15 greatest players of all time

[pc1]

I agree. In no credible long-term comparison could Federer ever be second tier while Sampras and Borg are placed in the first tier. He's either up there with them or ahead of them.

You'd have to have a heavy dose of partisanship to view Federer's results and then come to the conclusion that either Sampras or Borg were more accomplished players - regardless of era, H2hs or Borg retiring early.

Actually Bobby when you look at Borg, not all the statistics on Borg are available on the ATP website. Many tournaments are not taken into account like some WCT tournaments he won. Borg actually won far more tournaments than Federer or Sampras and he did it in dominating fashion. It should also be taken into account he was unbelievable in Davis Cup and almost never lost there. I'm not going to say whether Borg should belong in a certain tier but I will say that you can't make all the conclusions about Borg until you have ALL the information on him. One thing I will say about Borg is that as dominant as Federer was over five years or so, Borg actually won at a higher percentage over a five year span. Borg was pretty amazing.

 

[5555]

And the clueless Kiki strikes again

Oh and if Nastase can be considered in the all time greats list, so can Djoker... Djoker > Nastase.

Very good argument.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Actually Bobby when you look at Borg, not all the statistics on Borg are available on the ATP website. Many tournaments are not taken into account like some WCT tournaments he won. Borg actually won far more tournaments than Federer or Sampras and he did it in dominating fashion. It should also be taken into account he was unbelievable in Davis Cup and almost never lost there. I'm not going to say whether Borg should belong in a certain tier but I will say that you can't make all the conclusions about Borg until you have ALL the information on him. One thing I will say about Borg is that as dominant as Federer was over five years or so, Borg actually won at a higher percentage over a five year span. Borg was pretty amazing.

I am with you on all of that but there's one small detail people seem to set aside when it doesn't suit their romantic player of all time lists - he achieved far, far less than Federer in terms of the most recognisable and cherished metrics - majors won and time spent at #1.

I know he was easily as dominant as Federer in his peak years and that some of his wining streaks are right at the top of the roost.

My point was that you'd have to go into it with a pretty partisan view to come out the other end deciding that he is in a category above Federer in terms of overall achievement/legend, especially if Sampras is up there with him. It's not often admitted but there is an element of romanticism about players which grows the further back you look. This sometimes seems to create a bias against more recent achievers. It may not apply so much in a Fed vs Borg comparison but it certainly does in a Fed vs Sampras one. Fed blows Sampras clean out of the ballpark in basically every metric commonly used to rate players - other than total weeks at #1 where Sampras has a 1% advantage over him, and Wimbledon where he is 7 vs 6 (But Federer won more consecutively which should count for something surely?).

 

[kiki]

I agree. In no credible long-term comparison could Federer ever be second tier while Sampras and Borg are placed in the first tier. He's either up there with them or ahead of them.

You'd have to have a heavy dose of partisanship to view Federer's results and then come to the conclusion that either Sampras or Borg were more accomplished players - regardless of era, H2hs or Borg retiring early.

When I summarize my all time list, I tend to weighten the eras a player has competed.In Fed´s case, if his nº of titles would certainly make him top tier ( even all time greatest), I think of Federer as I think of Emerson: 2 great players who played in a weak era, that makes him have a 30-50% more of the slams they´d have gotten in a competitive era.

That, a mature person and poster can understand, not a **** like TMF or ABMK.Sorry for name calling but, at this point of the forum, everybody knows what can they offer...

 

[kiki]

LOL. Having Fed in 2nd tier and along side with the other 3 is the reason no one take you seriously. Outside of his 16 slams Fed has achieved a lot. Even if you take away half of his 16 slams he would still qualify to be in 2nd tier.

That´s why I put Federer in second tier.For the reason that. 30%-50% of hi slam account ( like Emerson´s) belong to a weak competitive era ( full of Roddick´s, Blakes,Philippousis,Nalbandians,Ferrer/o,Bagdhatis,Murrays,Tsongas et al)

See my post.

 

[kiki]

I don't want to discuss first or second tier but just thought I'd mentioned that Rosewall, Hoad, Budge have often been put as number one also.

Let's just say they are all great players worthy of top honors.

Even Nastase, who Kiki puts at number 25 is capable of beating any player on any surface whether they are on their game or not.

Yes.TMF´s problem is that he ´ll never know cause he ain´t seen top Nastase wipe the floor with Connors,Vilas or Borg, f.i

 

[kiki]

I am going to rate my 15 best male players. Only thing it is the best 15 that I have seen. I can't for sure tell you where a player would fit having never seen them.

1 - Federer
2 - Sampras
3 - Borg
4 - Agassi
5 - Nadal
6 - Connors
7 - MacEnroe
8 - Lendl
9 - Wilander
10 - Edberg
11 - Hewitt
12 - Rafter
13 - Becker
14 - Safin
15 - Courier


The last one maybe off - honestly he is my favorite player of all-time. I love the way he worked at it. Safin - the US Open against Sampras was amazing. Rafter - volley's best ever.

At least you are honest in recognizing your list is that of a person who missed so much players of the past.CONGRATULATIONS for being a honest guy

 

[TMF]

At least you are honest in recognizing your list is that of a person who missed so much players of the past.CONGRATULATIONS for being a honest guy

And we are waiting for you to be honest for once. It's not that difficult !

 

[TMF]

I don't want to discuss first or second tier but just thought I'd mentioned that Rosewall, Hoad, Budge have often been put as number one also.

Let's just say they are all great players worthy of top honors.

Even Nastase, who Kiki puts at number 25 is capable of beating any player on any surface whether they are on their game or not.

If it's fair to say they are in tier 1 great, then you can just throw in nadal, lendl, agassi, connors, etc. in tier 1 too. And if you do that, it doesn't say much about the value of tier 1 great. It's the problem in MLB Hall of Fame Inductees, which many players qualify to get in Cooperstown simply because they are likable players, not so much about their achievements/domination/talent.

The important criteria, the high standard of excellence should qualify to be put at the top tier which makes it special. I can understand you are being generous for these players, but I don't agree of having players getting in that easy.

 

[Bobby Jr]

When I summarize my all time list, I tend to weighten the eras a player has competed.In Fed´s case, if his nº of titles would certainly make him top tier ( even all time greatest), I think of Federer as I think of Emerson: 2 great players who played in a weak era, that makes him have a 30-50% more of the slams they´d have gotten in a competitive era.

I agree in some ways. I am just not a fan of negative weighting on slam titles - because it can bring in as much folly as positive weighting which Agassi, as one example, seems to benefit from a fair bit.

My thinking is that if a player played in a weak era - was it all a weak era? I mean, Sampras may have played in what some people see was a tough era, but then his final US Open was a complete cakewalk draw for the most part. Should this put that slam's value into question? Likewise, he surely played in a weak era with regards to grass courts - in an 8 year stretch he lost only once, often trouncing the whole field from start to finish. Does anyone adjust his grass slam total owing to the apparent ease he racked them up?

These are just two examples of why I'm not a fan of the downgrading of player's results based on short, medium or long-term perception of the quality of the field.

Almost hypocritically however I am slightly partial to the notion of upgrading someone based on various factors. In cases where someone won a slam particularly young (Becker, Chang), had a slam winning streak of 3-4 in a row or 3 in a year, completed a career slam or had success in doubles etc I think they should get a little more kudos over those around them on the same slam number. Becker vs Edberg for example. While Becker won his first slam at a young age I think Edberg's success in doubles gives him the edge overall.

 

[hoodjem]

^^

nah, a list closer to reality would be:

1. federer, sampras, borg, Gonzales
2. budge, Kramer, Tilden
3. nadal, mcenroe, agassi, connors, lendl
4. wilander, becker, edberg, laver
5. rosewall, djokovic, cochet, vines, Hoad
6. emerson, courier .....

I kid, I kid , the logic in this list as just as dumb as

1. placing federer/rosewall in tier2 instead of tier1
2. placing nastase ahead of djokovic/courier .
3. nadal in tier4
4. placing Hoad in tier2 instead of tier3/4
5. placing Newcombe/Emerson in a tier above Wilander/Edberg/Becker
etc etc . . . .

Clarified.

 

[kiki]

And we are waiting for you to be honest for once. It's not that difficult !

I am utterly honest and true in my opinions.The problem with you is that you don´t like them because, in today´s era, is not POLITICHALLY CORRECT to boost Laver over Federer.

Today´s era in tennis politics is dominated by being politichally correct, and Federer is the most perfect politichally correct item I can think of.

But it isn´t my problem, it´s yours - and generally speaking, a major part of todays high schoolers-

 

[kiki]

I agree in some ways. I am just not a fan of negative weighting on slam titles - because it can bring in as much folly as positive weighting which Agassi, as one example, seems to benefit from a fair bit.

My thinking is that if a player played in a weak era - was it all a weak era? I mean, Sampras may have played in what some people see was a tough era, but then his final US Open was a complete cakewalk draw for the most part. Should this put that slam's value into question? Likewise, he surely played in a weak era with regards to grass courts - in an 8 year stretch he lost only once, often trouncing the whole field from start to finish. Does anyone adjust his grass slam total owing to the apparent ease he racked them up?

These are just two examples of why I'm not a fan of the downgrading of player's results based on short, medium or long-term perception of the quality of the field.

Almost hypocritically however I am slightly partial to the notion of upgrading someone based on various factors. In cases where someone won a slam particularly young (Becker, Chang), had a slam winning streak of 3-4 in a row or 3 in a year, completed a career slam or had success in doubles etc I think they should get a little more kudos over those around them on the same slam number. Becker vs Edberg for example. While Becker won his first slam at a young age I think Edberg's success in doubles gives him the edge overall.

Becker vs Edberg is one of the closest rivalries ever.One has his case and never forget that, in the endurning department, Becker was still a top guy after Stefan retired ( 1996).So, I could make a case for Boris, and it would be as good, if not better, than yours.

But, since I am such a doubles fanatic, I must critcize Edberg for not having continued playing.I can understand he got tired and stuff, but Mc Enroe was much older than him and still, in his eary 30´s won Wimbledon ( with Stich)...oh¡¡ and Boris won the Olimpics, also teaming up with Stich...Edberg had given up doubles long time ago.IMO, Jarryd and Edberg just showed up the uncredible potential that they could have had if they had played longer.Jarryd is definitely a candidate for goat in doubles...but Stefan, who had all the potential to be a doubles GOAT CANDIDATE really defaulted me...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Becker vs Edberg is one of the closest rivalries ever.One has his case and never forget that, in the endurning department, Becker was still a top guy after Stefan retired ( 1996).So, I could make a case for Boris, and it would be as good, if not better, than yours.

Good point. This is exactly why it's hard to compare players when you try to balance longevity with results. Edberg and Becker has the same amount of slams so, if his career was shorter, it could also mean he was better on-average while he was playing (i.e. the same number of slams divided by a smaller number of years).

But, since I am such a doubles fanatic, I must critcize Edberg for not having continued playing. ... Edberg just showed up the uncredible potential that they could have had if they had played longer... but Stefan, who had all the potential to be a doubles GOAT CANDIDATE really defaulted me...

I am 100% with you on this. I was actually at Kooyong the year he won the Aussie Open singles and the doubles with Jarryd. An achievement which I think is super special. Few people in the modern era have done the double.

While I wasn't at the doubles final I saw a few earlier matches (Jarryd also did well in the singles). I saw the singles final, Edberg-Mecir, Lendl-Cash, and Aussie Wally Masur beating Becker matches - all of them pretty awesome from memory.

A side note: Edberg I believe is also the only player in history to have proven he had lethal hitting power - having hit and killed a linesman in 1983. True story... he got him in the groin and the guy fell and hit his head and died. Not sure if that gives him extra clout in an all-time list but it's an odd achievement nonetheless (it's sort of funny now but is a mind-bogglingly amazing scenario really).

 

[kiki]

Good point. This is exactly why it's hard to compare players when you try to balance longevity with results. Edberg and Becker has the same amount of slams so, if his career was shorter, it could also mean he was better on-average while he was playing (i.e. the same number of slams divided by a smaller number of years).


I am 100% with you on this. I was actually at Kooyong the year he won the Aussie Open singles and the doubles with Jarryd. An achievement which I think is super special. Few people in the modern era have done the double.

While I wasn't at the doubles final I saw a few earlier matches (Jarryd also did well in the singles). I saw the singles final, Edberg-Mecir, Lendl-Cash, and Aussie Wally Masur beating Becker matches - all of them pretty awesome from memory.

A side note: Edberg I believe is also the only player in history to have proven he had lethal hitting power - having hit and killed a linesman in 1983. True story... he got him in the groin and the guy fell and hit his head and died. Not sure if that gives him extra clout in an all-time list but it's an odd achievement nonetheless (it's sort of funny now but is a mind-bogglingly amazing scenario really).

At the limit, if you add Boris impressive nº of WCT or Masters Championships ( as well as their H to H) I must say, I´d always pick Becker over Edberg.Close but neat.

 

[Nadal_Power]

A side note: Edberg I believe is also the only player in history to have proven he had lethal hitting power - having hit and killed a linesman in 1983. True story... he got him in the groin and the guy fell and hit his head and died. Not sure if that gives him extra clout in an all-time list but it's an odd achievement nonetheless (it's sort of funny now but is a mind-bogglingly amazing scenario really).

It is not funny at all

 

[kiki]

It is not funny at all

I was going to point it.Think the guy just didn´t realise the sense of what he was writting.

If I had been Edberg, I´d have suffered a lot from that ( of course, not to mention the family of that por linesman).I´m sure Stefan also suffered a lot from that.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I was going to point it.Think the guy just didn´t realise the sense of what he was writting.

I did say "sort of funny in a mind-bogglingly amazing scenario", not "funny".

The entire happening was just such a freak occurrence and series of knock-on things that it almost defies chance. Almost as if someone had fabricated it. Ergo that is the sort of funny part. Not that someone dying is at all funny.

 

[kiki]

What if we define tough fields atop by the top 6 quality? here are some of the stronest ever:

Middle 50:Gonzales,Kramer,Sedgman,Hoad,Trabert and Rosewall

Early 70´s: Newcombe,Rosewall,Kodes,Smith,Ashe,Nastase/Laver

1979: Borg,Mc Enroe,Connors,Vilas,Gerulaitis,Tanner

1981: Mc Enroe,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis

1985: Lendl,Mc Enroe,Wilander,Connors,Becker,Edberg

1993:Sampras,Courier,Becker,Agassi,Edberg,Stich/Bruguera/Chang

 

[kiki]

deleted psot

 

[Nadal_Power]

I really like Year end Top 6 from 1974 : Connors, Newcombe, Borg, Laver, Vilas, Okker

1985. was strong as hell too

 

[kiki]

I really like Year end Top 6 from 1974 : Connors, Newcombe, Borg, Laver, Vilas, Okker

1985. was strong as hell too

1975 : Connors,Ashe,Borg,Newcombe,Orantes and Panatta is great

 

[hoodjem]

I am going to rate my 15 best male players. Only thing it is the best 15 that I have seen. I can't for sure tell you where a player would fit having never seen them.

1 - Federer
2 - Sampras
3 - Borg
4 - Agassi
5 - Nadal
6 - Connors
7 - MacEnroe
8 - Lendl
9 - Wilander
10 - Edberg
11 - Hewitt
12 - Rafter
13 - Becker
14 - Safin
15 - Courier


The last one maybe off - honestly he is my favorite player of all-time. I love the way he worked at it. Safin - the US Open against Sampras was amazing. Rafter - volley's best ever.

An excellent list that, admittedly, begins in the middle 1970s.

My list from that period on would probably look similar.

 

[hoodjem]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

 

[pc1]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

Reasonable list. I would make a few changes but that's expected. I suppose you can make a case for L. Hewitt and Michael Chang being on the list also.

 

[hoodjem]

Reasonable list. I would make a few changes but that's expected. I suppose you can make a case for L. Hewitt and Michael Chang being on the list also.

One could, easily.

 

[Benhur]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

Excellent list. That's how I would have it too, except for Wilander just a centimeter above his two eternal companions. But Wilander/Edberg/Becker are so close that it's probably a good idea to rotate their positions every few weeks for the sake of fairness. Maybe also with Lendl/Connors.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I would probably already rate Djokovic above Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. His 1988 year is better than any of them have had, none of them had 5 straight years of such a top level where they were firmly top 3 minimum as Djokovic's 2007-2011, and he did it in the Federer-Nadal era. When he wins a 6th slam he will blow those guys out of the water.

 

[kiki]

I would probably already rate Djokovic above Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. His 1988 year is better than any of them have had, none of them had 5 straight years of such a top level where they were firmly top 3 minimum as Djokovic's 2007-2011, and he did it in the Federer-Nadal era. When he wins a 6th slam he will blow those guys out of the water.

Not at all, since Djokovic plays the weakest era since open tennis started, thus 5 slams of his are as good as 2, maybe 3 of Becker or Edberg.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

Vilas is way too high.

 

[pc1]

Vilas is way too high.

I'm not so sure about that. He won over 60 tournaments and a number of majors. I think for example Wilander won over 30 tournaments, Edberg and Becker over 40.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I'm not so sure about that. He won over 60 tournaments and a number of majors. I think for example Wilander won over 30 tournaments, Edberg and Becker over 40.

Taking the realistic state of his 2 Australian Open titles into consideration (that is even if we generously give him full value for the 77 French which was also a very depleted field) he is much too high. He was notorious for milking the minor events where almost nobody played to pad his tournament wins stat. How else could someone who lost double digit # of matches in a row to Borg and couldnt play vs the top players on anything but clay win so many titles.

Courier who was the dominant #1 for about 18 months deserves to be higher easily. So does Kuerten, a truly dominant clay courter and RG performer unlike Vilas. Vilas isnt better on any non clay surfaces than Kuerten either, Kuerten won the YEC over Sampras and Agassi, made numerous Masters titles and won Masters titles on hard courts, and even Kuerten could have won the Australian Open twice with Vilas's draws probably.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

I would put Sampras above Borg, and Nadal and Agassi above Connors, Lendl and McEnroe.

 

[pc1]

I would put Sampras above Borg, and Nadal and Agassi above Connors, Lendl and McEnroe.

Respectfully I disagree.

I think often tournament victories of past greats aren't taken into account enough.

Borg won 106 tournaments.
Connors won 148 tournaments.
Lendl won 146 tournaments.
McEnroe I think around 100.

Records weren't kept well during those times and things like WCT tournaments were often not included.

Sampras won 14 majors in 52 attempts.
Borg won 11 majors in 27 attempts. You have to also consider that Borg did not play the Australian except once I think in 1973. How many Australians would Borg have won on grass even with all the top players entered? I think it's reasonable to see Borg winning at least 3 Australians. It may not have happened but it's very reasonable considering Borg was the best grass court player in the world for many years. What about the years some greats couldn't play the French Open because of World Team Tennis or boycotts?

Agassi has won 60 tournaments in his career. Connor and Lendl has more than doubled that.

Agassi won 8 majors. Connors and Lendl won 8 majors. I cannot see Agassi even remotely close to either Connors or Lendl.

Both Connors and Lendl have higher lifetime winning percentages than Agassi and I believe they played more matches. Certainly Connors played to a slightly later age than Agassi and of course that lowered Connors' lifetime winning percentage. Despite that Connors still had the higher lifetime winning percentage.

 

[Carsomyr]

Here it is:

Top-15 from 1974

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

(I just took my GOAT-list and deleted the names with major accomplishments before '74.)

Pretty good. I don't have a lot of complaints with that. I guess this would be mine.

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
t5. Nadal
t5. Connors
7. McEnroe
8. Agassi
9. Djokovic
10. Edberg
11. Wilander
12. Becker
13. Courier
14. Kuerten
15. Hewitt

 

[jean pierre]

Taking the realistic state of his 2 Australian Open titles into consideration (that is even if we generously give him full value for the 77 French which was also a very depleted field) he is much too high. He was notorious for milking the minor events where almost nobody played to pad his tournament wins stat. How else could someone who lost double digit # of matches in a row to Borg and couldnt play vs the top players on anything but clay win so many titles.

Courier who was the dominant #1 for about 18 months deserves to be higher easily. So does Kuerten, a truly dominant clay courter and RG performer unlike Vilas. Vilas isnt better on any non clay surfaces than Kuerten either, Kuerten won the YEC over Sampras and Agassi, made numerous Masters titles and won Masters titles on hard courts, and even Kuerten could have won the Australian Open twice with Vilas's draws probably.

"Could have won" means nothing ! Vilas won more tournaments than Kuerten, more Grand Slams than Kuerten, won 3 types of Grand Slams (only 1 for Kuerten) ... Vilas is better, no doubt about that.
Better than Courier too : they won 4 Grand Slams, but Vilas won more tournaments, and won the Masters.

 

[Benhur]

Respectfully I disagree.

I think often tournament victories of past greats aren't taken into account enough.

Borg won 106 tournaments.
Connors won 148 tournaments.
Lendl won 146 tournaments.
McEnroe I think around 100.

Records weren't kept well during those times and things like WCT tournaments were often not included.

Sampras won 14 majors in 52 attempts.
Borg won 11 majors in 27 attempts. You have to also consider that Borg did not play the Australian except once I think in 1973. How many Australians would Borg have won on grass even with all the top players entered? I think it's reasonable to see Borg winning at least 3 Australians. It may not have happened but it's very reasonable considering Borg was the best grass court player in the world for many years. What about the years some greats couldn't play the French Open because of World Team Tennis or boycotts?

Agassi has won 60 tournaments in his career. Connor and Lendl has more than doubled that.

Agassi won 8 majors. Connors and Lendl won 8 majors. I cannot see Agassi even remotely close to either Connors or Lendl.

Both Connors and Lendl have higher lifetime winning percentages than Agassi and I believe they played more matches. Certainly Connors played to a slightly later age than Agassi and of course that lowered Connors' lifetime winning percentage. Despite that Connors still had the higher lifetime winning percentage.

In addition to the above:

Lendl spent a total of 270 weeks at number 1. Connors 268 weeks. Agassi 101 weeks.

Connors had 8 years in the top 2 at the year end ranking. Lendl 7 years. Agassi 4 years.

Connors had 12 years in the top 3 at the year end ranking, Lendl 10 years. Agassi 6 years.

Career winning percentage:

Connors & Lendl 81.8
Agassi 76.0

 

[pc1]

In addition to the above:

Lendl spent a total of 270 weeks at number 1. Connors 268 weeks. Agassi 101 weeks.

Connors had 8 years in the top 2 at the year end ranking. Lendl 7 years. Agassi 4 years.

Connors had 12 years in the top 3 at the year end ranking, Lendl 10 years. Agassi 6 years.

Career winning percentage:

Connors & Lendl 81.8
Agassi 76.0

The winning percentage differential is mammoth. People can argue that Agassi's head was not into tennis for some years but those years still count.

Also Agassi never had the dominant years that Connors and Lendl had.

Borg was arguably the most dominant player of the Open Era during his peak period.

 

[Benhur]

The winning percentage differential is mammoth. People can argue that Agassi's head was not into tennis for some years but those years still count.

Also Agassi never had the dominant years that Connors and Lendl had.

Borg was arguably the most dominant player of the Open Era during his peak period.

Almost 6 percentage points is very large. But it wasn’t just the bad years. Agassi’s best year (by far) in terms of match record was 1995, when he had a winning percentage of 89. Lendl had 5 years above 90, and Connors probably similar numbers.

 

[pc1]

Almost 6 percentage points is very large. But it wasn’t just the bad years. Agassi’s best year (by far) in terms of match record was 1995, when he had a winning percentage of 89. Lendl had 5 years above 90, and Connors probably similar numbers.

Connors and Lendl averaged over 90% for five years. Their average was better than Agassi's best year.

 

[kiki]

What is Agassi´s total GS record as far as finals are concerned? He won 8, how many did he lose?

 

[Satsuma Florida]

I think he was in 15 slam finals. Lost 7.

 

[pc1]

What is Agassi´s total GS record as far as finals are concerned? He won 8, how many did he lose?

To be more accurate, Agassi won 8 majors out of 61 entered.

Lendl won 8 majors out of 57 entered.

Agassi was 15 major finals.

Lendl was in 19 major finals.

 

[Nadal_Power]

Its very hard to make lists like this.. tennis is much different than it was 25 years ago, not to mantion 70's or before 1968.

But, if we look surfaces Ivan Lendl must be near the Top, at least in Open era.. master won almost 30 official titles on Clay, Hard and Carpet. Plus 2 Queen's titles, 10 Majors 1/2's and 3 Finals on Grass. Also, he was amazing both Indoor and Outdoor, something that Nadal can only dream about (he almost not play Indoor at all)

 

[kiki]

To be more accurate, Agassi won 8 majors out of 61 entered.

Lendl won 8 majors out of 57 entered.

Agassi was 15 major finals.

Lendl was in 19 major finals.

Thanks.Both players were considered to " fake it all" in major finals.Difference is Agassi won his first major at 22. while Lendl had to wait till 24.

 

[Doug_Hartley_2012]

You cannot just list 15 of your faves without a transparent methodology. Season by season supremacy can be one measure, but do you rate higher the guy who is number 1 two or three seasons or the guy who does it once but takes out the Grand Slam? Can you rate Borg near the top when he failed to win a single US Open final? Can a Borg career based on success at only two of the Majors rate higher than a guy whohas won three or indeed all four Majors? Can you equate WW2 'seasons' of virtual inactivity with an Open era season? Can Hoad be rated a better player than Rosewall on the basis of his incredible shotmaking and great amateur season of 1956 when he actually never nailed a single year as clear world number 1 taking into account all players professional and amateur? Is a big serving player inherently better than a guy with a more modest serve but superior groundstrokes? Opinion is one thing. Crafting a credible argument is another.

 

[pc1]

You cannot just list 15 of your faves without a transparent methodology. Season by season supremacy can be one measure, but do you rate higher the guy who is number 1 two or three seasons or the guy who does it once but takes out the Grand Slam? Can you rate Borg near the top when he failed to win a single US Open final? Can a Borg career based on success at only two of the Majors rate higher than a guy whohas won three or indeed all four Majors? Can you equate WW2 'seasons' of virtual inactivity with an Open era season? Can Hoad be rated a better player than Rosewall on the basis of his incredible shotmaking and great amateur season of 1956 when he actually never nailed a single year as clear world number 1 taking into account all players professional and amateur? Is a big serving player inherently better than a guy with a more modest serve but superior groundstrokes? Opinion is one thing. Crafting a credible argument is another.

Doug,

I think many of the posters take all of this into account. It's a long thread and many of these things have been discussed.

 

[Doug_Hartley_2012]

IF the criteria for greatest player is lifetime achievement, for example, someone who excelled as a junior teenager amateur professional twenty-something thirty-something and so on into veteran categories and achieved top ranking at each level, that would point to the pick of the crop. And if that same person amassed a collection of singles titles in adult comp at the Majors across amateur professional and open eras that dwarfed all others, that would strongly suggest numero uno. And the guy is Ken Rosewall. Rod Laver comes closest but still falls short. True legends whose rivalry late in their careers electrified tv audiences in the US and enabled tennis to explode in the 1970s and beyond.

 

[Limpinhitter]

IF the criteria for greatest player is lifetime achievement, for example, someone who excelled as a junior teenager amateur professional twenty-something thirty-something and so on into veteran categories and achieved top ranking at each level, that would point to the pick of the crop. And if that same person amassed a collection of singles titles in adult comp at the Majors across amateur professional and open eras that dwarfed all others, that would strongly suggest numero uno. And the guy is Ken Rosewall. Rod Laver comes closest but still falls short. True legends whose rivalry late in their careers electrified tv audiences in the US and enabled tennis to explode in the 1970s and beyond.

For longevity, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden stand out with amazingly successful extended careers. But, IMO, Laver, Federer, Sampras and Borg all played at a higher level than Rosewall in their primes, albeit for a more concentrated period of time. Further, although Rosewall is estimated to have won over 130 career titles, Laver is estimated to have won between 184-199 career titles, and has a significant lead over Rosewall in head to head matches. Who knows how many titles Gonzales won.

 

[pc1]

For longevity, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden stand out with amazingly successful extended careers. But, IMO, Laver, Federer, Sampras and Borg all played at a higher level than Rosewall in their primes, albeit for a more concentrated period of time. Further, although Rosewall is estimated to have won over 130 career titles, Laver is estimated to have won between 184-199 career titles, and has a significant lead over Rosewall in head to head matches. Who knows how many titles Gonzales won.

Gonzalez is estimated to have won about 130 I believe plus many Pro Majors. That's not chopped liver as they say.