40 best players of the last 40 years

[Kevin Patrick]

Tennis Magazine has been revealing 4 names per month this year.
Here is the list so far. Any predictions on how they will rank the top 12?

40. Gabriela Sabatini
39. Patrick Rafter
38. Virginia Wade
37. Gustavo Kuerten
36. Jennifer Capriati
35. Stan Smith
34. Lleyton Hewitt
33. Hana Mandlikova
32. Tracy Austin
31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
30. Arthur Ashe
29. Lindsay Davenport
28. Ilie Nastase
27. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
26. Jim Courier
25. Venus Williams
24. Guillermo Vilas
23. Evonne Goolagong
22. Martina Hingis
21. Roy Emerson
20. Ken Rosewall
19. Roger Federer
18. Boris Becker
17. Serena Williams
16. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander
14. Stefan Edberg
13. Monica Seles

http://www.tennis.com/ME2/dirmod.as...d=&tier=4&id=73BB3CECC31944E6A03F0155E58803D1

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Here are the names left:
Court
King
Evert
Navratilova
Graf
Laver
Borg
Connors
McEnroe
Lendl
Agassi
Sampras

I'm curious if they'll pick a male or female tennis player for #1. I'm pretty sure #1 will be either Graf, Navratilova, Laver or Sampras.

 

[akj27]

37. GUga, yay

 

[bcslice]

The order is the real question mark.

In terms of #1 male, will it be Sampras or Laver?

In terms of #1 female will it be Navratilova or Graf?

 

[aramis]

It's great to see that Guga is on the list; at least it shows that he has not been entirely forgotten.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

bcslice,
They aren't making separate lists by gender(which I found odd)
That's what makes their choice for #1 even more debatable.

 

[ps 6.0]

i expect for their top woman to be Navratilova, simply because they'll take into account her "competing" at her current age and still competing well.

 

[Yours!05]

A dilemma: it is overrating Emerson to rate him 21 to Rosewall's 20. He was the big "winner" of the Amateur/Pro upheavals. And yet I don't know where else to put him because of his record. Fittest player ever would be one possible attribute. Any thoughts?
http://www.tennisfame.org/enshrinees/roy_emerson.html

 

[FedererUberAlles]

I think Graf will be no. 1

 

[bcslice]

I was aware, KevinPatrick, that the list by Tennis Magazine does not separate men from women, which is odd. My point was only, will they place Graf higher than Navratilova? And for the men, will they place Sampras higher than Laver?

I'd say you've got to think Navratilova has a better record.

I'd also give it to Sampras over Laver.

But these are just my arbitrary personal choices. Anyone else?

 

[iscottius]

Graf # 1 female
Sampras #1 Male

 

[Yours!05]

Male: #1 Laver #2 Borg
Female: #1 Navratilova #2 Court

 

[Chloe]

I stopped taking this list seriously after seeing Rafter on the list and no Kafelnikov. That's some interesting criteria that they're using.

 

[Northerly]

Graf should be #1. Her record in the Slams stands alone.

At least 4 wins at each of the majors is the premier stat in tennis history.

 

[Babblelot]

Sabatini's on the bubble...who's going to bump her? (IMO, Kafelnikov has to be at least #41, if not higher.)

Marat has 2 slam titles, 1 final and 1 SF, but just 15 tour titles and lacks consistency. Clijsters, who just turned 22, is a slam or two away from bumping Sabatini.

AO 1 F
RG 2 F
USO 1 F
AO 2 SF
W 1 SF
W 1 QF
USO 1 QF
25 titles
career high rank: #1
341-84 (0.802)

 

[Babblelot]

Outside looking in...Yevgeny Kafelnikov

1 AO title
1 RG title
2 USO SF
1 RG SF
2 RG QF
4 GS doubles titles (5 finals)
8th player in Open Era to join 25-25 club (26 s titles; 27 d titles)
career high ranking: #1
609 - 306 (0.666)

 

[Oscar]

My top 5:

Graf
Laver
Navratilova
Sampras
Borg

 

[FedererUberAlles]

Graf
Sampras
Navritalova
Borg

 

[bcslice]

Sabatini being on the bubble is true, especially for this list. You'd have to imagine that when Tennis Magazine does this again in 10 years, that she'll be long gone from the top 40.

BUT, why was Jana Novotna inducted into the Hall of Fame recently and Sabatini wasn't? I understand the whole Wimbledon prestige factor. But Sabatini owns the same number of Slam singles titles (1) and owns more singles titles (27 vs. Novotna's 24) AND Sabatini was more successful in reaching the later rounds in the Slams. I don't remember how many finals she lost.

Is it just because Novotna was a more accomplished doubles player?

 

[iscottius]

Outside looking in...Yevgeny Kafelnikov

1 AO title
1 RG title
2 USO SF
1 RG SF
2 RG QF
4 GS doubles titles (5 finals)
8th player in Open Era to join 25-25 club (26 s titles; 27 d titles)
career high ranking: #1
609 - 306 (0.666)

Plus led Russai to Davis Cup Championship, and gave Sampras fits in his prime,
way more accomplished than Gabrielle Sabatini or jana Novotna, and arguably guga & hewitt

 

[bluegrasser]

#1 - Laver

#1 - Graf

 

[Babblelot]

Plus led Russai to Davis Cup Championship, and gave Sampras fits in his prime,
way more accomplished than Gabrielle Sabatini or jana Novotna, and arguably guga & hewitt

Yeah, I'm thinking he got jobbed. Must be a "glam-variable" factored in, and Yevgeny just isn't as pretty as #40 Sabatini or #39 Rafter (though, I'd keep Rafter, whether he's deserving or not--he's my 2nd all-time fav behind McEnroe ).

 

[Kevin Patrick]

whoa, "gave Sampras fits in his prime?"

Even Yevgeny admitted he was Sampras' pigeon. When he won the '99 Australian, he thanked Sampras in his acceptance speech for not playing so he "would have a chance at winning it."

 

[Babblelot]

whoa, "gave Sampras fits in his prime?"

Even Yevgeny admitted he was Sampras' pigeon. When he won the '99 Australian, he thanked Sampras in his acceptance speech for not playing so he "would have a chance at winning it."

Actually, if you recall, Yevgeny was never at loss for a good one-liner. Very funny guy and a great interview. Nary a cliche.

 

[bcslice]

Rafter vs. Kafelnikov is almost too tough to compare.

Rafter looks better in terms of Grand Slam title accomplishments in singles with 2 US Opens and 2 Wimbledon finals vs. Kafelnikov's Australian Open and Roland Garros titles and 1 AO finals appearance.

If you look at the number of titles won, Kafelnikov has Rafter by a lot. Kafelnikov has 26 titles to Rafter's 11.

If you consider career win/loss percentage, Rafter has Kafelnikov beaten by a few points with a 54% (358 - 191) win average to Kafelnikov's 50% (609 - 306) win average.

If you include doubles, well of course Kafelnikov (surprisingly being the baseliner) has a better record.

And Davis Cup, Kafelnikov played more matches and helped Russia win a couple of titles.

What do you guys say? Kafelnikov or Rafter? Or are they impossible to compare?

 

[morten]

what about Bruguera! He should be there , round courier

 

[Babblelot]

Rafter's 54% (358 - 191)...Kafelnikov's 50% (609 - 306)

To be accurate, Rafter is 65% in 549 career matches, and Kafelinkov is slightly better with 67% in 915 career matches.

Kafelnikov gets two check marks, here.

 

[bcslice]

Good call, Babblelot. I can do math, I swear. So, the corrected percentages would be, Kafelnikov with 67% and Rafter with 65% (in fewer matches.) So you're right, Kafelnikov wins this as well.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

I'd give Rafter the nod. He always put forth a good effort(while Yevgeny tanked quite a few. He also had the dubious honor of getting to #1 while having a 6 match losing streak in '99)

Rafter gave more trouble to the 2 best players of the 90s(Agassi & Sampras) than Kafelnikov, esp in majors(5 setters vs. both in slam semifinals)

Ultimately slam performances are the most important factor when comparing players, Rafter made more finals & semis.

Rafter's 2 slams included more impressive wins than Kafelnikov's, not to mention his 2 runs to the Wimbledon final(and check out how often Rafter is mentioned in the 'greatest matches you've seen' thread, don't think Kafelnikov was mentioned once)

Also, Kafelnikov got a bit lucky in both his major wins(King of Clay Muster was upset early at the French '96, Sampras didn't play the '99 Australian)
But he should be ranked ahead of Sabatini.

 

[Babblelot]

I'd give Rafter the nod. He always put forth a good effort(while Yevgeny tanked quite a few. He also had the dubious honor of getting to #1 while having a 6 match losing streak in '99)

Rafter gave more trouble to the 2 best players of the 90s(Agassi & Sampras) than Kafelnikov, esp in majors(5 setters vs. both in slam semifinals)

Ultimately slam performances are the most important factor when comparing players, Rafter made more finals & semis.

Rafter's 2 slams included more impressive wins than Kafelnikov's, not to mention his 2 runs to the Wimbledon final(and check out how often Rafter is mentioned in the 'greatest matches you've seen' thread, don't think Kafelnikov was mentioned once)

Also, Kafelnikov got a bit lucky in both his major wins(King of Clay Muster was upset early at the French '96, Sampras didn't play the '99 Australian)
But he should be ranked ahead of Sabatini.

Well said, Kevin--your entire analysis, in addition to your conclusion.

 

[bcslice]

I'd give to Rafter as well. But I do think that it's hard to compare the two of them, even though they played at the same time on the tour. Just goes to show how difficult it really is to stack up players. I think Rafter's ability to challenge the best players, as mentioned before, puts him over Kafelnikov just a little.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Here's how I think Tennis Magazine will rank the final 12:

1. Navratilova-arguably the greatest singles & doubles player combined, plus she's American(& Tennis is an American magazine) played during the tennis boom(which was probably Tennis Magazine's most succesful time as well)

2. Sampras(again probably a slight American bias)
3. Graf
4. Laver
5. Evert
6. Borg
7. Court
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. King
11. McEnroe
12. Lendl

 

[Joe12]

The unseperated list bothers me. They even put Serena over Federer...

 

[Astennix]

can't believe they forgot Gaudio...

 

[jhhachamp]

can't believe they forgot Gaudio...

Theres no way they could forget Gaudio! Im sure he will be somewhere in the top 12

 

[jhhachamp]

anybody know how to put smileys in your posts?

 

[Polaris]

The unseperated list bothers me. They even put Serena over Federer...

. Sometimes the best list is the one which is not made. But if they didn´t make lists, who would read Tennis magazine?

 

[bb47]

Do not forget that Kafelnikov was a top 10 for longer than anyone of his generation save Sampras. So I would choose Kafel over Rafter (though Rafter was more fun to watch) for his consistent presense in top 10, he was winning uglier than Rafter, but winning more consistently nevertheless.

 

[Babblelot]

Do not forget that Kafelnikov was a top 10 for longer than anyone of his generation save Sampras. So I would choose Kafel over Rafter (though Rafter was more fun to watch) for his consistent presense in top 10, he was winning uglier than Rafter, but winning more consistently nevertheless.

Excellent comeback, bb. I was thinking along those lines, too. While Rafter was a late bloomer (IIRC, injury impeded his progess in '95) and retired early, his success was rather short lived. Kafelnikov, by contrast, as you point out was much more consistent.

yr-end....Kafelnikov.....Rafter
'94...........#11..........#21
'95...........#6............#66
'96...........#3............#62
'97...........#5............#2
'98...........#11..........#4
'99...........#2...........#16
'00...........#5...........#15
'01...........#4...........#7

*both briefly ranked #1

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I dont understand Austin being over Mandilikova. True Austin at her best took on Evert and Navratilova more strongly than Hana herself did, and undoubtably would have had a greater career but for her back ailments. However Hana won twice the slams(4 to 2), and in addition had a much longer career near the top of the game than Tracy did, even if due to better luck with health. Austin also made the poor choice not to play the French Open more often in her prime, she was perhaps the only woman who could have beaten Evert there at one point, which would have added to her winnings. Hana has made the finals of every slam, and won 3 of the 4 as well. Both of Tracys slam titles are at one place, the U.S open.

I also dont think Edberg should be above Wilander or even Newcombe. Wilander had close to the same longevity near the top, and a far more dominant best year, 1988 with 3 slam titles, than Edberg who never won 2 slams in the same year. Wilander also has 3 slam titles at the French, along with other appearances in finals or semis; which give her a higher legacy there than Edberg has overall at either Wimbledon or the U.S open. Newcombes I would have ahead since he has 1 more slam title, 1 more Wimbledon, and was even held out of a chance to win more at Wimbledon by some internal ATP political reasons.

Goolagong below Hingis, and Emerson above Rosewall? Those are just crazy.
Emerson would have been lucky to win 1 slam had it not been for the pro-amateur split of the time. Goolagong has 7 slam titles to Martinas 5, and while Hingis has a more dominant best year, and 6 Australian Open finals in a row to Evonnes 4 U.S open finals in a row, Goolagong won Wimbledons 9 years apart, while Hingis left the game to duck from the heavy hitters at age 21.

 

[newnuse]

I'm guessing they will put the man Mac, Sampras, Borg used as a benchmark at #1. The Rocket Rod Laver. The man won 2 Grand Slams about 6-7 years apart. I wonder how many more he would have won if the majors were opened to all.

No Conolly? The woman was 9 for 9 in Majors with 1 GS. There must be a tie at #1 or something. I don't see how you can leave her out, unless I missed her at 13-40.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

It's only the last 40 years. Connely played in the 50s.

 

[pound cat]

Kafelnikov also won Olympic gold which should count for something.

 

[daniel_rst]

The real question is, what criteria are they using to compile this list? Is it in any way objective? How do they compare men and women? How do they compare different eras?

Not to be too big of a cynic, but why is this list anything more than a few writers' opinion? I even wonder if the writers are old enough to have seen Laver or even Borg play.

 

[Babblelot]

Not to be too big of a cynic, but why is this list anything more than a few writers' opinion?

Seems like you can't read or watch anything without having to be subject to someone else's opinion these days...

 

[oldguysrule]

1. Laver
2. Navratilova
3. Sampras
4. Graf
5. Evert
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. King
10. Agassi
11. Court
12. Lendl

Graf and Navratilova are a toss-up. Laver because everybody was gunning for him, as someone said earlier. Evert, everybody's sweetheart. The next 7 could be in just about any order.

 

[tennisjunkiela]

laver should be #1! two grand slams - a no brainer.
steffi graf or margaret court should be the top female. martina's right up there too.

 

[newnuse]

It's only the last 40 years. Connely played in the 50s.

Oops, I need to go back to college

 

[urban]

The problem of this list apart from the us-bias and the gender mix is the timing, because the players with pre open and open careers have a disadvantage. To rank an alltime great like Rosewall behind Wilander and Edberg makes one sick. Better to not rank him at all. One word to Emerson: He is both underrated and overrated in all time lists. True, he stayed amateur, and won his 12 majors without some of the best pros. But he was no fluke, he has the best singles doubles record (28 majors) and Davis Cup record (8 wins) in history. Nobody knows, how he would have held himself against the pros under the conditions of big draws on clay and grass. Look at Pancho Gonzales, about whom much is talked on the internet. The wickipedia-articles about tennis players were obviously edited by a friend or a relative of him. Pancho is certainly an alltime great - no doubt about it (best 5 in my mind), but he was a bit of a specialist on head-to-head play on fast indoor courts in the US, which was common to the old pro circuit. So, if open tennis would have come say at 1960, he would have to adjust to big tournament play mostly on Australian and European courts. I think the Australians like Sedgman or Hoad or later Emerson on grass, and the Europeans like Drobny and Pietrangeli on clay, would have held their own against him.

 

[Yours!05]

The problem of this list apart from the us-bias and the gender mix is the timing, because the players with pre open and open careers have a disadvantage. To rank an alltime great like Rosewall behind Wilander and Edberg makes one sick. Better to not rank him at all. One word to Emerson: He is both underrated and overrated in all time lists. True, he stayed amateur, and won his 12 majors without some of the best pros. But he was no fluke, he has the best singles doubles record (28 majors) and Davis Cup record (8 wins) in history. Nobody knows, how he would have held himself against the pros under the conditions of big draws on clay and grass. Look at Pancho Gonzales, about whom much is talked on the internet. The wickipedia-articles about tennis players were obviously edited by a friend or a relative of him. (Bud, IMO) Pancho is certainly an alltime great - no doubt about it (best 5 in my mind), but he was a bit of a specialist on head-to-head play on fast indoor courts in the US, which was common to the old pro circuit. So, if open tennis would have come say at 1960, he would have to adjust to big tournament play mostly on Australian and European courts. I think the Australians like Sedgman or Hoad or later Emerson on grass, and the Europeans like Drobny and Pietrangeli on clay, would have held their own against him.

Very good point Urban. Have varying child/teen memories of all those you mention, except Drobny. Most memorable part of Emmo for me was his serve windup, and footspeed. Didn't seem, to me, to have much power. Pretty much dazzled by the power and flash of Hoad back then.