Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

PPS: To be clear, Gilbert did not just count major titles. His #1 and #2 in the open era were based on the winner and runner up of this final, before the match was played. If Nadal had won, then he would have been Gilbert's #1 in the open era with fewer major titles than #2 Federer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively.
Imagine the meltdown here if Nadal had won the match

EDIT: Only 4 more identical topics to get to 10
 
Last edited:

reaper

Legend
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3.

Gilbert can tally up a slam count. He's basically given the open era slam count in order, with Laver thrown in higher because he won a CYGS and mush of his career was outside the open era.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Gilbert can tally up a slam count. He's basically given the open era slam count in order, with Laver thrown in higher because he won a CYGS and mush of his career was outside the open era.

Not exactly. If Nadal had won today, he would be #1 on Gilbert's list with 15 major titles.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I was going on the list provided...not a hypothetcial one based on match outcomes that didn't happen...

No, it's not a hypothetical. As explained in the OP, in his pre-match commentary, at about 10:20, Gilbert's picks for #! and #2 of the open era were the winner and runner up of todays final, whoever it turned out to be, which he didn't know at the time of his pre-match commentary. We now know that it was Federer and Nadal respectively. But, had Nadal won, then Gilbert's pick for #1 of the open era would have fewer major titles than #2, Federer. So, it appears that he wasn't just tallying up major titles to make his list.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."
Would place Nole over Sampras, or maybe equal. Other than that I agree.
 

Gmidkiff

Rookie
I do agree with Gilbert that Federer needed to win this to preserve his legacy.

Absolutely , this win was HUGE. Not only did it give Roger that long sought after 18th slam, but he has a GS final win against Rafa other than Wimbledon . 3-6 is a world away from 2-7, especially considering 4 of Rafa's wins are at RG.

Roger also prevented Rafa from getting the double career grand slam . Rafa would have a more legitimate claim as GOAT with the double career GS even if he didn't win another slam .

Rafa will probably get 1-2 more FO, but he's not likely to match or surpass Roger's 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gmidkiff

Rookie
I do agree with Gilbert that Federer needed to win this to preserve his legacy.

Absolutely , this win was HUGE. Not only did it give Roger that long sought after 18th slam, but he has a GS final win against Rafa other than Wimbledon . 3-6 is a world away from 2-7, especially considering 4 of Rafa's wins are at RG.

Roger also prevented Rafa from getting the double career grand slam . Rafa would have a more legitimate claim as GOAT with the double career GS even if he didn't win another slam .

Rafa will probably get 1-2 more FO, but he's not likely to match or surpass Roger's 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gmidkiff

Rookie
I do agree with Gilbert that Federer needed to win this to preserve his legacy.

Absolutely , this win was HUGE. Not only did it give Roger that long sought after 18th slam, but he has a GS final win against Rafa other than Wimbledon . 3-6 is a world away from 2-7, especially considering 4 of Rafa's wins are at RG.

Roger also prevented Rafa from getting the double career grand slam . Rafa would have a more legitimate claim as GOAT with the double career GS even if he didn't win another slam .

Rafa will probably get 1-2 more FO, but he's not likely to match or surpass Roger's 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gmidkiff

Rookie
I do agree with Gilbert that Federer needed to win this to preserve his legacy.

Absolutely , this win was HUGE. Not only did it give Roger that long sought after 18th slam, but he has a GS final win against Rafa other than Wimbledon . 3-6 is a world away from 2-7, especially considering 4 of Rafa's wins are at RG.

Roger also prevented Rafa from getting the double career grand slam . Rafa would have a more legitimate claim as GOAT with the double career GS even if he didn't win another slam .

Rafa will probably get 1-2 more FO, but he's not likely to match or surpass Roger's 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Imagine the meltdown here if Nadal had won the match

EDIT: Only 4 more identical topics to get to 10

Haha! The forum has been malfunctioning, as I'm sure you know. When I clicked on the post button to post the thread it seemed that nothing was happening. So, I kept clicking it. 20 minutes later, every click started a new thread. Hopefully, the moderators will delete the redundant threads.
 

reaper

Legend
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

As for the list...I think Borg should be higher. 6 French Opens with 5 Wimbledons is unique. I don't think Borg travelled to Australia. He competed at a time when slam counts and GOAT legacies hadn't really been invented so retired earlier than he would have in the modern era.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Discounting Laver (who would be 2nd)

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Agassi(can switch him and Mac)
9. Connors
10. Becker
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

Not a bad list, but a list that takes ZERO imagination. Anyone could come up with this list by looking at the list of players with the most Slam wins. That's all it is, with a few judgment calls on players who are tied - but in every instance (Nadal over Sampras, Laver over Borg, Agassi over Lendl and Connors) he chose the player with the career Slam or at least a larger variety of Slams than the person with the same number below them. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that he included McEnroe at No. 8, even though he has one less Slam than Lendl and Connors.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list, but it's so by-the-book and easy to come by.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

Not a bad list, but a list that takes ZERO imagination. Anyone could come up with this list by looking at the list of players with the most Slam wins. That's all it is, with a few judgment calls on players who are tied - but in every instance (Nadal over Sampras, Laver over Borg, Agassi over Lendl and Connors) he chose the player with the career Slam or at least a larger variety of Slams than the person with the same number below them. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that he included McEnroe at No. 8, even though he has one less Slam than Lendl and Connors.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list, but it's so by-the-book and easy to come by.
 

GreenClay

Semi-Pro
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

Seems awfully difficult to place Laver in here. He should be in a separate category, imho. Given what they've achieved so far, I'd put Borg ahead of Novak. But I realize that Novak might still pick up a few...or even several majors. And I'd put Sampras and Nadal as equals. Nadal has benefited from the fact that all of the courts are slower now than they once were. It was harder to win all 4 back in the day.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

Not a bad list, but a list that takes ZERO imagination. Anyone could come up with this list by looking at the list of players with the most Slam wins. That's all it is, with a few judgment calls on players who are tied - but in every instance (Nadal over Sampras, Laver over Borg, Agassi over Lendl and Connors) he chose the player with the career Slam or at least a larger variety of Slams than the person with the same number below them. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that he included McEnroe at No. 8, even though he has one less Slam than Lendl and Connors.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list, but it's so by-the-book and easy to come by.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

Not a bad list, but a list that takes ZERO imagination. Anyone could come up with this list by looking at the list of players with the most Slam wins. That's all it is, with a few judgment calls on players who are tied - but in every instance (Nadal over Sampras, Laver over Borg, Agassi over Lendl and Connors) he chose the player with the career Slam or at least a larger variety of Slams than the person with the same number below them. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that he included McEnroe at No. 8, even though he has one less Slam than Lendl and Connors.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list, but it's so by-the-book and easy to come by.
 

shankster

Professional
Discounting Laver (who would be 2nd)

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Agassi(can switch him and Mac)
9. Connors
10. Becker
Why is Nadal below Sampras with the same no. of slams but with a Career Slam?
 

shankster

Professional
Discounting Laver (who would be 2nd)

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Agassi(can switch him and Mac)
9. Connors
10. Becker
Why is Nadal below Sampras with the same no. of slams but with a Career Slam?
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
What does Nadal need to do to go ahead in your opinion?
In my mind he'll never really be ahead. Never had the extended dominance of Pete. Yes injuries are to blame as his 08-09 peak was probably better than any Pete had but Pete won 2 majors 4 different times and he had to deal with injuries too as well as the tragic death of his coach.

On a list if Rafa wins 2 more majors(ideally 1 is non-RG) or wins 1 more at a hardcourt slam+a WTF that might be enough. It would still be close though.
 

shankster

Professional
It is worth pointing out that Nadal at #2 often ended up with more points than Pete had at #1. Much tougher to dominate when you have 2 other ATGs around. The weeks at #1 is slightly misleading IMO. Would rather look at the titles and Pete is clearly ahead in the WTF. But Nadal has an OG + Far more Masters + Career Slam. That makes up for it IMO. Another grand slam (even if clay) should put Nadal ahead IMO.
 

mika1979

Professional
WTF, weeks at #1, more polarized conditions, better at 4 of the 5 biggest events. Way better at 3 of them.
Any logic which has borg over sampras cannot have sampras over djokovic and nadal. To me this AO has shown clearly that Fed and Nadal are number 1 and 2, coming back from last year to play some unbelievable tennis. Djokovic has to be number three as he cracked both of them actually dominating them for a very significant part of his career. To me that is more impressive than anything Borg or Sampras have done
 

mika1979

Professional
Borg has nothing over pete to justify the 3 slam gap but the other two have plenty over him and Nadal is even and Novak is only two behind. In fact there is zero logic in having borg over rafa or novak. Especially after this AO where Rafa came back. Just like most of the 70s and 80s and 90s champions once headed by a new rival the give up. The big 3 are way way tougher than their tier two rivals most of these would win less than Murray had they been blessed with the baptism of fire that Nole and Andy were having Rafa and Roger ahead of them. Being 3 and 4 for like 5 years would have cracked them all
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Brad Gilbert is spot on, except I'd have Laver at No2 or 3. If Djokovic gets to 14 slams, Sampras moves down one more spot to No5.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Discounting Laver (who would be 2nd)

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Agassi(can switch him and Mac)
9. Connors
10. Becker

Borg quit at 25 and could have been 2 but I agree he is below Samp, Nadal and DJoker. STill Borg was the best player in the great era of mid 70s to early 80s
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Discounting Laver (who would be 2nd)

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Agassi(can switch him and Mac)
9. Connors
10. Becker

Borg quit at 25 and could have been 2 but I agree he is below Samp, Nadal and DJoker. STill Borg was the best player in the great era of mid 70s to early 80s
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."


I Think the 200's era of Federer, Nadal and Djoker is the best in history of the game and even greatly surpasses the mid 70s to Mid 80s of Borg, MAC, Lendl, Connors
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
In my mind he'll never really be ahead. Never had the extended dominance of Pete. Yes injuries are to blame as his 08-09 peak was probably better than any Pete had but Pete won 2 majors 4 different times and he had to deal with injuries too as well as the tragic death of his coach.

On a list if Rafa wins 2 more majors(ideally 1 is non-RG) or wins 1 more at a hardcourt slam+a WTF that might be enough. It would still be close though.

Dominant Sampras? You mean like this?
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Brad Gilbert is spot on, except I'd have Laver at No2 or 3. If Djokovic gets to 14 slams, Sampras moves down one more spot to No5.

Gilbert is always spot on and if you disagree he would argue with you for several hours until you gave up !!!
Gilbert would have been a superb attorney if tennis did not pan out. He is a master of words.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Borg has nothing over pete to justify the 3 slam gap but the other two have plenty over him and Nadal is even and Novak is only two behind. In fact there is zero logic in having borg over rafa or novak. Especially after this AO where Rafa came back. Just like most of the 70s and 80s and 90s champions once headed by a new rival the give up. The big 3 are way way tougher than their tier two rivals most of these would win less than Murray had they been blessed with the baptism of fire that Nole and Andy were having Rafa and Roger ahead of them. Being 3 and 4 for like 5 years would have cracked them all
It's obvious you don't have a knowledge of tennis during Borg's time. Not much use in going forward if the first thing you bring forth is 14>11.
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
With only 140 weeks at No1, Nadal simply can't be the second. There was never really the Nadal Era.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

I would rank Agassi below Connors, MAC and Lendl.

The top 6 look correct then I would put Connors, MAC, Lendl, Agassi.

I would put Laver in the pre-open era list.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
@metsman Come on man, Sampras had just turned 29 at USO '00 and he was Wimbledon champion! He may have not been peak, but still (end of) prime... you're making him sound like he was 35! Besides Safin was only 20, which is more commonly known here on TTW 'a baby', as a fellow Sampras fan 90's Clay loves to point out, Nadal and Djokovic at 20/21 were babies.
What was Sampras' H2H vs: one slam wonders Kajicek and Stich? or Hewitt and Safin? Sampras was in his peak years from 1996-(early)1999 the weakest era in history, with competition coming from the likes of Kafelnikov, Martin, Moya, Chang, Rafter, Pioline. If he was that dominant as you claim, he should have had 3 slam years in 1996/97/98 a la Fed 2004-07 and Djoker 2011/15.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
He's just ranking them according to slam numbers. I still believe Borg is better than Djokovic for example. Between Sampras and Nadal, I'd pick Sampras.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Not a bad list, but a list that takes ZERO imagination. Anyone could come up with this list by looking at the list of players with the most Slam wins. That's all it is, with a few judgment calls on players who are tied - but in every instance (Nadal over Sampras, Laver over Borg, Agassi over Lendl and Connors) he chose the player with the career Slam or at least a larger variety of Slams than the person with the same number below them. The ONLY interesting thing about it is that he included McEnroe at No. 8, even though he has one less Slam than Lendl and Connors.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list, but it's so by-the-book and easy to come by.

No he didn't. Re-read the OP. Gilbert picked the winner of the final as #1 before the match was played, expressing, among other things, how important he thought the match was.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Seems awfully difficult to place Laver in here. He should be in a separate category, imho. Given what they've achieved so far, I'd put Borg ahead of Novak. But I realize that Novak might still pick up a few...or even several majors. And I'd put Sampras and Nadal as equals. Nadal has benefited from the fact that all of the courts are slower now than they once were. It was harder to win all 4 back in the day.

Why is that? I have Laver at #2 in the open era based solely on his open era record.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
He's just ranking them according to slam numbers. I still believe Borg is better than Djokovic for example. Between Sampras and Nadal, I'd pick Sampras.

No he is not. It seems many posters are making the same mistake. Re-read the OP. Gilbert picked the winner of the final (Federer or Nadal), as #1 before the match was played, expressing, among other things, how important he thought the match was.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
No he is not. It seems many posters are making the same mistake. Re-read the OP. Gilbert picked the winner of the final (Federer or Nadal), as #1 before the match was played, expressing, among other things, how important he thought the match was.
Yeah that was bound to happen. Gilbert personally prefers Nadal but otherwise, he's not really giving a holistic opinion here.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Yeah that was bound to happen. Gilbert personally prefers Nadal but otherwise, he's not really giving a holistic opinion here.

Did you see his opinion and graphic? Cahill's? You don't know how "holistic," his opinion is because he didn't explain it. In my view, both of their opinions are easily defendable.
 

BillKid

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon and USO titles are more prestigious than FO titles?
Sounds very much like an American point of view. Ask a European what titles are most prestigious. Most of them will probably answer Wimbledon and Roland Garros! It is very subjective. Based on history the AO may be considered a little less than the other 3 . Remember that earlier in the open era not all players would go to Australia to play what was the last GS of the season. Off the top of my head, Borg never played the AO. If he did he woul likely have more slams but that is another story.
 

Nadal2013

Banned
At 10:20 of today's AO final pre-match commentary, Brad Gilbert shared his list of the top 10 players of the open era. In first and second place he put the winner and runner up of today's final which we now know are Federer and Nadal respectively. So, Brad Gilbert's ranking of the top 10 players greatest players of the open era are as follows:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Rod Laver
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Andre Agassi
8. John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors

PS: At 10:55, Darren Cahill said that he would put Laver in his top 3 of the "open era."

PPS: To be clear, Gilbert did not just count major titles. His #1 and #2 in the open era were based on the winner and runner up of this final, before the match was played. If Nadal had won, then he would have been Gilbert's #1 in the open era with fewer major titles than #2 Federer.
So if Nadal beats federer at French open? Is nadal top?
 
Top