Greatest Players of All Time

R

rcetennis

Guest
I've developed a weighting system that ranks a player's achievements through his/her career. It takes into account # of Grand Slam titles, # of times lost in a Grand Slam final, # of years ranked #1, and # of overall tournaments won. Based on this formula the standings are:

1)Sampras
2)Connors
3)Lendl
4)McEnroe
5)Borg
6)Laver
7)Agassi
8)Federer
9)Edberg
10)Rosewall

Obviously, as Federer continues to win, he will move up and up.
 
Mick

Mick

Legend
they just interviewed Ivan Lendl (at the US Open) about the greatest player of all time and he said Roger Federer is on his way to become the GOAT.
 
D

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Older players are crap. The whole Budge, Gonzales thing. Have you guys not seen them play? You call that atheticism? Players of today would competely own.
 
Verbal_Kint

Verbal_Kint

Rookie
IF they played today they would probably have had the same upbringing as the current guys. You can't compare era's (but it's a lot of fun trying to).
 
harryz

harryz

Professional
other threads cover this pretty thoroughly

and the comment from dashaandsafin is ridiculous. Athletes from earlier eras were also fast, strong and accomplished. McEnroe noted on TV the other night that Borg ran a sub 10 second 100 yd dash in one of the Superstars competitions, beating the 110m high hurdle Olympic champ....

The problem with this system, by the way, is that it doesn't account for players who were not able to compete in GS if they were pros, like Laver and Gonzales, for much of their careers. So this thread should be about greatest players from the mid 70s onward.
 
harryz

harryz

Professional
and by the way

those guys knew how to play tactical tennis-- offense AND defense-- unlike most of the big hitters nowadays. The best of them would whoop ass against most guys on the tour today, and vice versa. Cream always rises.
 
tennus

tennus

Rookie
DashaandSafin said:
Ok ok, maybe they werent "crap". But still, the pace is nothing like it is today.
Click to expand...
LOL ! Neither was the racket technology, court surface, footwear and even balls !;)
 
A

allez

New User
Fed.

Sampras was extremely lucky. He would have no chance of winning 14 GS against today's power and spin due to the racquet technologies and player body conditioning. Nadal is just an exergeration of all these power, spin, speed, and muscle in today's game. Fed used to serve and volley. Even Fed had to give up serve and volley on Wimby. Go figure. Don't believe it, just ask Martina Nav.
 
R

rod99

Professional
Phillip=Tennis guy said:
1)Sampras

2)Connors

3)J mac

4) Ashe

5) Borg

6) Federer

7)Lendl

8)Vilas

9) Agassi

10)me.
Click to expand...


ridiculous list. ashe at #4? if we're talking about accomplishments on the court then ashe wouldn't be in the top 20 of the open era. vilas is way too high as well. he only had 1 great year in 1977. borg owned him. connors is also too high. they interviewed mcenroe on tv and asked him to rate the following in order: sampras, agassi, laver, mcenroe, connors. he ranked them: sampras, laver, agassi, mcenroe, connors.
 
O

OnceWas

Rookie
To be considered the greatest of all time, you have to be able to win on all surfaces. Sampras won ONE big clay court event in his entire career. Rome in 1994. In his entire career, he only got to the Semis of Roland Garros ONCE.
 
Andres

Andres

G.O.A.T.
rod99 said:
ridiculous list. ashe at #4? if we're talking about accomplishments on the court then ashe wouldn't be in the top 20 of the open era. vilas is way too high as well. he only had 1 great year in 1977. borg owned him. connors is also too high. they interviewed mcenroe on tv and asked him to rate the following in order: sampras, agassi, laver, mcenroe, connors. he ranked them: sampras, laver, agassi, mcenroe, connors.
Click to expand...
Vilas won 4 Grand Slams, 4 finals, in three different GS, had the claycourt record, most titles in a single year (16) and he's third in all time wins, and won 62 titles, same as Borg, and two less than your #1 Sampras.

I think his ranking is well earned ;)
 
breakfast_of_champions

breakfast_of_champions

Banned
rod99 said:
ridiculous list. ashe at #4? if we're talking about accomplishments on the court then ashe wouldn't be in the top 20 of the open era. vilas is way too high as well. he only had 1 great year in 1977. borg owned him. connors is also too high. they interviewed mcenroe on tv and asked him to rate the following in order: sampras, agassi, laver, mcenroe, connors. he ranked them: sampras, laver, agassi, mcenroe, connors.
Click to expand...

agree with ashe being to high, but mac is an idiot.
 
stormholloway

stormholloway

Legend
Mac is an idiot... can you explain?

I like Borg for overall ability. French and Wimbledon won consistently? Most difficult feat in tennis... unless someone starts winning Grand Slams consistently (won't happen).

I like Agassi as the jack of all trades, winning everywhere. Sampras was a big match guy and was dominant but couldn't play on the dirt.

Laver stands alone because it was different back then and most of his prime was spent away from the majors.
 
superman1

superman1

Legend
McEnroe listed Sampras, Laver, Borg, Federer, Agassi, and then modestly said maybe he'd be in there somewhere.

Wilander ranked the top 4: Sampras, Laver, Federer, Agassi, in no order. Then at #5 he tied McEnroe, Connors and Lendl.

The fact that even McEnroe is constantly changing his mind and reconsidering just shows how ridiculous this whole ranking thing is. There is a familiar list of players, and it's irrelevant who is better than who.
 
C

chaognosis

Semi-Pro
superman1 said:
I think McEnroe's ranking is currently Sampras, Federer, Laver. And he says Federer is the best he's ever seen, so Fed should surpass Samps soon, at least in his eyes.

Wilander ranked the top 4: Sampras, Laver, Federer, Agassi, in no order. Then at #5 he tied McEnroe, Connors and Lendl.

The fact that even McEnroe is constantly changing his mind and reconsidering just shows how ridiculous this whole ranking thing is. There is a familiar list of players, and it's irrelevant who is better than who.
Click to expand...

I agree, judging simply on the basis of how frequently I've changed my own opinion -- nevertheless I find these rankings too compulsively fun to resist. In the span of a month I have shifted Gonzales from the top three out of the top ten, then back into the top three. I have bumped Laver from No. 1 to No. 4, and moved Federer from outside the top 10 into the top six. To be quite honest, there are 17 or 18 players who I think deserve consideration. A few of them (Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, and Sampras, in particular) need to be there in order for the list to appear credible. Beyond that, arguments can be spun in any direction, and on a given morning I might wake up and find any one of those arguments more compelling than the others.
 
G

Gilgamesh

Semi-Pro
allez said:
Fed.

Sampras was extremely lucky. He would have no chance of winning 14 GS against today's power and spin due to the racquet technologies and player body conditioning.
Click to expand...

I reckon we will probably be saying the same thing 10-15 years from now about Fed.

It's too difficult to compare players of different eras. Too many variables. I still think the best measure is how they each individually performed against their own peers not how they would perform cross-generation.

We tend to forget that players of the past are pioneers to the evolution of the game we have today.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
allez said:
Fed.

Sampras was extremely lucky. He would have no chance of winning 14 GS against today's power and spin due to the racquet technologies and player body conditioning. Nadal is just an exergeration of all these power, spin, speed, and muscle in today's game. Fed used to serve and volley. Even Fed had to give up serve and volley on Wimby. Go figure. Don't believe it, just ask Martina Nav.
Click to expand...

"Today" as opposed to five years ago?

"Today" as opposed to last year when a past his prime 35 year old Agassi reached the final of the US Open?...the same AA who in his 25 year old prime couldn't beat Sampras in the '95 US Open final (nor again in the '01 QF nor the '02 final). BTW a past his prime Sampras reached three US Open finals in a row from 2000 to 2002, winning the last.

In 2000 on his way to the Wimbledon title Sampras beat a 28 year old Jonas Bjorkman in the R16. The same Bjorkman who at 34 reached the semis at this year's Wimbledon.

In the '01 US Open Sampras beat AA in the QF and then Safin in the SF before falling to Hewitt.

In his run to the title in the '02 US Open Sampras beat the same Tommy Haas playing for a spot in this year's QF of the USO but who was ranked #3 at that time in the R16, Andy Roddick in the QF and Agassi in the final.

In fact watching how much the current number 2 has struggled with two journeyman serve and volleyers ranked #237 and #82 at this year's Wimbledon and USO respectively I know at least one of today's crop who may count himself lucky as not having to face an in his prime Sampras.

Luck had nothing to do with it.
 
vive le beau jeu !

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Andres Guazzelli said:
Vilas won 4 Grand Slams, 4 finals, in three different GS, had the claycourt record, most titles in a single year (16) and he's third in all time wins, and won 62 titles, same as Borg, and two less than your #1 Sampras.

I think his ranking is well earned ;)
Click to expand...
well, he's a great champion... no question about that. ;)
but in front of agassi ?... i doubt it ! :rolleyes:
(and i'm not an agassi fan)

anyway all these lists are ridiculous : how didn't anybody mention wyutani in this top 10 ?!

EDIT
and yes... lendl is missing in several lists !
 
stormholloway

stormholloway

Legend
I don't see how you people can leave out Ivan Lendl in this list. He was a dominator for sure. 7 straight US Open finals.

I don't see where Ashe comes from. Beloved yes but he wasn't great.
 
oberyn

oberyn

Professional
stormholloway said:
I don't see how you people can leave out Ivan Lendl in this list. He was a dominator for sure. 7 straight US Open finals.
Click to expand...

Agreed on Lendl. It was 8 straight U.S. Open finals, BTW. 1982-89.

Add in his # of weeks at #1. Multiple finalist at every slam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Winning Percentages of Greatest Players in Big Matches
Replies
4
Views
709
Gonzo_style
Gonzo_style
P
Top 10 Players of All time(Men)
2
Replies
87
Views
3K
tudwell
T
Lew II
Slam matches played with ATGs (two categories)
Replies
15
Views
624
Third Serve
Third Serve
B
Top 20 all time in no particular order
2 3 4
Replies
178
Views
4K
abmk
abmk
M
Most All Time Greats - Defeated at One Grand Slam - Has Anyone Come Close to Nadal at French Open?
Replies
28
Views
1K
SonnyT
S
Top