Break the all time greats into 3 separate Tiers

[dgold44]

This is not a post of who is best or better ( we have had many of those). Just wanted to break the best from 1950's to 2015 in 3 Tiers of greatness. No rankings among the Tiers to make it simple

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Goz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal

Tier-2

Connors, Lendl, Mac, Newcombe, Agassi, Djokovic, Emerson

Tier- 3

Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Smith, Ash, Nastasia, Courier,


Ok just seeing who I need to flip flop or add or subtract. I am sure I missing some obvious ones.
Thank you.

ITs these posts that really help me learn the most about the old time greats.

 

[Enga]

I havent done this sort of thing before, so I probably will miss a lot of players and have less thought on the subject than others, but here it goes:

Tier 1- Sampras, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Borg, McEnroe(I think a lot would disagree with me on that one but I find him to be a well rounded singles and doubles player, and a god on court) I would put more here if I knew more about and seen more footage of older players
Tier 2- Connors, Djokovic, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, Wilander, Courier, Agassi
Tier 3- Muster, Wawrinka, Roddick, Del Potro, Safin, Hewitt, Chang, Gilbert

Well, theres a lot I'm missing, if I didnt put em up I havent watched enough footage to comment properly or I just forgot..

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

This is not a post of who is best or better ( we have had many of those). Just wanted to break the best from 1950's to 2015 in 3 Tiers of greatness. No rankings among the Tiers to make it simple

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Goz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal

Tier-2

Connors, Lendl, Mac, Newcombe, Agassi, Djokovic, Emerson

Tier- 3

Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Smith, Ash, Nastasia, Courier,


Ok just seeing who I need to flip flop or add or subtract. I am sure I missing some obvious ones.
Thank you.

ITs these posts that really help me learn the most about the old time greats.

Emerson at best is tier 3,his slams are preopen era. Courier don't belong to tier 3 , Vilas is better than Jim and I don't consider Vilas for tier 3
You can add Hodd in tier 2 and demote JMac in tier 3. After 84 he never won anything .
Now time for controversial thoughts- Rosewall belongs to tier 2 .Rosewall was same to Laver as Agassi was to Sampras, but I can be wrong ,I am going by what I have read opinions ,stated by different sports journalist and his peers.
Now time for some biasedness - Novak should be in tier 1 as how many person do you know have 10slam +5tour finals win + 18 slam final appearance + many more important titles and 4year end and 180+ weeks as number 1.

 

[NatF]

In order...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates, each a significant step above anyone in tier 2)

Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2 (the first 4 are interchangeable IMO, Tilden is arguably Tier 1 but I doubt the competitiveness of his era)

Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Tilden

Tier 3 (Best of the rest, guys with very high levels of play but lacking the achievements to be higher)

Kramer, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Vines

 

[hoodjem]

In order...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates, each a significant step above anyone in tier 2)

Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2 (the first 4 are interchangeable IMO, Tilden is arguably Tier 1 but I doubt the competitiveness of his era)

Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Tilden

Tier 3 (Best of the rest, guys with very high levels of play but lacking the achievements to be higher)

Kramer, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Vines

NF,

Nice list. Mine would be very similar. I would probably put Tilden in Tier 1, but I understand your doubt.

 

[BobbyOne]

This is not a post of who is best or better ( we have had many of those). Just wanted to break the best from 1950's to 2015 in 3 Tiers of greatness. No rankings among the Tiers to make it simple

Tier- 1

Laver, Pancho Goz, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal

Tier-2

Connors, Lendl, Mac, Newcombe, Agassi, Djokovic, Emerson

Tier- 3

Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Smith, Ash, Nastasia, Courier,


Ok just seeing who I need to flip flop or add or subtract. I am sure I missing some obvious ones.
Thank you.

ITs these posts that really help me learn the most about the old time greats.

dgold44, Good idea to make such tier lists.

I agree with your tier 1 players totally.

I can "live" with the other two groups with one exception: Emerson does not belong to tier 2 and also not to tier 3. You have listed 21 players, and all of them were No.1 of the world for several years. Only Emerson was never No.1 or No.2 or No.3. In his best year, 1964, he could have been No. 4 or 5 at the most.

Please write "Ashe". But who is Nastasia? A female player among the male players?.

I would add to your list Hoad (tier 2), Sedgman (tier 2 or 3), Segura (tier 2 or 3), Trabert (tier 3 or "4"), Gimeno (tier 3) and Vilas (tier 3).

 

[BobbyOne]

Emerson at best is tier 3,his slams are preopen era. Courier don't belong to tier 3 , Vilas is better than Jim and I don't consider Vilas for tier 3
You can add Hodd in tier 2 and demote JMac in tier 3. After 84 he never won anything .
Now time for controversial thoughts- Rosewall belongs to tier 2 .Rosewall was same to Laver as Agassi was to Sampras, but I can be wrong ,I am going by what I have read opinions ,stated by different sports journalist and his peers.
Now time for some biasedness - Novak should be in tier 1 as how many person do you know have 10slam +5tour finals win + 18 slam final appearance + many more important titles and 4year end and 180+ weeks as number 1.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Players from 1950-2015 in tiers (listed chronologically):

Tier 1: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal
Tier 2: Kramer, Hoad, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Djokovic
Tier 3: Sedgman, Trabert, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

 

[Phoenix1983]

In order...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates, each a significant step above anyone in tier 2)

Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2 (the first 4 are interchangeable IMO, Tilden is arguably Tier 1 but I doubt the competitiveness of his era)

Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Tilden

Tier 3 (Best of the rest, guys with very high levels of play but lacking the achievements to be higher)

Kramer, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Vines

Gonzales isn't a tier above Sampras, sorry. He was basically the pre-Open Era version of Sampras. Everything else is acceptable.

Edit: which means not to say that Sampras should be in your Tier 1, but that Gonzales should be moved down to your Tier 2, IMHO. Laver and Federer should be alone at the top.

 

[BobbyOne]

Emerson at best is tier 3,his slams are preopen era. Courier don't belong to tier 3 , Vilas is better than Jim and I don't consider Vilas for tier 3
You can add Hodd in tier 2 and demote JMac in tier 3. After 84 he never won anything .
Now time for controversial thoughts- Rosewall belongs to tier 2 .Rosewall was same to Laver as Agassi was to Sampras, but I can be wrong ,I am going by what I have read opinions ,stated by different sports journalist and his peers.
Now time for some biasedness - Novak should be in tier 1 as how many person do you know have 10slam +5tour finals win + 18 slam final appearance + many more important titles and 4year end and 180+ weeks as number 1.

Sorry I made again a mess with the posts I had begun.

Hi Navdeep, Welcome to the club!

Thanks about your words about Emerson and Hoad.

I don't think that Rosewall was the same to Laver as Agassi was to Sampras. In fact Rosewall leads 23:19 (or 23:20, if we include Wimbledon Pro 1967) against Laver in majors, or 19:13 (19:14 including W. 1967) if we omit the amateur majors. Furthermore "Muscles" has a 10:7 (or 10:8; W.'67)) hth against "Rocket" at majors. Plus Rosewall has achieved a Pro Grand Slam (1963) and three "Channel Slams" (1960 to 1962) and he keeps several all-time records such as winning nine majors in a row (where he participated), winning majors at 18 and at 37, and so on. Bud Collins once rated him among his four GOAT candidates (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver).

 

[Phoenix1983]

dgold44, Good idea to make such tier lists.

I agree with your tier 1 players totally.

I can "live" with the other two groups with one exception: Emerson does not belong to tier 2 and also not to tier 3. You have listed 21 players, and all of them were No.1 of the world for several years. Only Emerson was never No.1 or No.2 or No.3. In his best year, 1964, he could have been No. 4 or 5 at the most.

Bobby, I agree on this point. Emerson is probably tier 4 along with players like Vilas and Courier.

 

[Phoenix1983]

dgold44, Good idea to make such tier lists.

I agree with your tier 1 players totally.

I can "live" with the other two groups with one exception: Emerson does not belong to tier 2 and also not to tier 3. You have listed 21 players, and all of them were No.1 of the world for several years. Only Emerson was never No.1 or No.2 or No.3. In his best year, 1964, he could have been No. 4 or 5 at the most.

double post. deleted.

 

[BobbyOne]

In order...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates, each a significant step above anyone in tier 2)

Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2 (the first 4 are interchangeable IMO, Tilden is arguably Tier 1 but I doubt the competitiveness of his era)

Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Tilden

Tier 3 (Best of the rest, guys with very high levels of play but lacking the achievements to be higher)

Kramer, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Vines

NatF, good lists but I will never understand why Laver, Gonzalez and Federer are significantly ahead of Tilden and Rosewall. By the way, these five are my top five.

 

[BobbyOne]

Players from 1950-2015 in tiers (listed chronologically):

Tier 1: Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal
Tier 2: Kramer, Hoad, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Djokovic
Tier 3: Sedgman, Trabert, Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

Phoenix, Excellent lists.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Sorry I made again a mess with the posts I had begun.

Hi Navdeep, Welcome to the club!

Thanks about your words about Emerson and Hoad.

I don't think that Rosewall was the same to Laver as Agassi was to Sampras. In fact Rosewall leads 23:19 (or 23:20, if we include Wimbledon Pro 1967) against Laver in majors, or 19:13 (19:14 including W. 1967) if we omit the amateur majors. Furthermore "Muscles" has a 10:7 (or 10:8; W.'67)) hth against "Rocket" at majors. Plus Rosewall has achieved a Pro Grand Slam (1963) and three "Channel Slams" (1960 to 1962) and he keeps several all-time records such as winning nine majors in a row (where he participated), winning majors at 18 and at 37, and so on. Bud Collins once rated him among his four GOAT candidates (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver).

Thanks for the information mate, but why then some if not most Rosewall lower and some even out of top 5 or 10.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, I agree on this point. Emerson is probably tier 4 along with players like Vilas and Courier.

Phoenix, Thanks, and even those two were No.1 of the world (Vilas tied with Borg and maybe Connors in 1977) while Emmo never was.

 

[BobbyOne]

Thanks for the information mate, but why then some if not most Rosewall lower and some even out of top 5 or 10.

Navdeep, Maybe because the Little Master was very small (and still is) and people often prefer the giants like Tilden, Gonzalez, Smith and Isner...

To be more serious, even experts can err sometimes. Bud Collins (a close friend of Laver's) is a very reasonable expert imo.

Experts also never gave credit to players like Karel Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Segura and Gimeno, all of them true all-time greats. They ignored them almost totally.

 

[BobbyOne]

Thanks for the information mate, but why then some if not most Rosewall lower and some even out of top 5 or 10.

Navdeep, Maybe because the Little Master was very small (and still is) and people often prefer the giants like Tilden, Gonzalez, Smith and Isner...

To be more serious, even experts can err sometimes. Bud Collins (a close friend of Laver's) is a very reasonable expert imo.

Experts also never gave credit to players like Karel Kozeluh, Nüsslein, Segura and Gimeno, all of them true all-time greats. They ignored them almost totally.

Sorry for this double. I prefer better doubles, f.i. Newcombe-Roche...

 

[NatF]

Gonzales isn't a tier above Sampras, sorry. He was basically the pre-Open Era version of Sampras. Everything else is acceptable.

Edit: which means not to say that Sampras should be in your Tier 1, but that Gonzales should be moved down to your Tier 2, IMHO. Laver and Federer should be alone at the top.

Gonzalez was better than Sampras, he was #1 for longer and was just greater in his era than Sampras was in his IMO. I take tournament totals with a pinch of salt usually but Sampras has quite modest numbers outside of the slams and time at #1. He's far below Federer for consistency, titles, longevity etc...and I think Gonzalez is arguably the greatest of that 50-60's era. No one immediately after Gonzalez surpassed him to the extent that Federer did Sampras.

NatF, good lists but I will never understand why Laver, Gonzalez and Federer are significantly ahead of Tilden and Rosewall. By the way, these five are my top five.

If you will never understand is there a point in discussing it?

The 1920's just can't be equated to the more inclusive era's that came later IMO. So as great as Tilden's numbers are I find it hard to rate him higher. My rankings tend to be in flux. As for Rosewall, I'm not sure if we should go there

I just feel Rosewall was the third greatest of his era, so I think he needs to be below Laver and Gonzalez + Federer who is the best player since the inception of the Open Era.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Gonzalez was better than Sampras, he was #1 for longer and was just greater in his era than Sampras was in his IMO. I take tournament totals with a pinch of salt usually but Sampras has quite modest numbers outside of the slams and time at #1. He's far below Federer for consistency, titles, longevity etc...and I think Gonzalez is arguably the greatest of that 50-60's era. No one immediately after Gonzalez surpassed him to the extent that Federer did Sampras.

Yes, he was No 1 for a bit longer (although they both had two of the longest runs as No 1 ever).

I don't think Sampras is "far" below Federer actually. Their No 1 stats are not that dissimilar, and Fed has three more major titles - but the most important one by far was winning the FO in 2009. Take that out of the question and he'd have a 16>14 advantage with similar No 1 stats and a 6>5 advantage at the YEC. Plus being dominated by his greatest rival as Sampras never was. What puts Fed clearly above Sampras is his conquering of clay.

I think Laver surpassed Gonzales though. Yes Gonzales may again have slightly longer at No 1, but Laver was far superior on clay and obviously completed clean sweeps of the major trophies on all tours where he played (1962, 1967, 1969). Also as you mention total tournament totals, Laver won far more than Gonzales.

Thus I think we can say Laver > Gonzales is roughly equivalent to Federer > Sampras.

Anyway I'm not saying that you can't rank Gonzales ahead of Sampras, just that he can't really be put in a higher tier than him...

 

[70sHollywood]

1950-present

Tier 1: Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer
Tier 2: Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, McEnroe, Nadal, Djokovic
Tier 3: Connors, Lendl, Agassi

 

[Phoenix1983]

1950-present

Tier 1: Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer
Tier 2: Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, McEnroe, Nadal, Djokovic
Tier 3: Connors, Lendl, Agassi

Why is McEnroe a tier higher than Connors and Lendl?

 

[NatF]

Yes, he was No 1 for a bit longer (although they both had two of the longest runs as No 1 ever).

I don't think Sampras is "far" below Federer actually. Their No 1 stats are not that dissimilar, and Fed has three more major titles - but the most important one by far was winning the FO in 2009. Take that out of the question and he'd have a 16>14 advantage with similar No 1 stats and a 6>5 advantage at the YEC. Plus being dominated by his greatest rival as Sampras never was. What puts Fed clearly above Sampras is his conquering of clay.

I think Laver surpassed Gonzales though. Yes Gonzales may again have slightly longer at No 1, but Laver was far superior on clay and obviously completed clean sweeps of the major trophies on all tours where he played (1962, 1967, 1969). Also as you mention total tournament totals, Laver won far more than Gonzales.

Thus I think we can say Laver > Gonzales is roughly equivalent to Federer > Sampras.

Anyway I'm not saying that you can't rank Gonzales ahead of Sampras, just that he can't really be put in a higher tier than him...

Sampras is well below Federer at this point. Their stats at #1 are similar but Federer has him smashed in terms of overall time as a top player, consistency, longevity, number of titles won, number of big titles won (Masters etc...) and overall consistency. Taking the FO out of the equation? Makes no sense. Even without it Federer's record on clay is far above Sampras'. Sampras was never dominated by his greatest rival no...but then again his rival was Agassi who's his own age, was MIA for years at a time and is well below Djokovic in the greatness stakes let alone Nadal.

Federer is far a head of Sampras.

Gonzalez was #1 for longer and had far better longevity. I don't compare tournament totals on a 1:1 basis but Sampras' total is small for an all time great and it is significant. Gonzalez hung around long enough to beat Laver several times even in 1964. I think he was probably the better player peak for peak. Winning the World Series was more important for Gonzalez, he invested in that more than the majors (I italicise that because I doubt their overall value compared to other potentially big titles in that era).

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sampras is well below Federer at this point. Their stats at #1 are similar but Federer has him smashed in terms of overall time as a top player, consistency, longevity, number of titles won, number of big titles won (Masters etc...) and overall consistency. Taking the FO out of the equation? Makes no sense. Even without it Federer's record on clay is far above Sampras'. Sampras was never dominated by his greatest rival no...but then again his rival was Agassi who's his own age, was MIA for years at a time and is well below Djokovic in the greatness stakes let alone Nadal.

Federer is far a head of Sampras.

You've repeated yourself a few times here with "longevity" and "consistency". In terms of longevity as a top player, Federer hasn't outdone Sampras by much. Sampras won slams over a 12-year period (1990-2002), whereas Federer has been ranked in the top ten for thirteen years (2002-2015). Consistency, yes Federer has been greater (arguably greater than anyone ever, or certainly in the Open Era), but this has been aided somewhat by the homogenisation of conditions in this generation - as we can see by Djokovic approaching Federer's consistency records and being ahead of everyone else on this metric.

I don't really consider Masters to be big titles, sorry.

Yes Federer is greater on clay than Sampras, but he wouldn't have a major advantage over him there were it not for his FO title. Much as Djokovic doesn't have a major advantage over Sampras on clay at this point (IMHO). Please recall Sampras' victories at Rome in 1994 and in the deciding Davis Cup match vs. Russia in 1995.

Agassi was MIA for years at a time partially due to Sampras' complete psychological domination of him, most notably demonstrated in, and after, the 1995 US Open final. Thus Sampras had a hold over his greatest rival which Federer could never achieve (yes I know that Nadal > Agassi, but the latter's supposed 'weakness' was partially caused by the lack of confidence from losing to Sampras in major matches constantly!)

Federer is ahead of Sampras but not "far" ahead. No one in tennis history is "far" ahead of Sampras.

Gonzalez was #1 for longer and had far better longevity. I don't compare tournament totals on a 1:1 basis but Sampras' total is small for an all time great and it is significant. Gonzalez hung around long enough to beat Laver several times even in 1964. I think he was probably the better player peak for peak. Winning the World Series was more important for Gonzalez, he invested in that more than the majors (I italicise that because I doubt their overall value compared to other potentially big titles in that era).

Understood about the prioritisation of the H2H tour in the pro game and the difficulty of comparing Open Era slams to professional majors. I believe however than Gonzales and Sampras were comparable in terms of their domination of their eras and greatest rivals. Yes, Gonzales gets a plus point for longevity. Laver clearly showed himself to be more versatile than Pancho though, I hope you wouldn't dispute that.

 

[mike danny]

Well it goes like this IMO:

Tier 1: Anybody who managed to win double digits number of majors: Laver,Borg, Sampras,Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Tier 2: Anybody who won from 6 to 9 majors: Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors,Lendl, Agassi

Tier 3: Anybody below 6 majors (even guys with 1 slam, as long as they reached plenty of other slam finals on more than 1 surface and was ranked no.1): Courier, Vilas, Kuerten, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Murray, Wawrinka.

 

[dgold44]

My revised updated list !!!!! First updated.

Tier-1 Pancho, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Federer and DJokovic, Borg

Tier- 2- Lendl, Connors, Mac, Agassi,

Tier-3- Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Trabert, Hoad

That sounds better !!!

Sorry Kramer was in the 40's
I probably should of made this list from 1960 not 1950.
Sampras is 100 percent in Tier 1. Djokovic is Tier 2 but you know he will win many more slams. Good guess.

 

[dgold44]

Hoad was super talented but I Think only won like 5 major ones and lost far more than he won. He was injured a lot and lost a lot in finals.
Seguara won about 4 majors I think and lost many Wimbledon finals and also never won French. He was best for his US open run of 3 in a row.
Trabert won something like 7 majors but I put him in Tier 3 because that is what most people did. His finals record is outstanding.

Yes I should add Segman to Tier 3 !! ooppps.. Forgot. He seemed to win everything !!!

 

[dgold44]

Just curious at the pro events ( US pro, Wimbley pro) dont you count those as regular Grand Slams. Also how big were those events in terms of draws and I assume it was best out of 5.
I would count the pro events as slams ??
Pancho won like 8 US open pros.

 

[NatF]

You've repeated yourself a few times here with "longevity" and "consistency". In terms of longevity as a top player, Federer hasn't outdone Sampras by much. Sampras won slams over a 12-year period (1990-2002), whereas Federer has been ranked in the top ten for thirteen years (2002-2015). Consistency, yes Federer has been greater (arguably greater than anyone ever, or certainly in the Open Era), but this has been aided somewhat by the homogenisation of conditions in this generation - as we can see by Djokovic approaching Federer's consistency records and being ahead of everyone else on this metric.

Well I see longevity in two ways, longevity as a top player e.g. time spent not just at number 1 but as a top 2-3 player and longevity in general is simply hanging around for a while without going years without winning a title. Federer has clearly outdone Sampras, who won a slam young but didn't reach the summit until 1993, he retired outside the top 10 just 9 years later. Being a top player isn't necessarily just winning slams. Sampras was hardly a threat for slams in 1991 for example. Consistency speaks for itself. Federer streaks and stats are just much more impressive.

I don't really consider Masters to be big titles, sorry.

They're not the biggest but they're certainly big. The issue is that it fits with the overall pattern of Sampras e.g. his lack of total domination. Sampras won 68 titles (I include the Grand Slam Cup), 14 of them were slams, he won 5 YEC as well + the 2 GS Cup's. Those are the really big titles - in that respect he's clearly above players like Nadal. Compared to his peers he won far less of the secondary titles which is a blemish in terms of his dominance, he didn't win as much as a guy like Federer all year round, you can say homogenization but I'm not sure what impact that had on Federer, courts were quicker than today in the midd 00's. What is important is that Agassi won significantly more than him and so did Lendl - and both played before the M1000 became mandatory.

Yes Federer is greater on clay than Sampras, but he wouldn't have a major advantage over him there were it not for his FO title. Much as Djokovic doesn't have a major advantage over Sampras on clay at this point (IMHO). Please recall Sampras' victories at Rome in 1994 and in the deciding Davis Cup match vs. Russia in 1995.

You are of course joking here. Yes Sampras' great victory at Rome over clay court legend Becker makes up for Federovic's expansive resumes on clay

Federer and Djokovic's resume on clay ****s on Sampras' from a very great height - see their many clay court masters and record at the FO.

Agassi was MIA for years at a time partially due to Sampras' complete psychological domination of him, most notably demonstrated in, and after, the 1995 US Open final. Thus Sampras had a hold over his greatest rival which Federer could never achieve (yes I know that Nadal > Agassi, but the latter's supposed 'weakness' was partially caused by the lack of confidence from losing to Sampras in major matches constantly!)

That speaks badly of Agassi then. Making excuses for rivals is a new one. Agassi was only a serious rival for Sampras for an entire year in 1995 and then 1999. Sampras is surely glad he had Agassi as a rival instead of having Nadal and Djokovic emerge in 1995-1998 and onwards.

The fact is Agassi wasn't there. Yes Federer failed in most big matches against Nadal, that's why I don't think he's the GOAT. But at least he had a consistent rival who was #2 for years at a time. Even in 1994 where Agassi ended the year ranked #2 he didn't meet Sampras in a slam.

Federer is ahead of Sampras but not "far" ahead. No one in tennis history is "far" ahead of Sampras.

Federer was a head of Sampras years ago, since then he's added to his resume. So yeah he's far a head of him. Unless you don't think 3 slams, a YEC, 20 titles, better consistency and dominance etc...are enough to make a big gap.

Understood about the prioritisation of the H2H tour in the pro game and the difficulty of comparing Open Era slams to professional majors. I believe however than Gonzales and Sampras were comparable in terms of their domination of their eras and greatest rivals. Yes, Gonzales gets a plus point for longevity. Laver clearly showed himself to be more versatile than Pancho though, I hope you wouldn't dispute that.

Laver was more versatile for sure. But Pancho's top game is better IMO.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Well I see longevity in two ways, longevity as a top player e.g. time spent not just at number 1 but as a top 2-3 player and longevity in general is simply hanging around for a while without going years without winning a title. Federer has clearly outdone Sampras, who won a slam young but didn't reach the summit until 1993, he retired outside the top 10 just 9 years later. Being a top player isn't necessarily just winning slams. Sampras was hardly a threat for slams in 1991 for example. Consistency speaks for itself. Federer streaks and stats are just much more impressive.

Hmm, still not convinced that Federer is "much" more impressive (Sampras had 12 straight years in the top 10 from 1990-2001, then won a slam the next year; Federer has 14 straight years in the top 10). Yes of course, Federer is playing better at a late age than Sampras.

They're not the biggest but they're certainly big. The issue is that it fits with the overall pattern of Sampras e.g. his lack of total domination. Sampras won 68 titles (I include the Grand Slam Cup), 14 of them were slams, he won 5 YEC as well + the 2 GS Cup's. Those are the really big titles - in that respect he's clearly above players like Nadal. Compared to his peers he won far less of the secondary titles which is a blemish in terms of his dominance, he didn't win as much as a guy like Federer all year round, you can say homogenization but I'm not sure what impact that had on Federer, courts were quicker than today in the midd 00's. What is important is that Agassi won significantly more than him and so did Lendl - and both played before the M1000 became mandatory.

I don't understand why winning loads of secondary tournaments is particularly important though? I'm sure that Agassi and Lendl would swap a lot of their victories in such tournaments for the really big prizes.

You are of course joking here. Yes Sampras' great victory at Rome over clay court legend Becker makes up for Federovic's expansive resumes on clay

Federer and Djokovic's resume on clay ****s on Sampras' from a very great height - see their many clay court masters and record at the FO.

Federer's clay record of course surpasses Sampras's. Yes, Djokovic's clay record is better, but given that he hasn't won a clay major, it really isn't that much of a major factor in his favour.

That speaks badly of Agassi then. Making excuses for rivals is a new one. Agassi was only a serious rival for Sampras for an entire year in 1995 and then 1999. Sampras is surely glad he had Agassi as a rival instead of having Nadal and Djokovic emerge in 1995-1998 and onwards.

We can't say for sure, but I think Sampras would have dominated Djokovic psychologically as well. Djokovic had a losing record in slam finals until recently, and was going the way of a Connors/Lendl level career (not a bad thing of course, but not Tier 1 status). I truly think that he's been helped by the pathetic current younger generation to reach double-digit slams, and potentially (probably soon) Tier 1 status. If Djokovic had kept dominating the lesser tournaments but was crushed by Sampras in big finals, he might have lacked the mental strength to wrest back dominance for himself. It's difficult to say when we're talking about players from different eras, but I really don't see Djokovic coming out on top against prime Sampras in the big matches - given his much lower performance level when the stakes are highest.

The fact is Agassi wasn't there. Yes Federer failed in most big matches against Nadal, that's why I don't think he's the GOAT. But at least he had a consistent rival who was #2 for years at a time. Even in 1994 where Agassi ended the year ranked #2 he didn't meet Sampras in a slam.

Federer was a head of Sampras years ago, since then he's added to his resume. So yeah he's far a head of him. Unless you don't think 3 slams, a YEC, 20 titles, better consistency and dominance etc...are enough to make a big gap.

It's not a huge gap - the main gap between them is Fed's clay major IMHO, as I stated before. Minor things like day-in day-out "dominance" in minor tournaments are not that important to me. I think Federer's the GOAT btw, so not arguing against his place in history. Also not saying it's ridiculous to put Gonzales above Sampras (I have him one place below, and I think they're basically equivalent players in the pro and Open Eras). All I am disagreeing with is your Tier 1 of Federer/Gonzales/Laver being a tier higher than Sampras (and Borg, Rosewall, Nadal etc.)

Laver was more versatile for sure. But Pancho's top game is better IMO.

Yeah maybe. Laver was greater than Pancho though overall...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Just curious at the pro events ( US pro, Wimbley pro) dont you count those as regular Grand Slams. Also how big were those events in terms of draws and I assume it was best out of 5.
I would count the pro events as slams ??
Pancho won like 8 US open pros.

Of the 8 so-called US pros that Gonzales won, only 1953 was billed as "US Pro", the others were billed as World Pro's...not the same thing. And none of the 8 had official status as a US Pro.

 

[NatF]

Hmm, still not convinced that Federer is "much" more impressive (Sampras had 12 straight years in the top 10 from 1990-2001, then won a slam the next year; Federer has 14 straight years in the top 10). Yes of course, Federer is playing better at a late age than Sampras.

Federer tops him in terms of time in the top 2 etc...being a fringe top player is less impressive. It all adds up. Federer isn't much more impressive based on just this but the total body of his achievements are.

I don't understand why winning loads of secondary tournaments is particularly important though? I'm sure that Agassi and Lendl would swap a lot of their victories in such tournaments for the really big prizes.

They would of course. But we're talking about players who are GOAT candidates, it's not like Sampras ever won more than 2 slams in a year either. The point is that he was less dominant than Federer and by some margin. Sampras won plenty of the biggest titles but at the next step down he was found wanting. He's not in the same class as a Federer who dominated all year round, when you combine that with the higher tally of majors and greater longevity you end up with a sizeable gap.

Federer's clay record of course surpasses Sampras's. Yes, Djokovic's clay record is better, but given that he hasn't won a clay major, it really isn't that much of a major factor in his favour.

It's a big factor. Federer is more versatile on top of passing him in nearly every other significant category.

We can't say for sure, but I think Sampras would have dominated Djokovic psychologically as well. Djokovic had a losing record in slam finals until recently, and was going the way of a Connors/Lendl level career (not a bad thing of course, but not Tier 1 status). I truly think that he's been helped by the pathetic current younger generation to reach double-digit slams, and potentially (probably soon) Tier 1 status. If Djokovic had kept dominating the lesser tournaments but was crushed by Sampras in big finals, he might have lacked the mental strength to wrest back dominance for himself. It's difficult to say when we're talking about players from different eras, but I really don't see Djokovic coming out on top against prime Sampras in the big matches - given his much lower performance level when the stakes are highest.

Djokovic is in another league compared to Agassi mentally. He was under the thumb of Nadal and Federer and still emerged in 2011 to dominate both and mens tennis. The thing with Federer's rivalry with Djokovic is - key point here- Djokovic is 6 years younger. I don't see Sampras owning Djokovic in Federer's position at all and especially not Nadal. I can see Federer dealing with Agassi to the same degree as Sampras though.

It's not a huge gap - the main gap between them is Fed's clay major IMHO, as I stated before. Minor things like day-in day-out "dominance" in minor tournaments are not that important to me. I think Federer's the GOAT btw, so not arguing against his place in history. Also not saying it's ridiculous to put Gonzales above Sampras (I have him one place below, and I think they're basically equivalent players in the pro and Open Eras). All I am disagreeing with is your Tier 1 of Federer/Gonzales/Laver being a tier higher than Sampras (and Borg, Rosewall, Nadal etc.)

Not sure how the gap couldn't be big. Minor things like winning 20 more tournaments? Having multiple seasons with 90% win/loss when Sampras has none? Playing on and scoring wins against the #1 player (a 10+ major winner) , long after Sampras retired? Winning more majors? Greater versatility? There all combined don't amount to anything significant?

Federer is much greater than Sampras at this point, if it was only a few metrics then fine but at this point in nearly every respect Federer has trumped Sampras. A lot of small improvements on aggregate becomes a lot. I say this believing Sampras is the second greatest of the Open Era - greater than Nadal. So it's not like I don't rate the guy. I just think Federer is far a head of him, enough that there is no reasonable argument for Sampras to be greater. Federer's competition for GOAT are Laver and Pancho.

Yeah maybe. Laver was greater than Pancho though overall...

And my rankings reflected that. I think Pancho has an argument for being the GOAT. Sampras does not, hence the big gap between them.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Federer is much greater than Sampras at this point, if it was only a few metrics then fine but at this point in nearly every respect Federer has trumped Sampras. A lot of small improvements on aggregate becomes a lot. I say this believing Sampras is the second greatest of the Open Era - greater than Nadal. So it's not like I don't rate the guy. I just think Federer is far a head of him, enough that there is no reasonable argument for Sampras to be greater. Federer's competition for GOAT are Laver and Pancho.

I didn't say there was any argument for Sampras to be ahead of Federer. I also don't think there is any argument for Pancho to be. (More difficult to compare the two, given the different eras and the structure of the professional game, but Pancho's achievements on clay/slow surfaces were not great either).

For me, if we look at the all-time listings, it should be either Laver or Federer as GOAT. If I considered Tilden to have played in a stronger era, maybe I'd put him up there with them as well.

And my rankings reflected that. I think Pancho has an argument for being the GOAT. Sampras does not, hence the big gap between them.

Oh, I see - I didn't realise the order in which you listed the players was the order you ranked them. So you consider Laver No 1, Gonzales No 2 and Federer No 3, with these three significantly ahead of the rest?

In which case I almost agree with you, but I just can't see Pancho as being *that* far ahead of the Sampras/Nadal/Borg/Rosewall crew. His highest level may have been the greatest ever, but in terms of ability to dominate on all surfaces, he falls short of Federer and Laver for me. He honestly does strike me as a pre-Open Era Sampras (I concede, he may have been even better than Pete), but not quite a GOAT contender, for me personally.

 

[NatF]

I didn't say there was any argument for Sampras to be ahead of Federer. I also don't think there is any argument for Pancho to be. (More difficult to compare the two, given the different eras and the structure of the professional game, but Pancho's achievements on clay/slow surfaces were not great either).

For me, if we look at the all-time listings, it should be either Laver or Federer as GOAT. If I considered Tilden to have played in a stronger era, maybe I'd put him up there with them as well.

I know you didn't say that, my point is that if they were close then there would be some leeway to argue for Sampras. There isn't so there must be a sizeable gap. Pancho didn't get much chance to play clay majors, he still won some big titles on there. For me Pancho spent more years at #1 than anyone else, that's enough for him to be arguably the GOAT.

Oh, I see - I didn't realise the order in which you listed the players was the order you ranked them. So you consider Laver No 1, Gonzales No 2 and Federer No 3, with these three significantly ahead of the rest?

In which case I almost agree with you, but I just can't see Pancho as being *that* far ahead of the Sampras/Nadal/Borg/Rosewall crew. His highest level may have been the greatest ever, but in terms of ability to dominate on all surfaces, he falls short of Federer and Laver for me. He honestly does strike me as a pre-Open Era Sampras (I concede, he may have been even better than Pete), but not quite a GOAT contender, for me personally.

Yes that's how I have it.

Agree to disagree about Pete and Pancho. He has some big similarities with Sampras, I see their game styles are very similar. But for me being #1 for that long puts him up there above Sampras and as arguably the best. Being the best player in the world for a long time is surely a huge part of being the GOAT. It's why I don't place Rosewall so high despite other great achievements - I flip flop on him and Sampras - so to me the man who was THE man for longer than anyone else is arguably the best of all time.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Agree to disagree about Pete and Pancho. He has some big similarities with Sampras, I see their game styles are very similar. But for me being #1 for that long puts him up there above Sampras and as arguably the best. Being the best player in the world for a long time is surely a huge part of being the GOAT. It's why I don't place Rosewall so high despite other great achievements - I flip flop on him and Sampras - so to me the man who was THE man for longer than anyone else is arguably the best of all time.

I understand. It's a shame about the pro-am split, and the way in which the No 1 was determined in those days (i.e. largely via the head-to-head tours vs. the major tournaments/points totals of today). It makes it difficult to compare Gonzales' 8 years as No 1 to Sampras' 6 years or Federer's 5 years, IMHO.

I do agree on your comments re: Rosewall though (and to prove I'm not just saying this to wind BobbyOne up, the same argument applies to Nadal!) - being the undisputed No 1 for a long time does indeed matter in GOAT debates.

 

[NatF]

I understand. It's a shame about the pro-am split, and the way in which the No 1 was determined in those days (i.e. largely via the head-to-head tours vs. the major tournaments/points totals of today). It makes it difficult to compare Gonzales' 8 years as No 1 to Sampras' 6 years or Federer's 5 years, IMHO.

I do agree on your comments re: Rosewall though (and to prove I'm not just saying this to wind BobbyOne up, the same argument applies to Nadal!) - being the undisputed No 1 for a long time does indeed matter in GOAT debates.

Indeed, agree on #1 time being a blemish for Nadal and Rosewall. I also agree on determining #1 in those days being a bit more difficult. Still the margin is so vast that I have to give it to Pancho,

 

[Dan Lobb]

I understand. It's a shame about the pro-am split, and the way in which the No 1 was determined in those days (i.e. largely via the head-to-head tours vs. the major tournaments/points totals of today). It makes it difficult to compare Gonzales' 8 years as No 1 to Sampras' 6 years or Federer's 5 years, IMHO.

I do agree on your comments re: Rosewall though (and to prove I'm not just saying this to wind BobbyOne up, the same argument applies to Nadal!) - being the undisputed No 1 for a long time does indeed matter in GOAT debates.

In 1959, there was a second world championship tour based on points and tournaments, and also in 1964. These were the precursors of the current points system.

 

[BobbyOne]

I know you didn't say that, my point is that if they were close then there would be some leeway to argue for Sampras. There isn't so there must be a sizeable gap. Pancho didn't get much chance to play clay majors, he still won some big titles on there. For me Pancho spent more years at #1 than anyone else, that's enough for him to be arguably the GOAT.



Yes that's how I have it.

Agree to disagree about Pete and Pancho. He has some big similarities with Sampras, I see their game styles are very similar. But for me being #1 for that long puts him up there above Sampras and as arguably the best. Being the best player in the world for a long time is surely a huge part of being the GOAT. It's why I don't place Rosewall so high despite other great achievements - I flip flop on him and Sampras - so to me the man who was THE man for longer than anyone else is arguably the best of all time.

NatF, I agree that being best player in the world for a long time is a huge part of being the GOAT. But of course there are also some more important criteria for determine the GOAT, such as Years among the Top Three (here are Pancho and Rosewall leading), Years among the Top Ten (here Rosewall and Tilden lead), success at the premier event (Wembley; Wimbledon; US Open in 1972 and 1973), overall titles, majors won (!!), Majors finals and SFs reached, hth against the main rivals overall and at majors, success as a youngster, success as an oldie, Channel Slam, winning majors in a row, percentages win/loss, consistency, longevity, success in doubles competition, etc.

 

[BobbyOne]

I understand. It's a shame about the pro-am split, and the way in which the No 1 was determined in those days (i.e. largely via the head-to-head tours vs. the major tournaments/points totals of today). It makes it difficult to compare Gonzales' 8 years as No 1 to Sampras' 6 years or Federer's 5 years, IMHO.

I do agree on your comments re: Rosewall though (and to prove I'm not just saying this to wind BobbyOne up, the same argument applies to Nadal!) - being the undisputed No 1 for a long time does indeed matter in GOAT debates.[/QUOTE

Phoenix, undisputed No.1 does indeed matter (and very much) , not less but also not more. By the way, Pancho was undisputed No.1 "only for five years.

 

[BobbyOne]

In 1959, there was a second world championship tour based on points and tournaments, and also in 1964. These were the precursors of the current points system.

Dan, I'm relieved that finally I can agree with you again. A special thanks regarding the 1964 tour.

 

[70sHollywood]

Why is McEnroe a tier higher than Connors and Lendl?

 

[70sHollywood]

Why is McEnroe a tier higher than Connors and Lendl?

I just tier players based on how I would rank them. I would not have any of tier 3 above any of tier 2, so I draw the line there. I wouldn't have any of tier 2 above any of tier 1, or any of tier 4 above any of tier 3 and so on...In the end you have a rough ranking list. Ranking within each tier is where it gets harder.

I find it a useful way of ranking players. In your own tiers is there any player who you are certain you would rank last? If there is maybe they don't belong in that tier?

 

[NatF]

NatF, I agree that being best player in the world for a long time is a huge part of being the GOAT. But of course there are also some more important criteria for determine the GOAT, such as Years among the Top Three (here are Pancho and Rosewall leading), Years among the Top Ten (here Rosewall and Tilden lead), success at the premier event (Wembley; Wimbledon; US Open in 1972 and 1973), overall titles, majors won (!!), Majors finals and SFs reached, hth against the main rivals overall and at majors, success as a youngster, success as an oldie, Channel Slam, winning majors in a row, percentages win/loss, consistency, longevity, success in doubles competition, etc.

We all place emphasis on different aspects. I will also say some of these streaks and achievements you afford to Rosewall are of debatable significance. For example reaching a 'major' SF at a Pro event often required only a couple of victories compared to the 5 it would take to reach a SF at a slam. They're not comparable.

If you were talking generally and didn't have Rosewall at the forefront of your mind I apologize. But even though it's been a while I can still recognise points you've made in Ken's favour

 

[BobbyOne]

We all place emphasis on different aspects. I will also say some of these streaks and achievements you afford to Rosewall are of debatable significance. For example reaching a 'major' SF at a Pro event often required only a couple of victories compared to the 5 it would take to reach a SF at a slam. They're not comparable.

If you were talking generally and didn't have Rosewall at the forefront of your mind I apologize. But even though it's been a while I can still recognise points you've made in Ken's favour

NatF, I wrote about those criteria both meaning them generally and regarding my favourite player because Rosewall is top or near top in most of them (some fans and even experts don't know it).

We all should try to agree what the parameters are for valuing the all-time greats. It should also be common sense that some criteria have more weight (Grand Slam, being No.1 for a long time f.i.) while other criteria have less weight (f.i. number of tournaments won, reaching SFs generally).

I concede of course that reaching a pro major's SF has less worth than reaching an open era major's SF. On the other hand I would say that a SF in the 1960 to 1962 pro majors (16 participants in Paris and London) was at least as great an achievement as a SF in an amateur GS tournament (less players participating at the pros but arguably tougher opponents before SF state).

Rosewall has reached 25 GS SFs even though he missed 45 GS tournaments till 1968 plus some further ones afterwards (AO 1970, French Open 1970 to 1972, Wimbledon 1972 and 1973, US Open 1971). I consider this a great achievement.

 

[NatF]

NatF, I wrote about those criteria both meaning them generally and regarding my favourite player because Rosewall is top or near top in most of them (some fans and even experts don't know it).

We all should try to agree what the parameters are for valuing the all-time greats. It should also be common sense that some criteria have more weight (Grand Slam, being No.1 for a long time f.i.) while other criteria have less weight (f.i. number of tournaments won, reaching SFs generally).

I concede of course that reaching a pro major's SF has less worth than reaching an open era major's SF. On the other hand I would say that a SF in the 1960 to 1962 pro majors (16 participants in Paris and London) was at least as great an achievement as a SF in an amateur GS tournament (less players participating at the pros but arguably tougher opponents before SF state).

Rosewall has reached 25 GS SFs even though he missed 45 GS tournaments till 1968 plus some further ones afterwards (AO 1970, French Open 1970 to 1972, Wimbledon 1972 and 1973, US Open 1971). I consider this a great achievement.

Having a consensus would be useful but it's very difficult. We can perhaps only agree what is important, the weighting of each is too subjective. Some value longevity and consistency, others value dominance - for some only the number of majors counts. Obviously when ranking great players if it's clear one player is a head in most categories compared to another then it makes sense to rank him a head.

What we tend to do here is debate the importance of not just the 'categories' but individual achievements in those categories. For example I might question Tilden's win/loss record considering he was playing in the 20's. Competition is perhaps the most common qualifier we use here.

Regarding Pro majors SF vs Amateur SF, I agree. I barely rate amateur wins at all. I also agree that reaching 25 GS SF for Rosewall is impressive - though I would want to qualify that with how many were Amateur, how many were at say a depleted AO etc...

 

[BobbyOne]

Having a consensus would be useful but it's very difficult. We can perhaps only agree what is important, the weighting of each is too subjective. Some value longevity and consistency, others value dominance - for some only the number of majors counts. Obviously when ranking great players if it's clear one player is a head in most categories compared to another then it makes sense to rank him a head.

What we tend to do here is debate the importance of not just the 'categories' but individual achievements in those categories. For example I might question Tilden's win/loss record considering he was playing in the 20's. Competition is perhaps the most common qualifier we use here.

Regarding Pro majors SF vs Amateur SF, I agree. I barely rate amateur wins at all. I also agree that reaching 25 GS SF for Rosewall is impressive - though I would want to qualify that with how many were Amateur, how many were at say a depleted AO etc...

NatF, I'm glad that you agree to a great part.

I believe we all value criteria more or less subjectively. I agree that various people have various main focusses (you brought the three most "popular" ones that all are very important categories).

I believe that Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Tilden and Federer are ahead in most categories. In case a player is not super in one category (f.i. Rosewall regarding dominance over many years) he is maybe tops at some other important parameters where his "rivals" are behind him.

I agree regarding win/loss and competition, also regarding Tilden. Bill's slightly weaker opposition is the reason, by the way, that I rank him a bit behind Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez.

 

[KG1965]

In order...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates, each a significant step above anyone in tier 2)

Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2 (the first 4 are interchangeable IMO, Tilden is arguably Tier 1 but I doubt the competitiveness of his era)

Rosewall, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Tilden

Tier 3 (Best of the rest, guys with very high levels of play but lacking the achievements to be higher)

Kramer, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Vines

I really like the 1Tier .

 

[KG1965]

Tier 1
Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2
Rosewall, Connors, Borg

Tier 3
Kramer, Sampras, Nadal

Tier 4
McEnroe, Lendl, Djokovic

 

[Phoenix1983]

Tier 1
Laver, Gonzalez, Federer

Tier 2
Rosewall, Connors, Borg

Tier 3
Kramer, Sampras, Nadal

Tier 4
McEnroe, Lendl, Djokovic

Connors isn't two tiers above Lendl. No way.

 

[BobbyOne]

Having a consensus would be useful but it's very difficult. We can perhaps only agree what is important, the weighting of each is too subjective. Some value longevity and consistency, others value dominance - for some only the number of majors counts. Obviously when ranking great players if it's clear one player is a head in most categories compared to another then it makes sense to rank him a head.

What we tend to do here is debate the importance of not just the 'categories' but individual achievements in those categories. For example I might question Tilden's win/loss record considering he was playing in the 20's. Competition is perhaps the most common qualifier we use here.

Regarding Pro majors SF vs Amateur SF, I agree. I barely rate amateur wins at all. I also agree that reaching 25 GS SF for Rosewall is impressive - though I would want to qualify that with how many were Amateur, how many were at say a depleted AO etc...

NatF, I forgot to answer your question about amateur SFs.

Rosewall's major SFs (excluding the Dallas WCT Finals) consist of 12 amateur SFs and 13 open era SFs, one of the latter being the "weak" 1972 AO. At the open era events Rosewall was 33 to 42 years old! By the way, Laver reached 18 such SFs, 12 of them as amateur.