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

[enqvisthaas]

But they matured differently. Djokovic was an entirely different animal from 2011. And he has won more slams than Nadal since then.

That is why I said on the other thread Nadal really fits about evently between Federer and Djokovic as far as prime/peaks, despite being 5 years from Federer and only 1 from Djokovic. Which has created a very difficult situation for him, especialy as far as spending alot of time at #1. Especialy compared to say Sampras who basically got a free ride, holding off people like Stich, Chang, Rafter, and Rios to keep #1 mainly.

 

[mike danny]

That's irrelevant. What you are saying is Djokovic was mentally weak before 2011. Federer started his career earlier than nadalovic so obviously will be ahead at the moment.

This whole debate can only be properly had circa 2022

Federer at Nadal's current age had more slams than him. The age advantage is irrelevant now. I'm just following your logic by the way and what you said applies to Nadal as well. Because once Djokovic became the animal he became, Nadal stopped winning with regularity.

 

[metsman]

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?

Federer and Djokovic sucked for most of 2010 (and Fed was 1-1 against Nadal that year). Fed was garbage in 2013. So that's a little misleading.

 

[greenstreet]

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

 

[greenstreet]

Federer and Djokovic sucked for most of 2010 (and Fed was 1-1 against Nadal that year). Fed was garbage in 2013. So that's a little misleading.

Nadal sucked on Sunday as he was spent

 

[captainbryce]

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.

I pretty much agree with his list, although a three way tie for 8th place is ridiculous. I think that while John McEnroe is certainly the most influential tennis player (personality wise) between the three of them, Jimmy Conners and Ivan Lendl accomplished more so I'd be between them. It's splitting hairs really as they both won 8 majors, both won close to the same number of overall titles (slight edge to Connors), and both were ranked #1 for close to the same number of weeks (slight edge to Lendl). I give the slightest edge to Connors due to the fact that he had a longer career. He turned pro 6 years before Lendl, and retired two years after him.

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Sampras
4) Djokovic
5) Laver
6) Borg
7) Agassi
8) Conners
9) Lendl
10) McEnroe

 

[Limpinhitter]

I pretty much agree with his list, although a three way tie for 8th place is ridiculous. I think that while John McEnroe is certainly the most influential tennis player (personality wise) between the three of them, Jimmy Conners and Ivan Lendl accomplished more so I'd be between them. It's splitting hairs really as they both won 8 majors, both won close to the same number of overall titles (slight edge to Connors), and both were ranked #1 for close to the same number of weeks (slight edge to Lendl). I give the slightest edge to Connors due to the fact that he had a longer career. He turned pro 6 years before Lendl, and retired two years after him.

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Sampras
4) Djokovic
5) Laver
6) Borg
7) Agassi
8) Conners
9) Lendl
10) McEnroe

That's a good list. Of course, how you rank all time greats depends on your criteria. It seems that most look only at titles and records. Some only look at major titles which is woefully insufficient when comparing players whose careers were, at least in part, before 1990. I give a lot of weight to peak level of play, in large part, because I've had the privilege of seeing so many great players play live. Having said that, in my view, McEnroe, who was ranked #1 for 4 straight years (81'-84'), played at a higher level in that time than Connors and Lendl ever played.

 

[enqvisthaas]

Nadal sucked on Sunday as he was spent

How does whether his play sucked on Sunday have to do with the all time ranking he deserves. Unless you think one bad final performance (and it wasnt that terrible since he nearly won) overshadows his whole career.

 

[metsman]

Nadal sucked on Sunday as he was spent

Federer sucked on Sunday cause he was 80 years old.

 

[greenstreet]

Federer sucked on Sunday cause he was 80 years old.

35 isn't he? Or 36?

 

[captainbryce]

That's a good list. Of course, how you rank all time greats depends on your criteria. It seems that most look only at titles and records. Some only look at major titles which is woefully insufficient when comparing players whose careers were, at least in part, before 1990. I give a lot of weight to peak level of play, in large part, because I've had the privilege of seeing so many great players play live. Having said that, in my view, McEnroe, who was ranked #1 for 4 straight years (81'-84'), played at a higher level in that time than Connors and Lendl ever played.

That's a good point. Generally I try to mix in the criteria when coming up with an all time greats list. I do naturally place more emphasis and value to major titles, overall titles, and weeks at number one. But I also like to factor in things like longevity, doubles prowess, style of play, and head to head against major rivals.

Admittedly, Connors has a losing head to head record against all of his rivals (McEnroe, Borg, Lendl), despite having the longest singles career. Lendl has a winning record against most of his rivals (Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander) and only one more loss than Edberg. But McEnroe did have the most dominant year ever, ended the year ranked number one 4 consecutive times, had the most unique and interesting playing style, and is the only one that has significant doubles results (winning majors and number one ranked). So perhaps McEnroe deserves the higher spot over Lendl and Connors after all.

 

[JMR]

Admittedly, Connors has a losing head to head record against all of his rivals (McEnroe, Borg, Lendl), despite having the longest singles career.

Because of (in part), not despite. Connors is four years older than Borg, six-and-a-half years older than McEnroe, and seven-and-a-half years older than Lendl. There's no way he could have ended up with winning records against fellow greats who were so much younger.

 

[enqvisthaas]

Because of (in part), not despite. Connors is four years older than Borg, six-and-a-half years older than McEnroe, and seven-and-a-half years older than Lendl. There's no way he could have ended up with winning records against fellow greats who were so much younger.

The only illegimate one is Lendl IMO. Connors was absolutely in his prime when Borg began owning and regularly beating him, and near his best when McEnroe did too.

 

[cknobman]

Cover of the next Time Magazine and Sports Illustrated:

 

[timnz]

That's a good list. Of course, how you rank all time greats depends on your criteria. It seems that most look only at titles and records. Some only look at major titles which is woefully insufficient when comparing players whose careers were, at least in part, before 1990. I give a lot of weight to peak level of play, in large part, because I've had the privilege of seeing so many great players play live. Having said that, in my view, McEnroe, who was ranked #1 for 4 straight years (81'-84'), played at a higher level in that time than Connors and Lendl ever played.

Its an interesting argument between assessing players based on overall career achievements vs their peak play. You can get quite a different order. Obviously McEnroe's peak 1984 was higher than Connors or Lendl reached. On the other hand Lendl dominated McEnroe until April of 1983 (entire 1981, 1982 season McEnroe only won 1 set from Lendl) and from late 1985 onwards. So how do you factor both those in?