5 Best Players by Slam Surfaces Born Every Decade

[Razer]

Wimbledon Grass

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Borg 02. Mcenroe 03.Connors 04.Roscoe Tanner 05. Nastase
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Becker 02.Edberg 03.Stich 04.Cash 05.Lendl
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Sampras 02.Ivanisevic 03.Krajicek 04.Agassi 05.Rafter
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Federer 02.Djokovic 03.Nadal 04.Murray 05.Roddick
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Raonic 02.Berretini 03.Kyrgios 04.Medvedev 05.Dimitrov
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Alcaraz 02.Sinner ..... to be continued

French Open Clay

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Borg 02.Vilas 03.Panatta 04.Raul Ramirez 05.Jose Higueras (?)
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Lendl 02.Wilander 03.Muster 04.Noah 05.Gomez
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Kuerten 02.Bruguera 03.Courier 04.Kafelnikov 05.Agassi
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Nadal 02.Djokovic 03.Federer 04.Wawrinka 05.Soderling
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Dominic Thiem 02.Zverev 03.Casper Ruud. 04.Tsitsipas 05.Schwartzman
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Alcaraz 02.Sinner ... to be continued

Hard Court Slams

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Connors 02.Mcenroe 03.Borg 04.Gerulitas 05.Tanner
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Lendl 02.Becker 03.Edberg 04.Wilander 05.Korda
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Sampras 02.Agassi 03.Rafter 04.Courier 05.Kafelnikov
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Djokovic 02.Federer 03.Nadal 04.Safin 05.Wawrinka
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Medvedev 02.Thiem 03.Zverev 04.Tsitsipas 05.Dimitrov
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Sinner 02.Alcaraz .. to be continued


Conclusion

Best Generation on Wimbledon Grass by depth - 1970s Born Generation
Best Generation on French Open Clay by depth - 1970s Born Generation
Best Generation on Hard Courts by depth - 1980s Born Generation

Worst Generation of all time on all surfaces by far - 1990s Born Generation


Do you agree with this list ?

 

[ollinger]

No

 

[Racquet_smash]

On hc Safin>Stan pretty clearly. His 05 AO run is just as impressive as Wawrinka's 14 one if not more and his 00 USO run is way better than Wawa's in 16. Safin also has a whole bunch of other great hc feats while Wawrinka outside of slams didn't do great on the surface.

Obviously Stan is way better on clay.

 

[The Harkleroad]

Ferrero over Soderling

 

[duaneeo]

Wawrinka listed at all is a joke, but listed twice??

 

[Racquet_smash]

Also i've noticed Ferrero isn't in the clay players list in the 80s. Ferrero is definitely above Soderling and likely Wawrinka as well on the surface.

 

[Martin J]

Goran ahead of Krajicek, even though Krajicek's run was more impressive than Goran's. Still, Ivanisevic beat Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek and Becker at W, which is a nice set of victories and more impressive than Richard's imo.
Not sure about putting Roddick instead of Hewitt at #5, it's debatable. Roddick has more finals, but they both lost to the same player in 2004/05, Hewitt was just less lucky as he met him in the QF/SF.
Raonic over Berrettini for me. Both have reached one final, but Mateo never passed the 4R during other editions, while Milos has a SF and two QFs, plus he defeated Federer.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but just found your ranking interesting.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Goran ahead of Krajicek, even though Krajicek's run was more impressive than Goran's. Still, Ivanisevic beat Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek and Becker at W, which is a nice set of victories and more impressive than Richard's imo.
Not sure about putting Roddick instead of Hewitt at #5, it's debatable. Roddick has more finals, but they both lost to the same player in 2004/05, Hewitt was just less lucky as he met him in the QF/SF.
Raonic over Berrettini for me. Both have reached one final, but Mateo never passed the 4R during other editions, while Milos has a SF and two QFs, plus he defeated Federer.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but just found your ranking interesting.

Any finalist/03 version of Roddick would easily win 02 Wimbledon in Hewitt's place tough.

 

[Martin J]

Any finalist/03 version of Roddick would easily win 02 Wimbledon in Hewitt's place tough.

I agree.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Wimbledon Grass

Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Berretini 02.Raonic 03.Kyrgios 04.Medvedev 05.Dimitrov

French Open Clay

Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Zverev 02.Dominic Thiem 03.Casper Ruud. 04.Tsitsipas 05.Schwartzman

Hard Court Slams

Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Medvedev 02.Thiem 03.Zverev 04.Tsitsipas 05.Dimitrov

Conclusion

Worst Generation of all time on all surfaces by far - 1990s Born Generation

ewww

 

[Razer]

Wawrinka listed at all is a joke, but listed twice??

Wawrinka has earned his spot as the 5th best born in 1980s on HC Slams by beating Djoko multiple times on HCs and also by collecting 2 HC Slams. If you want him out of the list then it is tough.

On Clay as well he has earned his spot by beating Djoko in the year when Djoko won a lot. Something even Murray could never achieve.

Also i've noticed Ferrero isn't in the clay players list in the 80s. Ferrero is definitely above Soderling and likely Wawrinka as well on the surface.

Ferrero over Soderling

Yeah Ferrero should be there but I thought Soderling defeating Nadal and Wawrinka defeating DJoko should count for something. Plus Ferrero needs to be demoted from the list because of his bad coaching to Alcaraz as well, @Kralingen might want to do this too. Jokes apart, yes we could place JCF at 4th.

Goran ahead of Krajicek, even though Krajicek's run was more impressive than Goran's. Still, Ivanisevic beat Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek and Becker at W, which is a nice set of victories and more impressive than Richard's imo.
Not sure about putting Roddick instead of Hewitt at #5, it's debatable. Roddick has more finals, but they both lost to the same player in 2004/05, Hewitt was just less lucky as he met him in the QF/SF.
Raonic over Berrettini for me. Both have reached one final, but Mateo never passed the 4R during other editions, while Milos has a SF and two QFs, plus he defeated Federer.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but just found your ranking interesting.

Yeah, but Krajicek defeated Sampras, so that should count too as they have 1 title. Goran reached more finals but he was not able to overcome Sampras even in 98 when he was the closest. Thats why I put him at 3th, technically Goran has a losing H2H to Agassi as well there, yet I put him above Agassi. Hewitt should be there but I had to make a slot for Roddick, felt bad that he is not a wimbledon champion while Murray is a 2X times winner, it feels so bad. Raonic point is valid, ok I am editing him to 1, Berretini to 2.

 

[Razer]

ewww

Yes, the 1990s Gen is the clown in the pack.

They are listed along with the other decades just to show how they caused a huge inflation in tennis, lol... terrible set of players, natural selection failed miserably there.

I smell another proxy GOAT thread

No it is not a goat thread, there is no comparison between Big 3 here, the real comparison here is comparing the diff generations and how natural selection worked/did not work.

 

[Razer]

Another funny thing about this list is, Soderling has to be respected to put him at 5 here because if not for Soderling then we would be keeping Roger lower in the list for clay in 1980s....... Roger on 0 would be tough to argue over others, so maybe lets respect Soderling there above JCF even though JCF is more accomplished than both Soderling and Wawrinka overall.

 

[ibbi]

Aside from what others have said, I feel like Kyrgios over Medvedev at Wimbledon is a stretch. If Meddy could have gotten a bye in his 2 semi-finals, hell, he'd have 2 Wimbledon finals.

Could say the same for Grigor, Norrie, and Hubie too, though they're closer. Kyrgios' crowning Wimbledon win was over Garin. I will never get over Brandon letting him off the hook. This tournament, with the previous years finalist out with COVID, one of the previous years QF'ist and 2 of the 4R's banned, was a circus, was a joke. Of course the clown was in the final.

Other 90s guys that Kyrgios is ahead of on our beautiful lawns, but not much, except in his own mind where he's absolutely one of the greatest of all time - Shapovalov, Goffin, Tiafoe, and De Minaur (who will surely surpass him with a few more years)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Wimbledon Grass

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Borg 02. Mcenroe 03.Connors 04.Roscoe Tanner 05. Nastase
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Becker 02.Edberg 03.Stich 04.Cash 05.Lendl
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Sampras 02.Krajicek 03. Goran Ivanisevic 04.Agassi 05.Rafter
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Federer 02.Djokovic 03.Nadal 04.Murray 05.Roddick
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Raonic 02.Berretini 03.Kyrgios 04.Medvedev 05.Dimitrov
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Alcaraz 02.Sinner ..... to be continued

French Open Clay

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Borg 02.Vilas 03.Panatta 04.Jose Luis Clerc (?) 05.Jose Higueras (?)
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Lendl 02.Wilander 03.Muster 04.Noah 05.Gomez
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Kuerten 02.Bruguera 03.Courier 04.Kafelnikov 05.Agassi
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Nadal 02.Djokovic 03.Federer 04.Wawrinka 05.Soderling
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Zverev 02.Dominic Thiem 03.Casper Ruud. 04.Tsitsipas 05.Schwartzman
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Alcaraz 02.Sinner ... to be continued

Hard Court Slams

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Connors 02.Mcenroe 03.Borg 04.Gerulitas 05.Vilas(??)
Born in the 1960s ---> 01.Lendl 02.Becker 03.Edberg 04.Wilander 05.Korda
Born in the 1970s ---> 01.Sampras 02.Agassi 03.Rafter 04.Courier 05.Kafelnikov
Born in the 1980s ---> 01.Djokovic 02.Federer 03.Nadal 04.Safin 05.Wawrinka
Born in the 1990s ---> 01.Medvedev 02.Thiem 03.Zverev 04.Tsitsipas 05.Dimitrov
Born in the 2000s ---> 01.Sinner 02.Alcaraz .. to be continued


Conclusion

Best Generation on Wimbledon Grass by depth - 1970s Born Generation
Best Generation on French Open Clay by depth - 1970s Born Generation
Best Generation on Hard Courts by depth - 1980s Born Generation

Worst Generation of all time on all surfaces by far - 1990s Born Generation


Do you agree with this list ?

Great list.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Wawrinka has earned his spot as the 5th best born in 1980s on HC Slams by beating Djoko multiple times on HCs and also by collecting 2 HC Slams. If you want him out of the list then it is tough.

On Clay as well he has earned his spot by beating Djoko in the year when Djoko won a lot. Something even Murray could never achieve.




Yeah Ferrero should be there but I thought Soderling defeating Nadal and Wawrinka defeating DJoko should count for something. Plus Ferrero needs to be demoted from the list because of his bad coaching to Alcaraz as well, @Kralingen might want to do this too. Jokes apart, yes we could place JCF at 4th.



Yeah, but Krajicek defeated Sampras, so that should count too as they have 1 title. Goran reached more finals but he was not able to overcome Sampras even in 98 when he was the closest. Thats why I put him at 3th, technically Goran has a losing H2H to Agassi as well there, yet I put him above Agassi. Hewitt should be there but I had to make a slot for Roddick, felt bad that he is not a wimbledon champion while Murray is a 2X times winner, it feels so bad. Raonic point is valid, ok I am editing him to 1, Berretini to 2.

Goran has better consistency but Krajicek higher peak level.

 

[Martin J]

Yeah, but Krajicek defeated Sampras, so that should count too as they have 1 title. Goran reached more finals but he was not able to overcome Sampras even in 98 when he was the closest. Thats why I put him at 3th, technically Goran has a losing H2H to Agassi as well there, yet I put him above Agassi. Hewitt should be there but I had to make a slot for Roddick, felt bad that he is not a wimbledon champion while Murray is a 2X times winner, it feels so bad. Raonic point is valid, ok I am editing him to 1, Berretini to 2.

Krajicek did beat Sampras during his 1996, but so did Goran in 1992 (Pete's first deep run at Wimbledon, where he defeated the defending champion Stich in an impressive fashion) in the SF which was one of his best ever performances on grass, but fell short in the final against Andre (Krajicek didn't have to play Agassi as his final opponents, who leads him 2-0 at Wimbledon and 3-0 on grass overall, so Goran's job was tougher imo).
So while Richard's run was more impressive that Goran's, additional finals and victories over several high quality grass opponents (Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek) puts him above imo, at least when it comes to Wimbledon.

I actually like the fact that you included Roddick, his resume on grass deserves more respect so kudos to you. I just said it's debatable (Roddick more finals, Hewitt actually won it, both a bit unlucky to face peak Federer, etc).

 

[Razer]

Krajicek did beat Sampras during his 1996, but so did Goran in 1992 (Pete's first deep run at Wimbledon, where he defeated the defending champion Stich in an impressive fashion) in the SF which was one of his best ever performances on grass, but fell short in the final against Andre (Krajicek didn't have to play Agassi as his final opponents, who leads him 2-0 at Wimbledon and 3-0 on grass overall, so Goran's job was tougher imo).
So while Richard's run was more impressive that Goran's, additional finals and victories over several high quality grass opponents (Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek) puts him above imo, at least when it comes to Wimbledon.

I actually like the fact that you included Roddick, his resume on grass deserves more respect so kudos to you. I just said it's debatable (Roddick more finals, Hewitt actually won it, both a bit unlucky to face peak Federer, etc).

Ok moved Ivanisevic to 2nd Position of the 1990s, he deserves it I guess. He consistently was on Pete's heels like Roddick's was but could not get Pete later on but he did get him early, so that should count too, Roddick could not catch Fed even early which is sad.

 

[Martin J]

Ok moved Ivanisevic to 2nd Position of the 1990s, he deserves it I guess. He consistently was on Pete's heels like Roddick's was but could not get Pete later on but he did get him early, so that should count too, Roddick could not catch Fed even early which is sad.

Had he beaten him in 2009, it would've been a different story. But facing and losing to prime/peak Fed, while certainly nothing to be ashamed of, shouldn't give you many bonus points as there are players who managed to push and even beat that version of Fed (Nadal had him on the ropes in 2007, and actually beat him in 2008). I do agree that his 2003/2004/2005/2009 versions wins Wimbledon with Hewitt's 2002 draw, so in that sense he was unlucky.

 

[Razer]

Had he beaten him in 2009, it would've been a different story. But facing and losing to prime/peak Fed, while certainly nothing to be ashamed of, shouldn't give you many bonus points as there are players who managed to push and even beat that version of Fed (Nadal had him on the ropes in 2007, and actually beat him in 2008). I do agree that his 2003/2004/2005/2009 versions wins Wimbledon with Hewitt's 2002 draw, so in that sense he was unlucky.

Nadal enjoys a 5 years age advantage over Federer and by 4 years over Roddick..

So by that account if Roddick is born in 1986 then 2005 Roddick vs 2010 Federer or 2009 Roddick vs 2013 Federer would be interesting encounters too.

Now reverse of this, IF Nadal is born in 1982 then we are looking at 2007 Nadal vs 2003 Federer, 2008 Nadal vs 2004 Federer, 2010 Nadal vs 2006 Federer, so this does not look very good for Nadal either considering the fact that now he is facing a same aged Fed on a bit lower bouncing grass.

So the gap between Nadal and Roddick itself is not that big as it looks on Grass, it is all a matter of age gaps, birth years ...

 

[Martin J]

Nadal enjoys a 5 years age advantage over Federer and by 4 years over Roddick..

So by that account if Roddick is born in 1986 then 2005 Roddick vs 2010 Federer or 2009 Roddick vs 2013 Federer would be interesting encounters too.

Now reverse of this, IF Nadal is born in 1982 then we are looking at 2007 Nadal vs 2003 Federer, 2008 Nadal vs 2004 Federer, 2010 Nadal vs 2006 Federer, so this does not look very good for Nadal either considering the fact that now he is facing a same aged Fed on a bit lower bouncing grass.

So the gap between Nadal and Roddick itself is not that big as it looks on Grass, it is all a matter of age gaps, birth years ...

When it comes to dynamics in Fed - Ned matches, I think it's a bit more complicated than the pure age gap. Nadal was the only player with the ability to prevent Federer from imposing his own game during his best years. He doesn't allow him to hit enough forehands and thus undermines his confidence to the extent that neither Roddick or Hewitt (or Djokovic, for that matter) could ever do, so any decent version of Nadal on grass would IMO be tougher for Fed to handle than Andy. He also handled his slice BH (another big asset in Fed's game) better than literally anyone.

Sure, 2005 Fed > 2008 Fed, but there are other factors that would affected the outcome in the Fedal matchup.

 

[GoatNo1]

muzza > rafa on W grass

 

[RS]

Goran ahead of Krajicek, even though Krajicek's run was more impressive than Goran's. Still, Ivanisevic beat Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek and Becker at W, which is a nice set of victories and more impressive than Richard's imo.
Not sure about putting Roddick instead of Hewitt at #5, it's debatable. Roddick has more finals, but they both lost to the same player in 2004/05, Hewitt was just less lucky as he met him in the QF/SF.
Raonic over Berrettini for me. Both have reached one final, but Mateo never passed the 4R during other editions, while Milos has a SF and two QFs, plus he defeated Federer.

I know this isn't the purpose of this thread, but just found your ranking interesting.

People say Roddick was better in 2004 but Hewitt was better in 2005. So that would be a 1/1 split.

 

[Razer]

When it comes to dynamics in Fed - Ned matches, I think it's a bit more complicated than the pure age gap. Nadal was the only player with the ability to prevent Federer from imposing his own game during his best years. He doesn't allow him to hit enough forehands and thus undermines his confidence to the extent that neither Roddick or Hewitt (or Djokovic, for that matter) could ever do, so any decent version of Nadal on grass would IMO be tougher for Fed to handle than Andy. He also handled his slice BH (another big asset in Fed's game) better than literally anyone.

Sure, 2005 Fed > 2008 Fed, but there are other factors that would affected the outcome in the Fedal matchup.

That is true.
Nadal truly was unique and weird freak of nature.

 

[Razer]

muzza > rafa on W grass

@RS - Can you convince him that Nadal is far above Mooza on the Wimbledon Grass ?

 

[Maddamhussein]

muzza > rafa on W grass

There’s nothing wrong with Rafa being considered the greater player, on account of his 2008 win.

However, I do think his losses from 2012-2017 all vs players ranked outside 100 should be held against him just as strongly as his strong performances vs the peakest version of grass-court Federer - especially when Murray was making 10 consecutive QF’s in this period.

I don’t see it mentioned as much and it should be.

 

[Tennfan123]

lol it goes so downhill once it hits the born in 90s.

 

[Racquet_smash]

muzza > rafa on W grass

Murray has 0 arguments to be considered better than Nadal at Wimbledon.

 

[Razer]

There’s nothing wrong with Rafa being considered the greater player, on account of his 2008 win.

However, I do think his losses from 2012-2017 all vs players ranked outside 100 should be held against him just as strongly as his strong performances vs the peakest version of grass-court Federer - especially when Murray was making 10 consecutive QF’s in this period.

I don’t see it mentioned as much and it should be.

I always tell you folk that losses in earlier rounds are actually better that losses in finals for the legacy of GOAT players, that's for a reason.

Nadal is a GOAT candidate, he will be judged in a bad way IF he loses in the final of a slam because that is when he is expected to be at his best, however losses in 1st week are brushed off aside as lapse of form. Sampras himself lost to some lower ranked players at times but he was judged as a true alpha in the Big Finals. Djokovic despite all his final appearances in new york is judged below Rafa because he might have a reached the final a gazillion times but he losing those matches tarnished his repo lot, Nadal on the hand made finals half the times as Novak but he has a 2-1 record over Novak in the Final. So now when they are compared Nadal gets an edge clearly.

When it comes to Murray, he has been super consistent in reaching QF and SF but after that his peak level fell short always. So when he is rated against Nadal then his losing H2H of 0-3 and lack of Impact vs Federer is what completely eliminates him the conversion, as @Racquet_smash said above, 0 arguments. Mind you, I have not even mentioned that Murray born in 1981 or 1982 like Roddick/Hewitt would win 0 wimbledons, that aside in the real world itself born in 1987 he has no arguments vs Nadal at Wimbledon.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Murray is a pretty great grass courter but he has no business being superior to a true grass great. The only reason Nadal Murray is sometimes a debate at Wimbledon is Nadal skipping the 09 edition.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Overall, it looks pretty spot on, some could be argued.

Murray could be argued given that he won the USO + another final and has five finals at the AO, losing only to Fedovic, but Wawrinka and Safin won BOTH HC slams, so yeah, they are slightly ahead.

Vilas didn't really do anything at the HC slams, when he won the USO, it was har-tru.

Hewitt won Wimbledon and Roddick didn't, so the Aussie could be ahead. Roddick reached all those finals, yes, but he was usually on the other side of Federer in the draw and Hewitt in the same one. Switch them and things could be different.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Overall, it looks pretty spot on, some could be argued.

Murray could be argued given that he won the USO + another final and has five finals at the AO, losing only to Fedovic, but Wawrinka and Safin won BOTH HC slams, so yeah, they are slightly ahead.

Vilas didn't really do anything at the HC slams, when he won the USO, it was har-tru.

Hewitt won Wimbledon and Roddick didn't, so the Aussie could be ahead. Roddick reached all those finals, yes, but he was usually on the other side of Federer in the draw and Hewitt in the same one. Switch them and things could be different.

Hewitt won a pretty weak WB title in 02 tough. Any of Roddick's versions in 03-05 or 09 would win that edition in his place.

 

[Razer]

Overall, it looks pretty spot on, some could be argued.

Murray could be argued given that he won the USO + another final and has five finals at the AO, losing only to Fedovic, but Wawrinka and Safin won BOTH HC slams, so yeah, they are slightly ahead.

Vilas didn't really do anything at the HC slams, when he won the USO, it was har-tru.

Hewitt won Wimbledon and Roddick didn't, so the Aussie could be ahead. Roddick reached all those finals, yes, but he was usually on the other side of Federer in the draw and Hewitt in the same one. Switch them and things could be different.

The 1950s entries I added just randomly from UTS, I have no idea about most of those players. Some of them are unknown to me.

Roddick has a higher peak than Hewitt at W but I wouldn't argue much against Hewitt, he definitely could be put there at 5th since he won W.

Murray has no argument TBH, his argument is like Roddick's but a weaker one because in that same era Djoko was beaten in Australia by Stan. Murray has no excuses. He is not even better than Stan on HCs in his own era, let alone have arguments over Safin who is more accomplished vs multiple ATGs.

 

[duaneeo]

Wawrinka has earned his spot as the 5th best born in 1980s on HC Slams by beating Djoko multiple times on HCs and also by collecting 2 HC Slams. If you want him out of the list then it is tough.

On Clay as well he has earned his spot by beating Djoko in the year when Djoko won a lot. Something even Murray could never achieve.

Wawrinka earns the top spot for being peak/prime Djokovic's nemesis in BO5. That doesn't make him an overall top-5 player on two slam surfaces.

 

[buscemi]

Hard Court Slams

Born in the 1950s ---> 01.Connors 02.Mcenroe 03.Borg 04.Gerulitas 05.Vilas(??)

I'm going Tanner over Vilas for the #5 spot.

Tanner made the SF and 2 QFs at the U.S. Open on hard courts, beating Borg to make his SF.

Vilas made the SF and nothing else past the fourth round on hard courts, beating Tom Gullikson to make his SF.

Plus, they played in the fourth round in 1981, with Tanner winning in straight sets.

 

[Razer]

I'm going Tanner over Vilas for the #5 spot.

Tanner made the SF and 2 QFs at the U.S. Open on hard courts, beating Borg to make his SF.

Vilas made the SF and nothing else past the fourth round on hard courts, beating Tom Gullikson to make his SF.

Plus, they played in the fourth round in 1981, with Tanner winning in straight sets.

Done, edited.

Wawrinka earns the top spot for being peak/prime Djokovic's nemesis in BO5. That doesn't make him an overall top-5 player on two slam surfaces.

Who for the 5th Spot ?

 

[GoatNo1]

There’s nothing wrong with Rafa being considered the greater player, on account of his 2008 win.

However, I do think his losses from 2012-2017 all vs players ranked outside 100 should be held against him just as strongly as his strong performances vs the peakest version of grass-court Federer - especially when Murray was making 10 consecutive QF’s in this period.

I don’t see it mentioned as much and it should be.

Murray is a pretty great grass courter but he has no business being superior to a true grass great. The only reason Nadal Murray is sometimes a debate at Wimbledon is Nadal skipping the 09 edition.

on W grass!

muzza:
12: OG W vs nole (7 times W champion) in SF (7-5, 7-5) and fed (8 times W champion and won it just a mount before this OG) in the F (6-2, 6-1,6-4)
13: W W vs nole (7 times W champ) in the F (6-4, 7-5,6-4)
16: W W
(GC titles: 8, 3 big - all 3 on W grass)
8-0 in sets vs 2 of W greatest players at big tournaments on W grass that he won!

rafa:
08: W W vs fed (8 time champion) in the F (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
10: W W
3-2 in sets vs one of the W greatest on big tournaments on W grass that he won.
(GC titles: 4, 2 big - both on W grass)


so muzza is greater than rafa on W grass and significantly greater than rafa on overall on grass!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

on W grass!

muzza:
12: OG W vs nole (7 times W champion) in SF (7-5, 7-5) and fed (8 times W champion) in the F (6-2, 6-1,6-4)
13: W W vs nole (7 times W champ) in the F (6-4, 7-5,6-4)
16: W W
(GC titles: 8, 3 big - all 3 on W grass)

rafa:
08: W W vs fed (8 time champion) in the F (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
10: W W
(GC titles: 4, 2 big - both on W grass)


so muzza is greater than rafa on W grass and significantly greater than rafa on overall on grass!

Complete balderdash. Both have two Wimbledon titles but Nadal still has two additional finals. The OG medal is great but you cannot equate it with a slam. Nadal's win against 2008 Fed is way more impressive than Murray's win against Fed at the Olympics. On top Nadal is 3-0 against Murray himself at Wimbledon.

 

[GoatNo1]

Complete balderdash. Both have two Wimbledon titles but Nadal still has two additional finals. The OG medal is great but you cannot equate it with a slam. Nadal's win against 2008 Fed is way more impressive than Murray's win against Fed at the Olympics. On top Nadal is 3-0 against Murray himself at Wimbledon.

he said on W grass and OG12 was played on W grass! muzza has 3 big titles on W grass and rafa just 2! both muzzas and rafas fans was talking for last 10-15 years that OG is as important as slams or at least most important title after slams. on the way to his 3 big titles he had 3 wins vs fed and nole with 8-0 in sets while rafa had only 3-2 in sets!

and by your logic nole is greater than fed on W because he has 3-1 h2h inclusive 3-0 in the finals and it is only 8-7 for fed in titles (and nole had a less opportunities as biggest favorit due W20 cancelation)!

and if we look at overall GC and not just W so is muzza significantly greater than rafa with 8 to 4 titles (3-2 big titles)!

 

[Maddamhussein]

I always tell you folk that losses in earlier rounds are actually better that losses in finals for the legacy of GOAT players, that's for a reason.

Huh? You’re just making up rules now. You’re actually telling me it’s better to go out in R1-R2 than losing a final because it preserves your record in grand slam finals?

Nadal is a GOAT candidate, he will be judged in a bad way IF he loses in the final of a slam because that is when he is expected to be at his best, however losses in 1st week are brushed off aside as lapse of form.

I’d agree with this if it was one isolated match. But FIVE times to players, outside the top 100, who at the time of their matches, didn’t even have a combined 50 weeks in the top 100?? That’s a little more than lapse of form mate that’s what we call a pattern.

Djokovic despite all his final appearances in new york is judged below Rafa because he might have a reached the final a gazillion times but he losing those matches tarnished his repo lot, Nadal on the hand made finals half the times as Novak but he has a 2-1 record over Novak in the Final. So now when they are compared Nadal gets an edge clearly.

Okay. So going by your model, why in your top 5 clay courters of the 80’s is Federer above Wawrinka when they both have one slam at RG, Federer got bludgeoned in all of his finals Wawrinka’s got a better conversion rate in finals and he beat peak Novak while Roger beat Soderling? Could it be that you’re just playing favourites?

When it comes to Murray, he has been super consistent in reaching QF and SF but after that his peak level fell short always. So when he is rated against Nadal then his losing H2H of 0-3 and lack of Impact vs Federer is what completely eliminates him the conversion, as @Racquet_smash said above, 0 arguments.

Again, I see we’re playing that game again where we’re holding pre-prime Murray’s 0-3 grass record against him while giving Nadal a pass for taking beatdowns by players who never saw the light of day again, with the exception of Kyrgios and to a lesser extent, Muller. All of them were outside the top 100 and that doesn’t matter in overall discussions where both players have 2 slams and identical numbers at the same slam? Don’t make me laugh.

And again, I thought Murray played well in 2010 and 2011 - had set point in the third set breaker, was a set and almost a break up in 2011. Hit more winners in both matches. You make it sound like he was doing his typical pusher thing and Nadal took his lunch money.

And I’d also say that Murray’s played well vs Federer, he was the better player for a set and a half in 2012 and then Federer took over indoors breaking twice - once in each set. And in 2015, there were only three breaks of serve in the whole match and Federer pounced on all of them at the end of each set. Murray hit 35 winners in three sets and was in the match but for lapses at the end of each set. He lost, but this apparent gulf that you love to refer to was present in those matches - or perhaps it was if you make the case that he was missing that one intangible thing that makes a player truly elite, where they pounce on the big points that make the difference in big matches, which I can go along with.

And I see we’re conveniently ignoring the Olympics again, where he beat Novak and Fed back to back in straights. And let me be clear, I don’t give a toss how inconsequential this match is in your mind or how much DelPo softened him up for the final. The man didn’t win a game for an hour. AN HOUR. If he’s that much greater than Murray and Murray is his pigeon or whatever inane term you love to use, then any perceived fitness limitations shouldn’t be in his way. It’s Murray after all right? The man who goes missing in finals on account of his anemic peak levels? He should limp his way to the title, no problem.

And that’s before we go into Murray taking care of Novak in straights in the 2013 final. The man with the superior grass record vs the grass GOAT? Or does that not count because it’s your hero and he was in his late 30’s? But a developing Murray’s 0-3 record vs Nadal counts? Right.

Mind you, I have not even mentioned that Murray born in 1981 or 1982 like Roddick/Hewitt would win 0 wimbledons, that aside in the real world itself born in 1987 he has no arguments vs Nadal at Wimbledon.

Mate, quite frankly, I’m so used to these ramblings of yours it’s like dealing with someone with amnesia. I’ve just started nodding along and leaving you to it.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt won a pretty weak WB title in 02 tough. Any of Roddick's versions in 03-05 or 09 would win that edition in his place.

It was weak but aside from a mid match walkabout in the QF Hewitt was utterly dominant that fortnight.

 

[Racquet_smash]

It was weak but aside from a mid match walkabout in the QF Hewitt was utterly dominant that fortnight.

Sure, but Roddick had plenty of great runs stopped by Federer, i don't see how he doesn't win Wimby 2002 playing at that level (especially 04, only one set dropped to Ancic, and 09). Rod also did overall better against Fed at Wimbledon than Hewitt did, never lost in straights despite a really bad matchup overall.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sure, but Roddick had plenty of great runs stopped by Federer, i don't see how he doesn't win Wimby 2002 playing at that level (especially 04, only one set dropped to Ancic, and 09). Rod also did overall better against Fed at Wimbledon than Hewitt did, never lost in straights despite a really bad matchup overall.

Roddick lost both the 2005 final and the 2003 semi against Fed in straights.

 

[buscemi]

It was weak but aside from a mid match walkabout in the QF Hewitt was utterly dominant that fortnight.

That's true, but it's tough to assess Hewitt's level due to the competition.

His first four matches were against #47, #168, #95, and #61. Out of those four, Bjorkman was probably the only one who was a better grass court player than his ranking would indicate.

Then, he played #23 Schalken in the QF. And yes, there was a walkabout when he could have won in straight sets. OTOH, rather than recover and put things to rest, Hewitt was in big trouble multiple times in the fifth set, being down a break twice before pulling it out, 7-5.

The straight set win over #5 Henman in the semifinals was his best match, winning against the hometown hero, 7-5, 6-1, 7-5.

Then, the final against #32 Nalbandian was a walkover of sorts, with David totally unprepared in his first match on Centre Court.

 

[Razer]

Huh? You’re just making up rules now. You’re actually telling me it’s better to go out in R1-R2 than losing a final because it preserves your record in grand slam finals?

I’d agree with this if it was one isolated match. But FIVE times to players, outside the top 100, who at the time of their matches, didn’t even have a combined 50 weeks in the top 100?? That’s a little more than lapse of form mate that’s what we call a pattern.

Okay. So going by your model, why in your top 5 clay courters of the 80’s is Federer above Wawrinka when they both have one slam at RG, Federer got bludgeoned in all of his finals Wawrinka’s got a better conversion rate in finals and he beat peak Novak while Roger beat Soderling? Could it be that you’re just playing favourites?

Again, I see we’re playing that game again where we’re holding pre-prime Murray’s 0-3 grass record against him while giving Nadal a pass for taking beatdowns by players who never saw the light of day again, with the exception of Kyrgios and to a lesser extent, Muller. All of them were outside the top 100 and that doesn’t matter in overall discussions where both players have 2 slams and identical numbers at the same slam? Don’t make me laugh.

And again, I thought Murray played well in 2010 and 2011 - had set point in the third set breaker, was a set and almost a break up in 2011. Hit more winners in both matches. You make it sound like he was doing his typical pusher thing and Nadal took his lunch money.

And I’d also say that Murray’s played well vs Federer, he was the better player for a set and a half in 2012 and then Federer took over indoors breaking twice - once in each set. And in 2015, there were only three breaks of serve in the whole match and Federer pounced on all of them at the end of each set. Murray hit 35 winners in three sets and was in the match but for lapses at the end of each set. He lost, but this apparent gulf that you love to refer to was present in those matches - or perhaps it was if you make the case that he was missing that one intangible thing that makes a player truly elite, where they pounce on the big points that make the difference in big matches, which I can go along with.

And I see we’re conveniently ignoring the Olympics again, where he beat Novak and Fed back to back in straights. And let me be clear, I don’t give a toss how inconsequential this match is in your mind or how much DelPo softened him up for the final. The man didn’t win a game for an hour. AN HOUR. If he’s that much greater than Murray and Murray is his pigeon or whatever inane term you love to use, then any perceived fitness limitations shouldn’t be in his way. It’s Murray after all right? The man who goes missing in finals on account of his anemic peak levels? He should limp his way to the title, no problem.

And that’s before we go into Murray taking care of Novak in straights in the 2013 final. The man with the superior grass record vs the grass GOAT? Or does that not count because it’s your hero and he was in his late 30’s? But a developing Murray’s 0-3 record vs Nadal counts? Right.

Mate, quite frankly, I’m so used to these ramblings of yours it’s like dealing with someone with amnesia. I’ve just started nodding along and leaving you to it.

Yes, superior record in H2H vs Federer when Fed was almost 34 the first time he lost does not count.

If Murray is pre prime before 2011 then Nadal is also post prime after 2010 on Grass, since they are of the same age you cannot have any relaxation there. Murray's 0-3 h2h is what puts Nadal ahead, that and Nadal's level in 07-08 being significantly higher than Murray's in 12-13 or 2016, Nadal 07-08 would have won all those slams in 12, 13 and 16.

Regarding the opening round losses, it is not about preserving record in GS Finals. It is about being in form or not. Great players when in form are expected to win. So if they don't they it raises eyebrows because comparison between 2 players is always done by what they did at their best. When players have similar record, the comparison then comes down who has a higher peak and a better H2H in a direct matchup (IF THEY ARE CLOSE IN AGE). So you see, extra finals are all not a feather in anybody's cap.

Reg Fed vs Stan, Federer again leads Stan in RG h2h and Federer also stretched a better version of Nadal on clay more than Wawrinka did, they both were useles vs Nadal but at least Fed was better there. Federer also defeated 2011 Novak who that year was even thrashing Nadal on clay. So all this comes into play. You can place Waw ahead if you want but Fed has more plus points in his favor.

 

[NatF]

Sure, but Roddick had plenty of great runs stopped by Federer, i don't see how he doesn't win Wimby 2002 playing at that level (especially 04, only one set dropped to Ancic, and 09). Rod also did overall better against Fed at Wimbledon than Hewitt did, never lost in straights despite a really bad matchup overall.

I'm not arguing that Roddick doesn't win the 2002 edition with his best forms, I'm just saying Hewitt was pretty good on grass. His list of scalps at Queens is better than anyone else in this era, he also makes the final in 2004/2005 with Roddick's draw as well. Roddick did lose in straights to Fed twice BTW in 2003 and 2005. In 2009 when Roddick was in a great run of form Hewitt way past his best still took him to five - though some of that is the match-up. They're close on grass, Hewitt's peak on the surface is criminally underrated.

 

[buscemi]

Sure, but Roddick had plenty of great runs stopped by Federer, i don't see how he doesn't win Wimby 2002 playing at that level (especially 04, only one set dropped to Ancic, and 09). Rod also did overall better against Fed at Wimbledon than Hewitt did, never lost in straights despite a really bad matchup overall.

I don't know about that. Roddick played Henman a total of 5 times, all from 2003-2004. Roddick was the higher ranked player for each match, but Henman won the H2H, 3-2.

Hewitt troubled Henman with his return and passing shots in their 2002 SF. A hypothetical Henman/Roddick SF has a very different dynamic, and I could see it going either way.

 

[Hitman]

I'm not arguing that Roddick doesn't win the 2002 edition with his best forms, I'm just saying Hewitt was pretty good on grass. His list of scalps at Queens is better than anyone else in this era, he also makes the final in 2004/2005 with Roddick's draw as well. Roddick did lose in straights to Fed twice BTW in 2003 and 2005. In 2009 when Roddick was in a great run of form Hewitt way past his best still took him to five - though some of that is the match-up. They're close on grass, Hewitt's peak on the surface is criminally underrated.

Hewitt turned back the clock in 2009 on grass, the way he dismantled an in form Del Potro is very underrated.

 

[NatF]

That's true, but it's tough to assess Hewitt's level due to the competition.

His first four matches were against #47, #168, #95, and #61. Out of those four, Bjorkman was probably the only one who was a better grass court player than his ranking would indicate.

Then, he played #23 Schalken in the QF. And yes, there was a walkabout when he could have won in straight sets. OTOH, rather than recover and put things to rest, Hewitt was in big trouble multiple times in the fifth set, being down a break twice before pulling it out, 7-5.

The straight set win over #5 Henman in the semifinals was his best match, winning against the hometown hero, 7-5, 6-1, 7-5.

Then, the final against #32 Nalbandian was a walkover of sorts, with David totally unprepared in his first match on Centre Court.

Like I said it was a weak draw. He didn't miss a second serve return at all in the first four rounds though, his stats going through the tournament were ridiculous. The QF turned into a bit of a nightmare but in the end he raised his game and won the match...

Considering how well Hewitt played in Queens, his earlier results at Wimbledon were him underperforming and he had at least somewhat competitive matches with top form Fed in 04/05 when he was probably in slight worse form.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt turned back the clock in 2009 on grass, the way he dismantled an in form Del Potro is very underrated.

He always matched up well with Delpo. Even in 2013 he still had that win at the USO over him, he also beat Wawrinka on grass that year too.