Are Thiem and Zverev already in the top 50 players of all time?

[GabeT]

It makes sense. the list is based on a mix of accomplishments. I think you can change the weight of each of them if you want And create your own list. No list will ever be perfect though

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Hey, I already dismissed that site when I saw that 2019 Wimb is considered faster than 1993 Wimb.

Yes, my post was meant to agree with you. Maybe not the best words chosen from my side.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, my post was meant to agree with you. Maybe not the best words chosen from my side.

No misunderstanding on my part, I just felt like adding that.

 

[Third Serve]

This kind of list rewards consistency and punishes inconsistency. That’s why you’ve got Ferrer so high up even though his peak level really isn’t anything special, especially compared to those around him. It’s also why Roddick and Hewitt are like ten places over Safin and Wawrinka.

 

[daggerman]

Whether they're top 50 is pretty academic. They're both about as good as the 50th-best player ever, whoever that may be.

 

[Musterrific]

It's just about the rules the point accumulation is based on. Ferrer gets a lot of points for making a ton of Slam quarter-finals and Masters finals and semi-finals and for basically hanging around at a decently high level for over 10 years. Muster of course had a better peak, but only had a couple of seasons at that level.

We all know peak Muster would have crushed peak Ferrer on both clay and hardcourt.

 

[Wander]

This kind of list rewards consistency and punishes inconsistency. That’s why you’ve got Ferrer so high up even though his peak level really isn’t anything special, especially compared to those around him. It’s also why Roddick and Hewitt are like ten places over Safin and Wawrinka.

Something to consider is that with these scoring rules winning 4 500 events is as good as winning a Major (just as an example). So Andrey Rublev's four 500 titles give him as many points as winning a Major would do.

Effectively means that players with shorter careers or peaks get a bit buried because they didn't have the longevity to collect all the rinky dink titles.

 

[The Guru]

This kind of list rewards consistency and punishes inconsistency. That’s why you’ve got Ferrer so high up even though his peak level really isn’t anything special, especially compared to those around him. It’s also why Roddick and Hewitt are like ten places over Safin and Wawrinka.

I don't think it's crazy to have Roddick and Hewitt over Safin and Wawrinka

 

[The Guru]

This is one of the reasons why I don't trust this list.

Honestly don't think that having Roddick over Courier is ludicrous though I'm generally very hesitant to compare eras due to the massive changes to the game over the years. I think you have to divide tennis into OE-90s (where Borg is GOAT) 90s-02 (where Sampras is GOAT) and 03-present (where big 3 are fighting for GOAT)

 

[NAS]

I don't think it's crazy to have Roddick and Hewitt over Safin and Wawrinka

Hewitt yes but Roddick case is different at least on achievement side.
5 finals ( Andy) Vs 4 finals
1 slam Vs 3 slam.
5 master Vs 1 master.
I think Wawa 2 slam can easily offset Roddick 4 extra master.
Don't always believe what ATP says 2 master ( hell for me even 3 master) can never be equal to one slam.
Two extra slam pushes him over Roddick no.1 also

 

[NAS]

Honestly don't think that having Roddick over Courier is ludicrous though I'm generally very hesitant to compare eras due to the massive changes to the game over the years. I think you have to divide tennis into OE-90s (where Borg is GOAT) 90s-02 (where Sampras is GOAT) and 03-present (where big 3 are fighting for GOAT)

Courier as a baselines made all 4 slam final and yec final in very early age before 23( which even Fed, Rafa and Novak failed to do)

 

[The Guru]

Courier as a baselines made all 4 slam final and yec final in very early age before 23( which even Fed, Rafa and Novak failed to do)

He was also only good for 3 years

 

[NAS]

He was also only good for 3 years

Actually it's all come to down to this achievement Vs longevity, if Courier was on two slam you had a case but for a player with 4 slam ( Roddick didn't even went into AO and RG ,yec final) and more weeks at number one, will always be considered as a better career.
Hewiit has a better career than Stan
Courier> Hewitt> Stan> Roddick career wise

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Honestly don't think that having Roddick over Courier is ludicrous though I'm generally very hesitant to compare eras due to the massive changes to the game over the years. I think you have to divide tennis into OE-90s (where Borg is GOAT) 90s-02 (where Sampras is GOAT) and 03-present (where big 3 are fighting for GOAT)

He has three more slams and almost 50 more weeks at No.1. What exactly has Roddick to make up for this deficit other than longevity? Putting a 1 slam winner over a 4 slam winner us next to impossible anyways for me, but in this case it is not even that Roddick destroys Courier in all other categories.

 

[Third Serve]

I don't think it's crazy to have Roddick and Hewitt over Safin and Wawrinka

I don’t think so either, but ten places over is stretching it.

 

[mike danny]

Honestly don't think that having Roddick over Courier is ludicrous though I'm generally very hesitant to compare eras due to the massive changes to the game over the years. I think you have to divide tennis into OE-90s (where Borg is GOAT) 90s-02 (where Sampras is GOAT) and 03-present (where big 3 are fighting for GOAT)

It is a bit ludicrous considering that Courier was a better player than Roddick in nearly every aspect.

 

[The Guru]

It is a bit ludicrous considering that Courier was a better player than Roddick in nearly every aspect.

Yeah but there's more that goes into this than peak level. Longevity and consistency are a big part of being great at least in my opinion. Also, peaking on your best surface at the same time on the best ever on that surface is pretty unfortunate. I'm just not sure it's as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. I have Courier as better but not by much and totally respect anyone who disagrees such as Red Rick.

 

[Crazy Finn]

He was also only good for 3 years

He was peak for 3 years. Not that unusual back in the day. Not everyone has 15 year careers at #1. He had a further 2-3 years at a Roddick-like level with SFs and QFs at slams with no wins.

He played the best players of that particular era that weren't him and won. That counts for a fair amount.

He has three more slams and almost 50 more weeks at No.1. What exactly has Roddick to make up for this deficit other than longevity? Putting a 1 slam winner over a 4 slam winner us next to impossible anyways for me, but in this case it is not even that Roddick destroys Courier in all other categories.

Exactly.