. Total weeks is a much better indicator.
     
    #34
  35. FlamEnemY

    FlamEnemY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,554
    Again, 'year-end number 1' is decided on a chosen date of the year; If the ATP were to chose the week right after Wimbledon for the end of the tennis year, then Federer would've gotten 6 in a row. So basically it is no different than '#1 on the 15th of May' or whatever date you want.
     
    #35

Share This Page