1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)
1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)
I would put him at #5 behind Federer, Laver, Sampras and Borg.
Agree. Although not sure who I'd put first between Federer and Laver. But those two followed by Sampras and Borg. If/when Rafa gets another slam or two I would move him above Borg. To consider moving him above Pete, I think he would need another 4, preferably not all at the FO.
1)Federer
2)Sampras
3)Borg
4)Laver
5)Nadal
My list for the moment..changes from year to year.
1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)
This is the same question was ask when Roger won his 14 slams back in 2009. Now that he won 17 slams, add a few more WTF and broke the 286 weeks at #1 and some of you are still not sure if he's ahead of Laver ?
Roger have accomplished since 2009 up to now is a dream career for 99.99% of the players on the tour and for sure he would make the HOF. Meanwhile Laver has gain nothing since he retire in the 70s.
How the hell is Borg above Nadal?
Why are people including Laver, but not Rosewall and others, in these lists?
For me, in the Open era, I'd say.
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Lendl
I don't agree with simply looking at Career Slam and number of Majors.
1)Federer
2)Sampras
3)Borg
4)Laver
5)Nadal
My list for the moment..changes from year to year.
1). Rafael Nadal
2). Jim Courier
3). Michael Chang
4). Michael Russel
5). Caroline Wozniacki
All time Tennis Goat List why do you guys always leave Graf off?
Steffi Graf- Singles - Career Golden Slam (22 GS Titles)
Doubles - Bronze- (1 GS Title)
No Male has ever had a career golden Slam
No Male has 22 GS titles (singles)
Steffi Graf weeks at #1 - 377 (no one made her a pair of shoes) next closest person in 45 weeks behind.
She has Medals in Both Doubles and Singles
She had a Slam win in Both Doubles and Singles
I mean everyone talks about FED as goat (and I am a Fed fan)
but on paper
Steffi 22GS > Rogers 17GS
Steffi wks at #1 377 > Rogers 287 wks at #1
Steffi Calendar/Golden Slam
Steffi 5 YEC's < Roger 6 YEC's
Steffi-singles Record 900–115 (88.7%)
Roger singles record 853–192 (81.63%)
(harder to show since roger has played 45 more matches)
Steffi played 17 Years
Roger is at 14 Years
so in 3 years he will need to win a Calendar Golden Slam (impossible now)
Win 5 more Slams (out of 13 more chances)
Win a Calendar Slam (with 3 more chances)
and be at #1 for another 90 weeks (that is 14 weeks shy of 2 years at #1)
To knock off Fraulein Forehand
I am sorry but if people are going to make up criteria for ranking tennis players this discussion will really go bonkers.
A Grand Slam tournament is the most difficult and prestigious prize on offer in pro tennis. How can you objectively decide to disregard it?
You may not like Nadal and Sampras but they exceed Borg's accomplishments and it's not a difficult arithmetic either.
PS: Rosewall was a factor in the Open era? This is news to me.
1-Federer
2-Agassi
3-Borg
4-Sampras
5-Nadal
But Nadal will surpass Sampras.
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Connors
6. Nadal
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg/Becker
1). Rafael Nadal
2). Jim Courier
3). Michael Chang
4). Michael Russel
5). Caroline Wozniacki
Mostly right, but my list:
1) Serena Williams
1) Venus Williams (tied)
2) Lukas Rosol
3) Robin Soderling
4) Jim Courier
5) Michael Chang
6) Feliciano Lopez
7) Caroline Wozniacki
8) Fernando Verdasco
9) David Ferrer
10) Rafael Nadal
I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.
I never claimed Rosewall was a factor in the Open era, though he did win 4 Majors and reach a further 4 finals in it. So clearly he was. But people are including Laver in their lists near the top. He only won 5 Majors in the Open era (and one further final), even if it did include the Grand Slam. Are people seriously putting Laver above Borg and Nadal in terms of the Open era? I assumed they were including achievements before the Open era, in which case the absence of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and others is noticeable.
I never claimed I was disregarding the Majors. Of course they are the most important tournaments in tennis. I said I felt that looking at just the number was simplistic. If we could just use the number then wouldn't this entire discussion be pretty pointless? I am trying to look at each person's case and comparing them. The Australian was not treated like an important event, and therefore not often played, by a lot of the top players until the mid-80's due to a number of factors. So I do think that factor is important. Are we to say that Johan Kriek (2 AOs, no other Major finals and career high rank of #7) and Brian Teacher (1 AO, only one other QF at Majors and career high rank of #7) are better than Andy Murray?
I loved watching Sampras play. His win over Agassi in his last ever match to tie the US Open record will always be a favourite memory of mine. Why would you assume that I rank them based on liking the player or not? It is simply my opinion on their achievements. Borg's achievements on a wide-range of surfaces puts him ahead of Sampras for me. Borg played the Australian only once at the age of 17, so really his weakest Major was the USO, where he reached 4 finals. Sampras only reached a single SF at the French and those shortcomings on clay help Borg edge ahead in my opinion.
I can, of course, understand the argument for Sampras ahead of Borg. 3 more Majors, far more weeks at #1 (though arguments on the ranking system in the early years are well documented) and more YECs. You asked the question of how people could place Borg ahead of Nadal. I put forward the argument for why I, and others, place Borg not just ahead of Nadal but Sampras also.
I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.
1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)