Divide the mens Open Era greats into tiers

[martinezownsclay]

I suspect this might get even more heated discussion than my womens list.

Tier 1- Federer, Djokovic, Nadal.
Tier 2- Sampras, Borg
Tier 3- Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi (to be clear I have say Connors and Lendl clearly higher than Agassi despite having them in the same tier)
Tier 4- Newcombe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Murray, Vilas, Nastase
Tier 6- Smith, Kodes, Wawrinka, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Stich, Muster

My biggest conflict was Vilas. Wasn't sure whether he deserved to be in the same tier as Courier or Murray or Tier 6, but decided on Tier 5. Clearly the weakest of Courier, Murray, and himself, but still figured he fit in that tier more than the below one. Then again it felt strange to have Kuerten in a lower tier than Vilas when Kuerten is clearly the greater/better clay courter, and Kuerten is the one with a YE#1, and both have a YEC, and not sure Vilas is significantly more successful (aside from his bogus 2 Aussie Opens) on non clay surfaces than Kuerten is. But I felt Kuerten did not merit being in a higher tier than Hewitt, nor Hewitt meriting being in Tier 5. So I am open to someone convincing me Vilas should either be bumped to Tier 6, or Kuerten risen to Tier 5, or even Hewitt risen to Tier 5.

Nastase's career I am a bit unclear on, but I figured in the context of the time he did enough outside his slam wins, to belong in tier 5. Even if he badly underachieved in slams, particularly being gifted with some weaker ones, and still only managing 2. Atleast Vilas took advantage of winning depleted slams to win 4, but Nastase's achievements outside of the actual slams, were superior to Vilas's.

Wawrinka IMO merited only Tier 6 despite his 3 slams, due to his lack of much else besides that. Heck if he didn't win that 3rd major, I am not sure he makes a tier at all, he is only there due to his 3 majors, as his career is lacking in every other way.

I thought of not including Muster as he has only 1 major, and badly underperformed at this French. However I feel his reaching #1 and amazing clay record outside the French, plus his Masters titles on other surfaces (including hard and carpet) merit him making it. I did not feel Bruguera did enough to be included, even with his 2 French Opens, especialy as unlike Muster he really did nothing outside of clay.

I thought of not including Kafelnikov who did not even win a Masters outside of his 2 majors, but since he reached #1 (even if in horrific fashion), plus his doubles, it was enough for him to make it for me.

I br

Just as I feel Wilander is definitely the weakest of Becker, Edberg, Newcombe but still belongs in the same tier, and not the tier below that. I am sure I am missing some players but just like the womens about the same topic I am sure all of you will help me fit that in.

 

[buscemi]

Not loving seeing Muster singled out from some other one Major winners in Tier 6. I'll just list two here:

-Stich has several claims over him: WTF title, Grand Slam Cup, Major finals on three different surfaces, Wimbledon doubles title, Olympic doubles title, winning record against Sampras.​

-Roddick has several claims over him: year-end #1, 7 more weeks at #1, 5 Major finals, 9 straight years in the top ten.​

Meanwhile, Muster had losing record at 3 of the 6 biggest events of his time: 0-4 at Wimbledon, 0-5 at the Grand Slam Cup, and 2-8 at WTF. Plus, he had overall losing record on 2 separate surfaces: 8-10 on grass and 42-52 on carpet. And he has just one Major final.

Edit: Just noticed you have Roddick in Tier 6. That would be even more reason for including Stich, IMO.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Sorry I forgot Stich. That was not a purposeful omission. Yes he is definitely included in Tier 6. And I agree Muster is weaker than Roddick and many others in Tier 6, he is near or at the bottom of that group, but still makes it IMO. I am not ranking them, just putting them in tiers.

One other I forgot is Ivanisevic, but not sure if he qualifies for Tier 6 either. Yes he has a mini legacy at Wimbledon, but not sure anything else is enough for Tier 6. If you compare him to Muster, Muster has a bigger legacy on clay than Ivanisevic has on grass, despite that Ivanisevic has a bit better record at Wimbledon than Muster at Roland Garros and Muster got to the #1 ranking which is worth something (plus winning a Masters on both carpet and hard courts).

 

[buscemi]

I'd have a tough time accepting Vilas being in a higher tier than Smith.

-They both have 2 legitimate Majors, with Smith's being better, especially given the weakness of the draw at the 1977 French Open​

-They both won WTF​

-I would rank Smith's WCT Finals title (beating Laver/Ashe in the SF/F) as stronger than Vilas' 2 Australian Opens combined​

-Vilas might have a claim to being #1, but he was never #1. Smith has a good claim to being #1 in 1971 and/or 1972 (pre-ATP rankings)​

-Smith has 64 singles titles vs. 62 for Vilas​

-Smith has five doubles Majors, won the WCT Finals in doubles, won 54 doubles titles overall, and was ranked #1 in doubles​

Overall, the two players are pretty close in singles, and Smith's doubles success puts him over the top for me.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I'd have a tough time accepting Vilas being in a higher tier than Smith.

-They both have 2 legitimate Majors, with Smith's being better, especially given the weakness of the draw at the 1977 French Open​

-They both won WTF​

-I would rank Smith's WCT Finals title (beating Laver/Ashe in the SF/F) as stronger than Vilas' 2 Australian Opens combined​

-Vilas might have a claim to being #1, but he was never #1. Smith has a good claim to being #1 in 1971 and/or 1972 (pre-ATP rankings)​

-Smith has 64 singles titles vs. 62 for Vilas​

-Smith has five doubles Majors, won the WCT Finals in doubles, won 54 doubles titles overall, and was ranked #1 in doubles​

Overall, the two players are pretty close in singles, and Smith's doubles success puts him over the top for me.

I admit I am not super versed on Smith's career, so you could be right on that. I generally regard Vilas as having 3 majors, since I totally disregard his 2 Australians, but given there not even being 4 real slams a year give him credit as a slam for the WTF he won by beating a slew of big players. So on that purely subjective rational (I know it might seem unfair to Smith who has a WTF title too, but in this case I am taking away 2 of Vilas's official slams entirely) Vilas would be ahead by 1 there, but he is probably equal or behind in most other things come to think of it. And personally I never bought the idea Vilas was the rightful #1 in 1977, most experts picked Borg over him anyway, while the computer rankings was Connors. Smith isn't unquestioned #1 ever either, but has a stronger case in either 71 or 72 than Vilas in 77 probably. I briefly forgot Smith did so well in doubles too though, so yeah he and Vilas should probably be in same tier, and in fact Smith might deservedly rank above Vilas (although I doubt in a higher tier than him per say). I wonder if that means moving Smith up or Vilas down though, probably the former.

There are a lot of hardcore Vilas supporters here so I tread carefully when talking about him. I am sure that jean pierre guy who is even more biased towards Vilas than you are to Monica Seles, or Mustard is to both Seles and Tomas Muster, will be hear soon crowing how Vilas as the 3rd best clay courter ever (his view, not mine to be clear, LOL) and this great grass courter as his 2 Australians supposably prove, should be in Tier 4 atleast or higher.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I suspect this might get even more heated discussion than my womens list.

Tier 1- Federer, Djokovic, Nadal.
Tier 2- Sampras, Borg
Tier 3- Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi (to be clear I have say Connors and Lendl clearly higher than Agassi despite having them in the same tier)
Tier 4- Newcombe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Murray, Vilas, Nastase
Tier 6- Smith, Kodes, Wawrinka, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Stich, Muster

That seems about right. Might bump Kuerten or lower Newcombe but other than that I think it's about right.