Originally Posted by jimbo333
Mine is similar:-
6. Nadal (followed by McEnroe, Rosewall, Lendl and Agassi)
As I mentioned in another thread, my argument for Connors being at 3 is because Jimmy won over 100 tournaments between about 1973 and 1986 (more than anyone in the open era).
And because if Connors had played the French Open at his peak (he reached 4 semis, and 3 quarters AFTER his best 8 years amazingly), and if he had played the Australian Open more than twice (with a record of 1 win and 1 final), he would have probably won at least 12 Grand Slam tournaments, more than Nadal's current total!
Jimmy was playing in the hardest open eras (70's and 80's), in my opinion he is the third best player of all time (after Federer and Laver), a very underrated player and career by some.
Connors at 3?
How can you possibly rate Connors over Borg?