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

Nadal2013

Banned
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
If Rafa wins another major this year then he is no.1 it would appear.

As if nadal wins the French open and federer doesn't make the final then according to Gilbert nadal is goat. That has to be the logic if it was all on that match!
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
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.

Historically, Wimbledon and the US national championships have always been more prestigious than the French or the Australian. It's not an American point of view. Initially the French national championships were only open to French Nationals. Further, many great players also skipped the French as well.
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
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.
Gilbert did nothing but rank by total slams, while taking advantage of the fact that it was his mythological "1 vs 2" to artificially hype the match and keep eyes on the screen. It's junk journalism of the shoddiest sort.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
I don't see how Lendl, Connors and McEnroe are below Agassi, Gilbert is obviously biased towards his pupil. These players, especially McEnroe and Lendl, had had such a dominant years compared to Andre and had been on top much longer than him.

Great Rod Laver shouldn't even be on the list, he won 5 Majors since the Open Era started and the CYGS doesn't compensate the lack of Majors he has compared to the other candidates.

Borg is too low as well.

I agree with the first four positions, although I would put Borg somewhere in between (2-4).
 

BillKid

Hall of Fame
Historically, Wimbledon and the US national championships have always been more prestigious than the French or the Australian. It's not an American point of view. Initially the French national championships were only open to French Nationals. Further, many great players also skipped the French as well.
Are you talking about the open era? When and which players did skip the French Open?
In my opinion one thing that makes the FO so special is that it is the only one on clay.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Are you talking about the open era? When and which players did skip the French Open?
In my opinion one thing that makes the FO so special is that it is the only one on clay.

No, I'm talking about the entire history of tennis. But, as examples, in the open era, after winning the Grand Slam, Rod Laver never played the French Open again. Jimmy Connors skipped the French Open for 5 straight years from 74' through 78'. In 74' Connors won the other 3 majors and might have won the Grand Slam if he had played the French. Bjorn Borg, arguably the greatest clay court player of all time, skipped the 77' French Open. Chris Evert, the consensus clay court GOAT and 7 time champion, skipped the French Open 3 straight years from 76' through 78'.

PS: There are some very knowledgeable tennis historians in the Former Pro Player Section. If you want more information/examples, you could post a thread there asking your questions. I'm sure you will get some informed responses.
 
Last edited:

bjk

Hall of Fame
Grass distorts and makes Fed and Pete look better. Tennis is already too serve heavy, grass just makes it worse. Laver over Pete.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
My personal list is

Djokovic
Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver
Lendl, Agassi
Connors, McEnroe
Becker,Edberg
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Grass distorts and makes Fed and Pete look better. Tennis is already too serve heavy, grass just makes it worse. Laver over Pete.

I disagree. The homogenization of the surfaces has converted the game into a one dimensional, backcourt, ball bashing fest. The elimination of the fast surfaces like grass, carpet, wood and cement, the slowing down of the grass at Wimbledon and the hard courts at most venues has all served to transform the entire tour into the equivalent of clay court specialists.

Tennis was invented on grass and, IMO, is intended to be played on natural surfaces like grass and clay. Are you aware that until 1975 the USTA was formerly the USLTA (United States Lawn Tennis Association), and that the ITF was the ILTF?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
In terms of success:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Laver
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. Connors
10. Mac
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Jimmy Connors skipped the French Open for 5 straight years from 74' through 78'. In 74' Connors won the other 3 majors and might have won the Grand Slam if he had played the French.

Strictly speaking, Connors was banned from the 1974 French Open because he played World Team Tennis. Your larger point is correct, however: many great players skipped Roland Garros occasionally in the 1970s.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Strictly speaking, Connors was banned from the 1974 French Open because he played World Team Tennis. Your larger point is correct, however: many great players skipped Roland Garros occasionally in the 1970s.

My understanding is that Connors elected to play WTT knowing that he would be banned from playing the FO. Do you think that he would have made the same decision if it meant being banned from Wimbledon or the USO?
 

OrangePower

Legend
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

Good list.
Each player must be viewed in the context of the times in which they played. But unfortunately this is complicated and so people tend to simplify and just look at raw numbers, which are really not an accurate measure given changing circumstances.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
My understanding is that Connors elected to play WTT knowing that he would be banned from playing the FO. Do you think that he would have made the same decision if it meant being banned from Wimbledon or the USO?

It's hard to say. Connors was somewhat rebellious and iconoclastic, while tennis itself was in a powerful state of flux. Money was becoming an enormous driver of player participation. It wasn't even clear that the slams would survive as the tent poles of the tour. Remember that the ATP boycotted Wimbledon in 1973, although Connors, being Connors, ignored the boycott because he wasn't an ATP member. But Connors deserted the AO for life after having played it twice, despite having earned a title and runner-up in his two trips. That strikes me as a very odd decision, unless counting dollars was the primary consideration. (He did threaten to play the AO again if necessary to stop Borg from completing the CYGS, but it was never necessary.)
 

BillKid

Hall of Fame
Strictly speaking, Connors was banned from the 1974 French Open because he played World Team Tennis. Your larger point is correct, however: many great players skipped Roland Garros occasionally in the 1970s.
Borg was also banned from the 1977 French Open because he played World Team Tennis. Chris Evert and other players including Mc Enroe, Goolagong and Billie Jean King also participated to the WTT. I don't know if Chris Evert was banned from the FO for this reason or if there were other reasons underlying her absence at the FO. That said, she participated to many FO editions while she missed most of AO.
I acknowledge @limphitter for raising an interesting point but as far as I know top players played the FO most of the time in the 70s, which was not the case for the AO. Would still be interested to know the exact participation rate of the top 5 or 10 players at every slam during this period.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Would still be interested to know the exact participation rate of the top 5 or 10 players at every slam during this period.

Since almost all the top players in the open era have Wikipedia entries that include handy slam results charts, it should be possible to conduct that research without too much trouble.
 

BillKid

Hall of Fame
Since almost all the top players in the open era have Wikipedia entries that include handy slam results charts, it should be possible to conduct that research without too much trouble.
Sure...But I'm a bit too lazy and busy to check this now!
I'look it up when I have more time.
 
Last edited:

db379

Hall of Fame
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

True. Borg had an amazing career, even if very short since he retired at 25, while most guys today still play well past 30! I think Borg has to be in the top 5 of any serious GOAT discussion. Based on his actual record (11 slams) he cannot be #1 or #2 for sure, but based on potential he could have surpassed even Fed if he had played 4-5 more years AND if he had played AO and USOpen like other players. So, since he played almost only FO and Wimbledon and has a fantastic record there, it is safe to say he would have won many more slams.

If one looks at the record per slams played, Borg has to be up there with one of the best if not the best winning record ever.
 

db379

Hall of Fame
My top 10 of all time:

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

(and in my extended list, Pat is at 358... :) )
 

thrust

Legend
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
Good list, but I would place Sampras over Borg. Laver won 5 slams in the open era, so as great as he was, he really should not be in the top 10
 

4-string

Professional
My personal list is

Djokovic
Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver
Lendl, Agassi
Connors, McEnroe
Becker,Edberg

b91cd85c7928a93d05fdc321657c0657.jpg
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Good list, but I would place Sampras over Borg. Laver won 5 slams in the open era, so as great as he was, he really should not be in the top 10

Agree
I have laver as number 1 in my pre open era list which I will publish but it seems i always change it
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Federer, Borg, Sampras. End of tier.

You don't get to be in the GOAT conversation if you didn't dominate your era.
Nadal was dominant in 2008, 2010 and 2013 over Federer and Djokovic all 3 seasons. Sampras was dominant in 1993-1997 over Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, old washed up Becker, Courier, Moya and Chang. Which resume looks better?
 

Limpinhitter

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

Good point. I think Gilbert may be giving Nadal too much credit for his H2H record against Federer, which is remarkable, but, not enough to overcome the dominant records of a few others.
 

Unforgiven79

Semi-Pro
If Nadal had won, then he would have been Gilbert's #1 in the open era with fewer major titles than #2 Federer.

I cannot really see the logics here.
Despite all the hype around this final, which was well justified, how could one match into their respective late careers change the bottom line outcome?
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I cannot really see the logics here.
Despite all the hype around this final, which was well justified, how could one match into their respective late careers change the bottom line outcome?

The only thing I can think of is that Gilbert gave enough weight to Nadal's big H2H lead over Federer that he considered them tied before the match.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
And general hyperbole nonpareil. Hype it as the biggest legacy match possible when it's just one match and either man may yet reach more Slam finals.
 

Unforgiven79

Semi-Pro
The only thing I can think of is that Gilbert gave enough weight to Nadal's big H2H lead over Federer that he considered them tied before the match.
Yes, makes sense.
Therefore, Roger himself crushed this vision of Gilbert by claiming "he would have accepted it to be a draw" in front of the world [emoji12]

Inviato dal mio Moto G (4) utilizzando Tapatalk
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My list would be.

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Agassi
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Becker
10. Edberg

Laver for me was a totally different era and hard to compare . Lendl didn't win the most important and prestigious major so I feel can't be in such an illustrious list.

Federer at third is because 13 of his 18 majors were before nadal and Djokovic matured and hit their peak. Federer has always had a great game as we saw on Sunday. He rarely loses to players other than nadal and Djokovic throughout his career.

But from 2008 onwards, so almost a decade he trails both in respect of majors won by some distance. It could be argued that nadal and Djokovic moved the game on much like federer did himself in the noughties.

Agassi has to be high up as he got a golden career slam . Only two players have ever achieved it I think so it's a pretty big deal .

McEnroe must have nightmares about 1984. Had he won that French open he may well have been top of whole pile given back then the channel slam was a lot harder than it is today
Sorry I disagree with your ranking. Djokovic is first because Nadal won 9 of his 14 majors before Djokovic matured. Since 2011, Nadal is so far behind Djokovic in terms of majors won, that you have to put him second behind Djokovic.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
This type of comparison is silly when the age difference between players is five or six years. It's unfortunate that this continually needs to be pointed out in a tennis forum.
He's likely Nadal2013 who just got banned a few days ago and now is back spewing nonsense.
 

Unforgiven79

Semi-Pro
Sorry I disagree with your ranking. Djokovic is first because Nadal won 9 of his 14 majors before Djokovic matured. Since 2011, Nadal is so far behind Djokovic in terms of majors won, that you have to put him second behind Djokovic.
Roger has won 17 of his 18 majors before Wawrinka matured. Since 2014, Wawrinka has won three times as many majors as Federer. Consequently, Wawrinka is better than Federer.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The only thing I can think of is that Gilbert gave enough weight to Nadal's big H2H lead over Federer that he considered them tied before the match.
And that's why no one takes Gilbert seriously, except maybe you and Cahill. A better h2h doesn't makeup for the difference in 3 slams differences, 6 WTF, 160 weeks at #1, 2 YE #1.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
My list would be.

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Agassi
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Becker
10. Edberg

Laver for me was a totally different era and hard to compare . Lendl didn't win the most important and prestigious major so I feel can't be in such an illustrious list.

Federer at third is because 13 of his 18 majors were before nadal and Djokovic matured and hit their peak. Federer has always had a great game as we saw on Sunday. He rarely loses to players other than nadal and Djokovic throughout his career.

But from 2008 onwards, so almost a decade he trails both in respect of majors won by some distance. It could be argued that nadal and Djokovic moved the game on much like federer did himself in the noughties.

Agassi has to be high up as he got a golden career slam . Only two players have ever achieved it I think so it's a pretty big deal .

McEnroe must have nightmares about 1984. Had he won that French open he may well have been top of whole pile given back then the channel slam was a lot harder than it is today
Djokovic should be 1st if we use your logic that put Fed in 3rd, because Nadal won a lot less since the year Djokovic matured.

giphy.gif

But it's not just about a new all time great stepping up and dethroning the previous one. Players' slumps and permanent declines also play a factor in them not winning Majors at a consistent basis anymore. Not that I think Federer's was the main thing that contributed to Nadalovic's success, those two have done a good job against him (and were good for the sport, imagine what would Fed have done without those two) and they would have been very successful in any period.

What we saw on Sunday is so much more than Fed having a great game. It was the confirmation of the Open Era greatest because of the manner in which he won over his toughest opponent. I'll leave it to the ones who know stuff about Laver to continue the debate about who is the greatest ever, but there should be absolutely no doubt that Federer is the Open Era #1.
 

enqvisthaas

New User
Federer, Borg, Sampras. End of tier.

You don't get to be in the GOAT conversation if you didn't dominate your era.

Djokovic was definitely overall the dominant player of 2011-2016. He definitely had more of an era than Borg who was only Year End #1 in 1979 and 1980 technically speaking, even if most give him 1978 too, and who spent less time at #1 than Connors even with the controversial ranking system.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Federer, Borg, Sampras. End of tier.

You don't get to be in the GOAT conversation if you didn't dominate your era.

This thread isn't titled "GOAT conversation" nor is titled "Tier 1 Players".

It is about Brad Gilbert's list titled "Top 10 Men of the Open Era"

That would include 10 players, not 3.

Can't you read?
 

enqvisthaas

New User
Nadal was dominant in 2008, 2010 and 2013 over Federer and Djokovic all 3 seasons. Sampras was dominant in 1993-1997 over Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic, old washed up Becker, Courier, Moya and Chang. Which resume looks better?

Good way of putting it. I will take the former. In fairness to Sampras, Agassi was real tough competition in 95, but that is it. He faced more surface specialist threats on carpet, grass, and clay than exist today or than Fed, Rafa, Djokovic face, but as for overall competition or for the #1 ranking over an entire year no.

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

Just a reminder though Borg had even less time at #1 than Nadal. Even going by unofficial subjective rankings they are the same- 3 years for each.
 
Last edited:
Top