Greatest 10 Male Players of this decade so far

[noeledmonds]

Here is a list of who I consider to be the greatest 10 male singles players of this decade so far based on their performances in this decade alone:

1) Federer- 12 Grand Slam titles and 2 more finals, 194 consecutive weeks at number 1, 3 Masters Cups, 14 Masters Series titles

2) Agassi- 3 Grand Slam titles and 2 more finals, 7 Master Series titles, over 50 weeks ranked at ATP number 1

3) Hewitt- 2 Grand Slam titles and 2 more finals, 80 weeks at number 1, 2 Masters Cups, 2 Master Series titles

4) Nadal- 3 Grand Slam titles and 2 more finals, 9 Masters Series titles

5) Kuerten- 2 Grand Slam titles, 43 weeks at number 1, 3 Masters Series titles, 1 Masters Cup

6) Safin- 2 Grand Slam titles and 2 more finals, 9 weeks at number 1, 5 Masters Series titles

7) Sampras- 2 Grand Slam titles, 10 weeks at number 1, 1 Masters Series title

8 ) Roddick- 1 Grand Slam title and 3 more finals, 13 weeks at number 1, 4 Masters Series titles

9) Ferrero- 1 Grand Slam title and 2 more finals, 8 weeks at number 1, 4 Masters Series titles

10) Costa- 1 Grand Slam title, 1 Masters Series title

 

[federerfanatic]

Nadal should not be held below Agassi and Hewitt just because he hasnt been #1, which I can tell is the only reason you are. Nadal is not #1 since there is an immovable wall at #1 at the moment. Older Agassi or Hewitt would never have gotten a sniff of #1 with Federer in his prime. Anyway for me the decade is 2001-2010, I never understand why the finals tens of decades are included in the new decade. Here is my list:

1. Federer-no explanation needed

2. Nadal- 3 French Open titles, 2 Wimbledon finals while taking Fed to 4 or 5 sets respectfully, 3 straight years sweeping Monte Carlo, Rome, and French Open, 3 Masters titles on hard courts as well, held the #2 ranking behind untouchable Federer with a vice grip for over 2 years now.

3. Hewitt- Wimbledon and U.S Open titles. 2 other finals a U.S and Australian Open. Lost to eventual Champion at 7 straight slams at one later point. Two year end #1s. Two Masters Cups.

4. Agassi- no year end #1s, despite peak Federer not being in way. 2 Aussie Opens, 2 other finals at U.S Open. 7 Masters titles. Note-even if I included 2000 he would still be #4. 3-3 head to head with Hewitt in decade, and 0-2 head to head with Nadal in decade.

5. Safin- 3 Australian Open finals, won 1. 3 Masters titles. If I included 2000 he would still drop to #6, despite it being his best year ever.

6. Kuerten- 1 French Open title. 1 Masters title. 33 weeks at #1. If I had included the 2000 of both Safin and Kuerten, then he passes Safin for #6.

7. Roddick- 1 U.S Open, 1 other U.S Open final, 2 Wimbledon finals. Lots of semis and quarters of slam, very consistent performer who stayed in top 5 for awhile with only brief exception. 2 Masters titles. If I include 2000 he stays at #7.

8. Sampras- 1 U.S Open, 1 other U.S Open final. Lots of inconsistent and poor performances coming towards the end of his career though. Without 2000 he is far behind Roddick, if I include 2000 he still is slightly behind due to only 3 years of tennis and 2 years that were empty of quality play outside his 2 U.S Opens.

9. Ferrero- A French Open title, another French Open final, a U.S Open final.
Only a few years of top level tennis though. Brief stint at #1 late in 2003.

10. Djokovic- His 2007 is far more impressive then Costa or Gaudio or Johansson winning their 1 fluke major is.

 

[dima]

I agree with everything on your list noele, good job.

 

[noeledmonds]

for me the decade is 2001-2010

The decade is clearly not 2001-2010. The decade is 2000-2009. On what basis is the year 2000 in the previous decade (the 90s)? The 1990s can not incoperate the year 2000 and has to incorperate the year 1990. Did you celebrate the start of the new millenium at the beginning of 2001? Don't be so foolish.

 

[federerfanatic]

Either way 3-time Aussie Open winner Agassi should not be above Wimbledon, U.S Open, two time year end #1, 2 times Masters Cup winner Hewitt; nor should he be above 3-time French Open winner and 2-time Wimbledon finalist Nadal. Putting Agassi as high as #2 for the decade is a huge homer vote.

 

[Andres]

The decade is clearly not 2001-2010. The decade is 2000-2009. On what basis is the year 2000 in the previous decade (the 90s)? The 1990s can not incoperate the year 2000 and has to incorperate the year 1990. Did you celebrate the start of the new millenium at the beginning of 2001? Don't be so foolish.

Yes, we did. The millenium started January 1st, 2001.

 

[grafrules]

In order:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Andre Agassi
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Andy Roddick
7. Marat Safin
8. Pete Sampras
9. David Nalbandian
10. Juan Carlos Ferrero

I think Roddick and Nalbandian deserve some credit for their consistency.
Federer at #1 is an easy call. Nadal and Hewitt are very close for #2. Agassi and Kuerten are close for the #4 spot. Those were both tough calls.

 

[noeledmonds]

Agassi- no year end #1s, despite peak Federer not being in way. 2 Aussie Opens, 2 other finals at U.S Open. 7 Masters titles. Note-even if I included 2000 he would still be #4. 3-3 head to head with Hewitt in decade, and 0-2 head to head with Nadal in decade.

No year end number ones (although he had 1 just before the decade change of course), but plenty of weeks at number 1 for Agassi. Agassi was not in Federer's era he was part of Sampras's and he was better than the younger Sampras for most of the 2000s. Head 2 Heads are meaningless when 1 player is about to retire. Agassi was on his last legs when playing Nadal, noone would expect Agassi to win. A 3-3 Head 2 Head with Hewitt is better than Nadal's Head 2 Head with Hewitt anyway.

Hewitt has showed considerably more versitility and dominance than Nadal thus far in this decade.

Djokovic- His 2007 is far more impressive then Costa or Gaudio or Johansson winning their 1 fluke major is.

Djokovicic's decade as a whole has amounted to very little yet. 2 Masters Series titles and a US Open final is pretty insubstantial. We can't judge Djokovicic on what you think he will achieve, only on what he has achieved.

If you do choose someone without a Grand Slam then I would suggest Nalbandian. Nalbandian has semi-finals or better at every Grand Slam. He also has a Masters Cup title with an impressive victory over Federer.

 

[noeledmonds]

Either way 3-time Aussie Open winner Agassi should not be above Wimbledon, U.S Open, two time year end #1, 2 times Masters Cup winner Hewitt; nor should he be above 3-time French Open winner and 2-time Wimbledon finalist Nadal. Putting Agassi as high as #2 for the decade is a huge homer vote.

Why do you rate 3 AOs and 2 USO finals below 3 FOs and 2 SW19 finals when we consider that Agassi showed some domination in the decade and Nadal has not. Agassi is of course far more versitile than Nadal also. Nadal has yet to pass the quarter finals of either the AO or the USO. Agassi reached the quarter finals of the French Open 3 times, the semi-finals of Wimbledon twice, the Final of the USO twice and won 3 AO titles, all in the current decade. You could argue that Hewitt was above Agassi I agree, but I thought that Agassi's extra Grand Slam title might give him the edge.

 

[Daniel Thomsen]

What GS finals have Feder lost?

 

[federerfanatic]

No year end number ones (although he had 1 just before the decade change of course), but plenty of weeks at number 1 for Agassi. Agassi was not in Federer's era he was part of Sampras's and he was better than the younger Sampras for most of the 2000s.

2000-2002 Sampras is nowhere near the type of obstacle to #1 as 2003-2007. Dumb comparision. Nadal's long stint at #2 behind the insurmountable Federer is far more impressive then Agassi spending some stints, but never substained too long at #1 with no major obstacle to that spot.

Head 2 Heads are meaningless when 1 player is about to retire. Agassi was on his last legs when playing Nadal, noone would expect Agassi to win. A 3-3 Head 2 Head with Hewitt is better than Nadal's Head 2 Head with Hewitt anyway.

Yes Agassi was on his last legs so much when he lost to Nadal the first time on hard courts, that Agassi then went to the U.S Open final and took Federer to 4 sets. Anyway years from now people might look back at that first meeting where Nadal very decisively beat Agassi on hard courts, despite it going 3 sets, which is of course Nadal's worst surface and Agassi's best, and laugh at the idea that was Nadal in his prime and suggest he was just as far or further from his prime as the late blooming Agassi. After all you see Nadal losing to Mueller early in Wimbledon that same year, and then Wimbledon finals the next two already. Of course Agassi wasnt in his prime, that isnt the point, the point is how he compared as a player in this decade, whether he was in his prime this decade or not is meaningless to that.

Hewitt has showed considerably more versitility and dominance than Nadal thus far in this decade.

More dominance? The only way Hewitt has shown more dominance is ending the year #1 twice, but Hewitt would never have managed that if he had Federer in his prime those years. More versatility? How is dominance on clay, back-to-back finals of Wimbledon, multiple Masters titles on hard courts for versatility. Hewitt is not more successful on clay then Nadal on hard courts, he has never been past the quarters of the French, just like Nadal at the hard court slams, and he does not have the Masters titles and equivalent of wins over Federer that Nadal has on hard courts. Nadal making back-to-
back Wimbledon finals on grass and taking the great Federer extra sets each time is arguably more impressive then anything Hewitt has done on grass or hard courts, and what Nadal has done on clay is far more impressive then anything Hewitt has done on grass or hard courts.

Djokovicic's decade as a whole has amounted to very little yet. 2 Masters Series titles and a US Open final is pretty insubstantial. We can't judge Djokovicic on what you think he will achieve, only on what he has achieved.

A French Open semifinal, Wimbledon semifinal, U.S Open final, 2 Masters titles, all in the same year already puts him head and shoulders above Costa, Johansson, Gaudio, and their 1 slam title. There is no comparision.

If you do choose someone without a Grand Slam then I would suggest Nalbandian. Nalbandian has semi-finals or better at every Grand Slam. He also has a Masters Cup title with an impressive victory over Federer.

I agree. Nalbandian should also be above any of those 1-slam wonders.

 

[federerfanatic]

Why do you rate 3 AOs and 2 USO finals below 3 FOs and 2 SW19 finals when we consider that Agassi showed some domination in the decade and Nadal has not.

How on earth has Agassi showed more "domination". Domination and Agassi are words that have NEVER gone hand in hand, even all time best season in 99 has an asterix with heavy favorite Sampras missing the U.S Open with a back injury. Agassi has 1 slam title in 2000, 1 slam title in 2002, 1 slam title in 2003, all Aussie Opens, and no year end #1s any of those years. Where is the domination? If you have to compare the two in terms of domination this decade Nadal would come out ahead, his domination on clay is far superior to Agassi's on hard courts (if you can even call Agassi dominant on hard courts in the early decade), while Nadal's dominance at the #2 spot behind the insurmountable Federer is far more impressive then Agassi being one of a bunch of guys taking turns at #1 with no insurmountable figure there the early 2000s, while flucuating from #1 to low parts of the top 10 during that time still.

The French Open is considered more prestigious then the Australian Open. That is hardly a secret. The order is: 1)Wimbledon or U.S, 3)French, 4)Australian. Nadal's 2 Wimbledon finals are more impressive then Agassi's 2 U.S Open finals since they were back-to-back, and there is a dominant figurehead on that surface which there was not at the U.S Open in the early part of the decade.

Agassi is of course far more versitile than Nadal also. Nadal has yet to pass the quarter finals of either the AO or the USO. Agassi reached the quarter finals of the French Open 3 times, the semi-finals of Wimbledon twice, the Final of the USO twice and won 3 AO titles, all in the current decade.

You just admited yourself Agassi has not been past the quarters of the French Open, so he has not done any better on clay then Nadal on hard courts based on Nadal not getting past the quarters of a hard court slam. Nadal's Masters titles on hard courts and wins over Federer on hard courts, put his hard court performance this decade above Agassi's clay court performance in fact. Nadal on grass has done far better then Agassi on grass this decade, and Nadal on clay is obviously much superior this decade to Agassi on hard courts. I see no edge to Agassi at all. I think you are confusing Agassi's French Open title/Wimbledon title/other finals at those events from LAST decade into this somehow.

You could argue that Hewitt was above Agassi I agree, but I thought that Agassi's extra Grand Slam title might give him the edge.

So an extra slam title with all 3 coming at the Aussie Open would be enough of an edge on winning the big 2 of Wimbledon and the U.S Open, enough to overcome 2 year end #1s and 2 year end Masters? Intriguing logic to say the least.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Yes, we did. The millenium started January 1st, 2001.

they will probably say there are several calendars, several definitions for a millenium... but i'm with you on that one !
(by the way, what is your opinion on the year zero -if there is one- and about the negative millenia ?)

 

[Andres]

What GS finals have Feder lost?

French Open 2006 and 2007

 

[illkhiboy]

Why do you rate 3 AOs and 2 USO finals below 3 FOs and 2 SW19 finals when we consider that Agassi showed some domination in the decade and Nadal has not. Agassi is of course far more versitile than Nadal also. Nadal has yet to pass the quarter finals of either the AO or the USO. Agassi reached the quarter finals of the French Open 3 times, the semi-finals of Wimbledon twice, the Final of the USO twice and won 3 AO titles, all in the current decade. You could argue that Hewitt was above Agassi I agree, but I thought that Agassi's extra Grand Slam title might give him the edge.

I agree. Co-Sign..think thats 10

 

[Rudy]

"Why do you rate 3 AOs and 2 USO finals below 3 FOs and 2 SW19 finals when we consider that Agassi showed some domination in the decade and Nadal has not"

Wow! You have high standards...I would consider going 93-1 on clay for the last 3 years to be pretty dominant.

 

[FED-EX]

I agree. Nalbandian should also be above any of those 1-slam wonders.

I believe Rios should be included instead of Nalbandian...
He achieved far more than Nalby, reaching GS final, winning master series, a grand slam cup and Nº1 for some weeks...His short period of success is far more important than what Nalbandian has achieved so far...

 

[federerfanatic]

Wow! You have high standards...I would consider going 93-1 on clay for the last 3 years to be pretty dominant.

I have no idea what type of dominance he is even referring to since there is nothing Agassi has done this decade that could be classified as "dominance" that Nadal also wouldnt be. If it is just dominant on one surface, Nadal was far more dominant on clay from 2005-2007 then Agassi was on hard courts from 2000-2003. If it dominant on one slam, Nadal was dominant at the French atleast as much as Agassi at the Australian Open those same years. If is dominant in general Agassi was one of a group of players who took turns as brief #1s during those years, but Agassi would spent time in 3, 4, 5, even lower too; while Nadal has been a dominant #2 for awhile behind the insurmountable #1 Federer which never existed in the early part of the decade. So what kind of dominance he is referring to Agassi showing this decade is beyond comprehension.

 

[federerfanatic]

I believe Rios should be included instead of Nalbandian...
He achieved far more than Nalby, reaching GS final, winning master series, a grand slam cup and Nº1 for some weeks...His short period of success is far more important than what Nalbandian has achieved so far...

Nalbandian has been to the semis or better of every slam. Rios's one slam final was his only time ever past the quarters. Nalbandian has already spent more time in the top 10 then Rios ever did.

However there are areas Rios is clearly superior too. Rios has 18 singles titles, Nalbandian so far has only 5. Rios also has back-to-back Masters like you said, while Nalbandian has yet to win a Masters, but remember Nalbandian has a year end Masters title.

 

[superman1]

I also have a hard time putting Agassi above Nadal for this decade, even though it's very close, but I think Agassi is clearly better than Hewitt. Hewitt had a few good years in there, and then he just became incredibly average while Agassi still had some great runs in '05. Compare the '04 US Open final to the '05 US Open final and tell me who gave Federer a great fight, and who gave us one of the worst Grand Slam finals ever with his pathetic performance.

 

[superman1]

This point pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Agassi and Nadal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeSq3F2AeM

 

[helloworld]

In order:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Andre Agassi
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Andy Roddick
7. Marat Safin
8. Pete Sampras
9. David Nalbandian
10. Juan Carlos Ferrero

I think Roddick and Nalbandian deserve some credit for their consistency.
Federer at #1 is an easy call. Nadal and Hewitt are very close for #2. Agassi and Kuerten are close for the #4 spot. Those were both tough calls.

This list looks ok, but I'd rather put Safin over Roddick. After all, he's one of the few players who won 2 slams in this millenium so far.

 

[Wuornos]

The decade is clearly not 2001-2010. The decade is 2000-2009. On what basis is the year 2000 in the previous decade (the 90s)? The 1990s can not incoperate the year 2000 and has to incorperate the year 1990. Did you celebrate the start of the new millenium at the beginning of 2001? Don't be so foolish.

Actually I think the start of the mew millenium should have been held at the start of 2001.

After all the was no year zero. Only 1 AD. The firts year of our lord. Therfore 2000 was the 2000th year of our lord and the technically the second millenium did not finish until the end of the 2000th year or to put it another way at the start of 2001.

But I do agree with you, for these puposes I don't see how 2000 can be considered the nineties. It must be part of the naughties.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

OK here's my list of top 10 based purely on achievemment 2000-2007 inclusive.

1. Roger Federer 129
2. Andre Agassi 55
3. Lleyton Hewitt 50
4. Andy Roddick 48
5. Rafael Nadal 40
6. Marat Safin 39
7. Juan Carlos Ferrero 35
8. Pete Sampras 34
9. David Nalbandian 26
10. Gustavo Kuerten 18

9 points for winning a major.
6 points for runner up in a major.
4 points for losing in major semi final to eventual winner.
3 points for losing in major semi final to runner up
2 points for losing in major quarter final to eventual winner
1 point for losing in major quarter final to runner up.

Regards

Tim

 

[Breaker]

I also have a hard time putting Agassi above Nadal for this decade, even though it's very close, but I think Agassi is clearly better than Hewitt. Hewitt had a few good years in there, and then he just became incredibly average while Agassi still had some great runs in '05. Compare the '04 US Open final to the '05 US Open final and tell me who gave Federer a great fight, and who gave us one of the worst Grand Slam finals ever with his pathetic performance.

Hewitt took Fed to four sets in the US Open '05 semi just before Agassi's match along with making the Wimbledon semi and Aussie Open final that year, add on a few Masters series semis and a final and it is clear that he was better than Agassi that year. He ended number four with very few tournaments played that year and in the majority of his tourneys lost to Fed. Also Agassi was 0-8 against Federer this decade while Lleyton got a few wins in early in the decade.

 

[pabloJD]

I believe Rios should be included instead of Nalbandian...
He achieved far more than Nalby, reaching GS final, winning master series, a grand slam cup and Nº1 for some weeks...His short period of success is far more important than what Nalbandian has achieved so far...

Most of what Rios did was in the 90's

OK here's my list of top 10 based purely on achievemment 2000-2007 inclusive.

1. Roger Federer 129
2. Andre Agassi 55
3. Lleyton Hewitt 50
4. Andy Roddick 48
5. Rafael Nadal 40
6. Marat Safin 39
7. Juan Carlos Ferrero 35
8. Pete Sampras 34
9. David Nalbandian 26
10. Gustavo Kuerten 18

9 points for winning a major.
6 points for runner up in a major.
4 points for losing in major semi final to eventual winner.
3 points for losing in major semi final to runner up
2 points for losing in major quarter final to eventual winner
1 point for losing in major quarter final to runner up.

Regards

Tim

Nice list, Tim
How about adding points for MS and Masters Cup?

 

[Wuornos]

Most of what Rios did was in the 90's



Nice list, Tim
How about adding points for MS and Masters Cup?

Well I could do although I normally shy away from this as not all players seem to place the same emphasis on the masters series thereby skewing the results towards those that play more tournaments.

What point weighting would you suggest for these events?

Regards

Tim

 

[Andres]

Well I could do although I normally shy away from this as not all players seem to place the same emphasis on the masters series thereby skewing the results towards those that play more tournaments.

What point weighting would you suggest for these events?

Regards

Tim

Winning a MS shield earns you 500 points. A SF at any Slam earns you 450 points. So winning a MS is above a major SF, but worse than a Major runner up.

 

[AM28143]

OK here's my list of top 10 based purely on achievemment 2000-2007 inclusive.

1. Roger Federer 129
2. Andre Agassi 55
3. Lleyton Hewitt 50
4. Andy Roddick 48
5. Rafael Nadal 40
6. Marat Safin 39
7. Juan Carlos Ferrero 35
8. Pete Sampras 34
9. David Nalbandian 26
10. Gustavo Kuerten 18

9 points for winning a major.
6 points for runner up in a major.
4 points for losing in major semi final to eventual winner.
3 points for losing in major semi final to runner up
2 points for losing in major quarter final to eventual winner
1 point for losing in major quarter final to runner up.

Regards

Tim

Why don't you just add up their ranking points throughout the years.....there is already a numerical way to evaluate players

 

[pabloJD]

Well I could do although I normally shy away from this as not all players seem to place the same emphasis on the masters series thereby skewing the results towards those that play more tournaments.

What point weighting would you suggest for these events?

Regards

Tim

I'd say
4 for the winner
2 for the runner-up
1 for sf
just to make it simple

 

[superman1]

Hewitt took Fed to four sets in the US Open '05 semi just before Agassi's match along with making the Wimbledon semi and Aussie Open final that year, add on a few Masters series semis and a final and it is clear that he was better than Agassi that year. He ended number four with very few tournaments played that year and in the majority of his tourneys lost to Fed. Also Agassi was 0-8 against Federer this decade while Lleyton got a few wins in early in the decade.

Agassi pushed Federer harder. And Hewitt may have been better than Agassi when he was on the brink of retirement and played very few tournaments, but the stats are still in Agassi's favor. 3 Slams vs. 2 (and don't say Wimbledon and the US Open are more prestigious - these days all 4 Slams are equally difficult to win), and 5 more MS titles. Hewitt had 2 TMC wins and more weeks at #1, but that doesn't add up to 5 MS titles and 1 Slam.

 

[hewittboy]

Agassi pushed Federer harder.

Not so. Federer always beat Agassi from late 2003-2005. Federer always beat Hewitt from late 2003-2005, except for once. I ignore 2006 since Agassi was not a threat that year, and neither Agassi or Hewitt played Federer at all that year. Agassi sometimes give Federer competitive matches, but always in defeat. Hewitt sometimes gave Federer competitive matches, but always except once in defeat. Federer sometimes spanked Agassi big time, Federer sometimes spanked Hewitt big time.

To break it down more factually, Hewitt played Federer 10 times from late 2003-2005, Hewitt won 1 of 10, and took Federer to extra sets 4 of 10. Agassi played Federer 8 times from late 2003-2005, Agassi won 0 of 8, and took Federer to extra sets 4 of 8. If you think Agassi was never smacked down in a big way by Federer watch the 2003 year end Masters, the 2005 Dubai quarterfinal, the 2005 Australian Open quarterfinal, for some examples, Agassi was demolished in all those matches, totally outclassed like Hewitt has been sometimes by Federer. The 2003 Masters final was just as much a destruction as the 2004 U.S Open final, and it was almost as big a final match. Federer made Agassi look like a little boy, he was just hitting winners like nobodies business, and Agassi looked even more helpless then Hewitt did in that U.S Open final.

And Hewitt may have been better than Agassi when he was on the brink of retirement and played very few tournaments,

Actually Hewitt was better then Agassi in 2001 and 2002 as well, when he edged Agassi for the year end #1 both years when Agassi was in the running near the end, mostly by totally outperforming him at the Masters final when both were in contention before it started. As well as going 3-2 with Agassi those 2 years. That wouldnt qualify as when Agassi was on the brink of retirement. The only years this decade both played were Agassi was better then Hewitt were 2000 and 2003.

but the stats are still in Agassi's favor. 3 Slams vs. 2 (and don't say Wimbledon and the US Open are more prestigious - these days all 4 Slams are equally difficult to win),

Wimbledon and the U.S Open are more prestigious. If you were not an Agassi fan you wouldnt even be arguing this. Even if they were the same, 2 slams, 2 year end #1s, 2 Masters final wins > 3 slams.

 

[hewittboy]

Here is my top 10 list:

1. Federer
2. Hewitt
3. Nadal
4. Agassi
5. Kuerten
6. Safin
7. Roddick
8. Sampras
9. Nalbandian
10. Djokovic

 

[brownyazn]

i don't know if i would include djokovic
he's only been doing well this last year

 

[Vlad]

Nadal should not be held below Agassi and Hewitt just because he hasnt been #1, which I can tell is the only reason you are. Nadal is not #1 since there is an immovable wall at #1 at the moment. Older Agassi or Hewitt would never have gotten a sniff of #1 with Federer in his prime. Anyway for me the decade is 2001-2010, I never understand why the finals tens of decades are included in the new decade. Here is my list:

1. Federer-no explanation needed

2. Nadal- 3 French Open titles, 2 Wimbledon finals while taking Fed to 4 or 5 sets respectfully, 3 straight years sweeping Monte Carlo, Rome, and French Open, 3 Masters titles on hard courts as well, held the #2 ranking behind untouchable Federer with a vice grip for over 2 years now.

3. Hewitt- Wimbledon and U.S Open titles. 2 other finals a U.S and Australian Open. Lost to eventual Champion at 7 straight slams at one later point. Two year end #1s. Two Masters Cups.

4. Agassi- no year end #1s, despite peak Federer not being in way. 2 Aussie Opens, 2 other finals at U.S Open. 7 Masters titles. Note-even if I included 2000 he would still be #4. 3-3 head to head with Hewitt in decade, and 0-2 head to head with Nadal in decade.

5. Safin- 3 Australian Open finals, won 1. 3 Masters titles. If I included 2000 he would still drop to #6, despite it being his best year ever.

6. Kuerten- 1 French Open title. 1 Masters title. 33 weeks at #1. If I had included the 2000 of both Safin and Kuerten, then he passes Safin for #6.

7. Roddick- 1 U.S Open, 1 other U.S Open final, 2 Wimbledon finals. Lots of semis and quarters of slam, very consistent performer who stayed in top 5 for awhile with only brief exception. 2 Masters titles. If I include 2000 he stays at #7.

8. Sampras- 1 U.S Open, 1 other U.S Open final. Lots of inconsistent and poor performances coming towards the end of his career though. Without 2000 he is far behind Roddick, if I include 2000 he still is slightly behind due to only 3 years of tennis and 2 years that were empty of quality play outside his 2 U.S Opens.

9. Ferrero- A French Open title, another French Open final, a U.S Open final.
Only a few years of top level tennis though. Brief stint at #1 late in 2003.

10. Djokovic- His 2007 is far more impressive then Costa or Gaudio or Johansson winning their 1 fluke major is.

wanted to correct on Guga's slam win, but didn't read your 2001 starting year. Never mind then.

 

[federerfanatic]

Kuerten won 3 French Opens (97, 00, 01)

I know that, I meant if the decade is counted as 2001-2010 he won only 1 in that, if the decade is counted as 2000-2009 then he won 2. We are only talking about this decade in this thread.

 

[cuddles26]

Guys

1. Roger Federer

-----------big gap-----------------

2. Rafael Nadal
3. Lleyton Hewitt
-----------big gap-----------------

4. Andre Agassi
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Marat Safin
7. Andy Roddick
8. Pete Sampras
-----------big gap----------------
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero
10. David Nalbandian

Women

1. Justine Henin
2. Serena Williams
3. Venus Williams
------------big gap---------------
4. Amelie Mauresmo
5. Jennifer Capriati
6. Kim Clijsters
7. Maria Sharapova
8. Lindsay Davenport
------------big gap---------------
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova
10. Martina Hingis

 

[aramis]

1. Federer
2. Hewitt
3. Nadal
4. Agassi
5. Kuerten
6. Safin
7. Roddick
8. Ferrero
9. Nalbandian
10. Djokovic

 

[Turning Pro]

Guys

1. Roger Federer

-----------big gap-----------------

2. Rafael Nadal
3. Lleyton Hewitt
-----------big gap-----------------

4. Andre Agassi
5. Gustavo Kuerten
6. Marat Safin
7. Andy Roddick
8. Pete Sampras
-----------big gap----------------
9. Juan Carlos Ferrero
10. David Nalbandian

Very accurate indeed.

 

[hyogen]

some of you guys are ********...

I applaud some of you for putting Agassi at #2.

A big gap between nadal and agassi? keep in mind there were a few years when Agassi was out of the scene with personal stuff going on. And he had great success even as the oldest man on the tour........close to 35....

My surprise is that a lot of you are placing Sampras low on the list, when by many (not me) he's considered GOAT.

 

[federerfanatic]

some of you guys are ********...

I applaud some of you for putting Agassi at #2.

A big gap between nadal and agassi? keep in mind there were a few years when Agassi was out of the scene with personal stuff going on. And he had great success even as the oldest man on the tour........close to 35....

My surprise is that a lot of you are placing Sampras low on the list, when by many (not me) he's considered GOAT.

What you seem to be forgetting is these rankings are for this decade ONLY. So if you consider this decade to have started in 2000 (I consider 2001 but most probably dont) then Agassi had won his 2 U.S Opens, 1 French Open, 1 Wimbledon, and 1 of his 4 Australian Opens, his 1 year end Masters, and 1 year end #1, last decade. Same with Sampras, counting this decade then only 2 of his 14 slams (if you consider 2000 the start of the decade) are from this decade, and only 3 years of tennis, 2 of those very inconsistent and struggling apart from the great U.S Open runs both years.

Nadal being compared to Agassi in this thread is only this decade. Everything Nadal has done is this decade of course, while over half of what Agassi did was last decade.

 

[drakulie]

1. Roger Federer

<<big gap>>

















































2. Andre Agassi
<<big gap>

















3-10 ?? ( who cares)

 

[superman1]

The decade is 2000-2007. Would you consider 2000 to be part of the 90's? No...

So it's between Agassi, Nadal, and Hewitt.

Agassi:

Slams: 3 Wins, 2 Finals, 4 Semifinals, 8 Quarterfinals
7 Masters Series Wins, 2 Masters Cup Finals


Hewitt:

Slams: 2 Wins, 2 Finals, 4 Semifinals, 6 Quarterfinals
2 Masters Series wins, 2 Tennis Masters Cup wins, 1 Masters Cup final

Agassi beats Hewitt here convincingly. So it's between Agassi and Nadal:

Nadal:

Slams: 3 Wins, 2 Finals, 2 Quarterfinals
9 Masters Series titles

Agassi beats Nadal so far (way better results at the 4 Slams), but the decade ain't over and I expect Nadal to surpass him next year.

 

[FedForGOAT]

there was a year zero. the # of the year is how many years in the Common Era (C.E) have passed. so it starts at zero. when year zero ends and year one begins, a year has already passed. therefore the new millenium starts at january 1st 2000.

yes it would have made sense to start from year one, but that's how it works.

 

[hyogen]

What you seem to be forgetting is these rankings are for this decade ONLY. So if you consider this decade to have started in 2000 (I consider 2001 but most probably dont) then Agassi had won his 2 U.S Opens, 1 French Open, 1 Wimbledon, and 1 of his 4 Australian Opens, his 1 year end Masters, and 1 year end #1, last decade. Same with Sampras, counting this decade then only 2 of his 14 slams (if you consider 2000 the start of the decade) are from this decade, and only 3 years of tennis, 2 of those very inconsistent and struggling apart from the great U.S Open runs both years.

Nadal being compared to Agassi in this thread is only this decade. Everything Nadal has done is this decade of course, while over half of what Agassi did was last decade.

ah yes. i sit corrected. sorry for being such a brash Agassi fanboy ;D i can't help it. at least i'm not a Federer Fanboy or Mariasharapova fanboy

 

[federerfanatic]

ah yes. i sit corrected. sorry for being such a brash Agassi fanboy ;D i can't help it. at least i'm not a Federer Fanboy or Mariasharapova fanboy

I admit to being a Federer fanboy, if that is a crime sue me. Sharapova though heck no, you couldnt pay me enough to cheer for her in a match, heck even watch a full match of hers unless she is getting her butt kicked then I will watch the whole thing.

 

[cuddles26]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Hewitt
5. Kuerten
6. Roddick
7. Safin
8. Sampras
9. Ferrero
10. Nalbandian

 

[anointedone]

Male:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Hewitt
4. Agassi
5. Kuerten
6. Roddick
7. Djokovic
8. Safin
9. Sampras
10. Ferrero

Women:

1. Serena
2. Venus
3. Henin
4. Sharapova
5. Davenport
6. Mauresmo
7. Clijsters
8. Capriati
9. Kuznetsova
10. Hingis

 

[superman1]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Hewitt
5. Kuerten
6. Roddick
7. Safin
8. Sampras
9. Ferrero
10. Nalbandian

Looks pretty good to me.

 

[rafaelnadalfan1234]

i like noeledmonds' list