How many All Time Greats can say that they ruled their career span/era overall ?

[Razer]

ATGs - Their Career Span (First Grand Slam to Last Grand Appearance)

01. Djokovic - 2005-2023

Slams
Djokovic - 22
Nadal - 22
Federer - 16

Big Titles
Djokovic - 66
Nadal - 59
Federer - 44

Total Titles
Djokovic - 93
Nadal - 91
Federer - 81

02. Nadal - 2003-2023

Slams
Djokovic - 22
Nadal - 22
Federer - 20

Big Titles
Djokovic - 66
Nadal - 59
Federer - 53

Total Titles
Federer - 96
Djokovic - 93
Nadal - 92

03. Federer - 1999-2022

Slams
Nadal - 22
Djokovic - 21
Federer - 20

Big Titles
Djokovic - 65
Nadal - 59
Federer - 54

Total Titles
Federer - 103
Nadal - 92
Djokovic - 91

04. Sampras - 1988-2002

Slams
Sampras - 14
Agassi - 8
Courier - 4

Big Titles
Sampras - 32
Agassi - 26
Becker - 15

Total Titles
Sampras - 64
Agassi - 52
Muster - 41

05. Andre Agassi - 1986 - 2006

Slams
Sampras - 14
Federer - 9
Agassi - 8

Big Titles
Sampras - 32
Agassi - 27
Federer - 24

Total Titles
Sampras - 64
Agassi - 60
Federer - 45

06. Boris Becker 1984-1999

Slams

Sampras - 12
Lendl - 8
Becker - 6

Big Titles
Sampras - 27
Lendl - 26
Becker - 23

Total Titles
Sampras - 59
Lendl - 55
Becker - 49

07. Stefan Edberg 1983 - 1996

Slams
Lendl - 8
Sampras - 8
Becker - 6
Edberg - 6

Big Titles
Lendl - 28
Becker - 23
Sampras - 19
Mcenroe - 18
Edberg/Wilander - 14

Total Titles
Lendl - 63
Becker - 49
Sampras - 44
Edberg - 42

08. Mats Wilander 1981-1996

Slams
Lendl - 8
Wilander - 7
Sampras - 7

Big Titles
Lendl - 33
Mcenroe - 23
Becker - 21
Sampras - 17
Wilander - 15

Total Titles
Lendl - 87
Mcenroe - 53
Becker - 45
edberg - 42
sampras - 40
Muster - 40
Wilander - 33

09. Ivan Lendl - 1978-1994

Slams
Lendl - 8
Borg - 7
Mcenroe - 7

Big Titles
Lendl - 33
Mcenroe - 32
Connors - 19

Total Titles
Lendl - 94
Mcenroe - 77
Connors - 49

10. John Mcenroe 1977 - 1992

Slams
Borg - 8
Lendl - 8
Mcenroe - 7

Big Titles
Lendl - 33
Mcenroe - 32
Connors - 20

Total Titles
Lendl - 92
Mcenroe - 77
Connors - 53

11. Bjorn Borg - 1972-1981

Slams
Borg - 11
Connors - 5
Vilas - 4

Big Titles
Borg - 25
Connors - 23
Mcenroe - 13

Total Tiles
Connors - 89
Borg - 66
Nastase - 53

12. Jimmy Connors - 1970-1992

Slams
Borg - 11
Connors - 8
Lendl - 8

Big Titles
Lendl - 33
Mcenroe - 32
Connors - 31

Total Tiles
Connors - 109
Lendl - 92
Mcenroe - 77

 

[veelium]

Only Sampras was the clear number one in his era.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Andy Murray.

 

[dking68]

2010s - Djokovic
2000s - Federer
1990s - Sampras
1980s - Lendl but by a thin margin, but the 270 weeks at number 1 takes the cake
1970s - Borg

 

[Unseeded Player]

Only Sampras was the clear number one in his era.

Fed made consecutive 237 weeks as n1...

 

[Razer]

Fed made consecutive 237 weeks as n1...

Federer and Djokovic are part of the same era, how can there be 2 winners in the era? It is only 1 winner.

If Djokovic is the best of his era then Fed cannot be best, if Fed is best then Djokovic cannot be best, how can you divide them and then ignore Nadal ?

 

[veelium]

Fed made consecutive 237 weeks as n1...

The question was for career span. Not enough to seperate Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[dking68]

Who will be the king of the 2020s? Early bloomer Alcaraz or Late Bloomer Sinner (similar to Lendl)

 

[DSH]

Who will be the king of the 2020s? Early bloomer Alcaraz or Late Bloomer Sinner (similar to Lendl)

And the prince of Denmark, don't you count him?

 

[dking68]

And the prince of Denmark, don't you count him?

Not really, he hasn’t shown me that he’s a dominator on all surfaces. So I’ll leave him out

 

[Razer]

Sinner has no future, he is already at his peak and he is also a pigeon of Alcaraz, that is bad news for him.

 

[Tennfan123]

Where is Charlie?

 

[DSH]

Not really, he hasn’t shown me that he’s a dominator on all surfaces. So I’ll leave him out

 

[dking68]

Sinner has no future, he is already at his peak and he is also a pigeon of Alcaraz, that is bad news for him.

How is he a pigeon if he’s 3-3 in the head to head. Could’ve been 4-2 if he had converted the MP at the USO?

 

[DSH]

Sinner has no future, he is already at his peak and he is also a pigeon of Alcaraz, that is bad news for him.

 

[dking68]

Am I right or wrong? His game style is not good enough for grass atm

 

[dking68]

The funny thing is he has the largest room for improvement out of everyone in the top ten

 

[Unseeded Player]

Federer and Djokovic are part of the same era, how can there be 2 winners in the era? It is only 1 winner.

If Djokovic is the best of his era then Fed cannot be best, if Fed is best then Djokovic cannot be best, how can you divide them and then ignore Nadal ?

Fed marked 2000's with 2004-2007 peak period.. Could say that Nadal had 2008-2010 period.. Since 2011 it is Novak.... 2010's are Novak's period..

 

[Unseeded Player]

The question was for career span. Not enough to seperate Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

Fed is 6 years older than Novak so I can give Fed 2000's.. Novak 2010's...

 

[Razer]

Fed marked 2000's with 2004-2007 peak period.. Could say that Nadal had 2008-2010 period.. Since 2011 it is Novak.... 2010's are Novak's period..

Then you can divide 80s into mcenroe period, lendl period, is that a good way to see things? They are both of the same age, one of them has to be rated ahead of the other since their careers overlapped for the most of it.

How is he a pigeon if he’s 3-3 in the head to head. Could’ve been 4-2 if he had converted the MP at the USO?

Alcaraz is younger and already beat him in slams, is ranked higher, I dont think Sinner will be able to reverse it, he seems like a very boring player and he is not Djokovic with all that determination and willpower to beat guys who are better than him, so basically sinner has no future, he will at best have a hewitt like career.

 

[dking68]

Then you can divide 80s into mcenroe period, lendl period, is that a good way to see things? They are both of the same age, one of them has to be rated ahead of the other since their careers overlapped for the most of it.



Alcaraz is younger and already beat him in slams, is ranked higher, I dont think Sinner will be able to reverse it, he seems like a very boring player and he is not Djokovic with all that determination and willpower to beat guys who are better than him, so basically sinner has no future, he will at best have a hewitt like career.

Haha okay. Alcaraz only beat Sinner once at the USO, and Sinner has beaten the chosen one at Wimbledon. So I don’t get your argument? And out of the two, I think Sinner has more room for improvement, physically and game wise

 

[Razer]

Haha okay. Alcaraz only beat Sinner once at the USO, and Sinner has beaten the chosen one at Wimbledon. So I don’t get your argument? And out of the two, I think Sinner has more room for improvement, physically and game wise

Maybe Alcaraz will win wimbledon soon ? I doubt if sinner will improve and dominate tennis.... we'll see.... at this point it is still too early but maybe in an year or 2 we will know who is what.

 

[fedfan24]

arbitrary cutoff. “Last slam appearance” factoring in fed’s 2022 that was more like a farewell the condition he was in.

1st to last slam final:
2003 W - 2019 W
Federer - 20 slams
Nadal - 18 slams
Djokovic - 16 slams


Federer absolutely finished on top. That Nadal/djokovic continued to inflate their totals vs crapgens following his defacto retirement after 2020ao is neither here nor there.

 

[fedfan24]

Federer and Djokovic are part of the same era, how can there be 2 winners in the era? It is only 1 winner.

If Djokovic is the best of his era then Fed cannot be best, if Fed is best then Djokovic cannot be best, how can you divide them and then ignore Nadal ?

Hahahaha wrong
2001-2011W (fed’s 20s)
Federer - 16 slams
Nadal - 10 slams
Djokovic - 3 slams

2000s decade belongs to Federer, no matter how much mental gymnastics you try to spin, @Rick kerr

 

[Unseeded Player]

Then you can divide 80s into mcenroe period, lendl period, is that a good way to see things? They are both of the same age, one of them has to be rated ahead of the other since their careers overlapped for the most of it.

I find it dificult to erase Nadal..

 

[Unseeded Player]

arbitrary cutoff. “Last slam appearance” factoring in fed’s 2022 that was more like a farewell the condition he was in.

1st to last slam final:
2003 W - 2019 W
Federer - 20 slams
Nadal - 18 slams
Djokovic - 16 slams


Federer absolutely finished on top. That Nadal/djokovic continued to inflate their totals vs crapgens following his defacto retirement after 2020ao is neither here nor there.

Fed took only 4 slam in 2010's.. Last win against Novak at slams was in WB12

 

[fedfan24]

Fed took only 4 slam in 2010's.. Last win against Novak at slams was in WB12

3rd best of 2010s decade. Number 1 of 2000s decade. Makes sense, given that his prime was roughly 2003-2012 before he declined too much to play with the 90sq inch racket.

 

[Razer]

I find it dificult to erase Nadal..

Thats why I said, Federer and Novak cannot both be winners, it makes no sense because Nadal would then have no era. The only logical conclusion is that 2000s & 2010s were both part of the post Sampras era and there is only 1 winner, that winner will be the winner of the GOAT Race.

Sameway for 80s too, it sounds good to say that Mcenroe ruled from 81 to 84, then lendl ruled, but in reality we have to pick 1 out of these 2 guys since their careers overlapped.

 

[veelium]

Fed is 6 years older than Novak so I can give Fed 2000's.. Novak 2010's...

Not the topic though.

 

[fedfan24]

Thats why I said, Federer and Novak cannot both be winners, it makes no sense because Nadal would then have no era. The only logical conclusion is that 2000s & 2010s were both part of the post Sampras era and there is only 1 winner, that winner will be the winner of the GOAT Race.

Sameway for 80s too, it sounds good to say that Mcenroe ruled from 81 to 84, then lendl ruled, but in reality we have to pick 1 out of these 2 since their careers overlapped.

usual s*** posting from you. fed was number 1 of his era. Even if you want to extend that to his last slam final in 2019 he finished with more slams than anyone.

 

[Unseeded Player]

3rd best of 2010s decade. Number 1 of 2000s decade. Makes sense, given that his prime was roughly 2003-2012 before he declined too much to play with the 90sq inch racket.

I would say that 2 better players reached maturity.

 

[fedfan24]

I would say that 2 better players reached maturity.

because you’re a Serbian fanatic who probably started watching tennis in 2015

federer is comfortably better than djokovic at 2/4 slams at at worst tied at rg for level there.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Thats why I said, Federer and Novak cannot both be winners, it makes no sense because Nadal would then have no era. The only logical conclusion is that 2000s & 2010s were both part of the post Sampras era and there is only 1 winner, that winner will be the winner of the GOAT Race.

Nadal didn't had it, in his peak he was sandwiched between prime Fed and prime Novak.

 

[Razer]

Nadal didn't had it, in his peak he was sandwiched between prime Fed and prime Novak.

nadal dominated clay for 20 years and he has 22 slams & winning h2h over federer. He has same number of year end 1s as Federer. Just because Fed has concentrated dominance in some years doesn't mean he ruled his era over others.

 

[fedfan24]

nadal dominated clay for 20 years and he has 22 slams & winning h2h over federer. He has same number of year end 1s as Federer. Just because Fed has concentrated dominance in some years doesn't mean he ruled his era over others.

2003-2012
Federer: most slams, most time and years at number 1, most titles.

try again, rick kerr/troll

 

[Unseeded Player]

because you’re a Serbian fanatic who probably started watching tennis in 2015

federer is comfortably better than djokovic at 2/4 slams at at worst tied at rg for level there.

Since 2001 tbh, still remember Ivanišević - Rafter final.

Fed is not positive against Novak in H2H at any slam, he is negative at AO and WB, equal at RG and US... His titles against Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Philippoussis, Gonzales, Baghdatis are not the measure.

 

[fedfan24]

Since 2001 tbh, still remember Ivanišević - Rafter final.

Fed is not positive against Novak in H2H at any slam, he is negative at AO and WB, equal at RG and US... His titles against Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Philippoussis, Gonzales, Baghdatis are not the measure.

h2h is meaningless metric, it’s dependant on form and age of meeting. fed won more at both slams, displayed a higher winning level and also a higher losing level at both W/USO. Titles against 33+ federer, kyrgios, berretini, thiem, medvedev don’t amount to anything either.

 

[Unseeded Player]

h2h is meaningless metric, it’s dependant on form and age of meeting. fed won more at both slams, displayed a higher winning level and also a higher losing level at both W/USO. Titles against 33+ federer, kyrgios, berretini, thiem, medvedev don’t amount to anything either.

When you have 50 matches played, it is. Of course, but he had vacuum period after Sampras and Agassi with no serious competition outside clay until Rafa entered his prime and started defeating him on other surfaces. So Fed can have easier period and Novak can't?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sampras.

He was 14-4 in slam finals and owned his only legitimate rival in big matches.

Anyone saying Nadal is either spectacularly uninformed or trolling. He spent more weeks at #2 than anyone else in history and never dominated Djokovic, in fact he's been dominated by Djokovic since 2011.

 

[thrust]

Why is Becker on this list? He never dominated an era. O YE at #1 13 weeks at #1, 6 slams, the same as Edberg, who had 2 YE at #1 and 72 weeks at #1. Wilander had 1 YE at #1 and won 7 slams. Lendl leads Becker by a wide margin in weeks and YE at #1, has 2 more slams and won many more tournaments.

 

[Razer]

Why is Becker on this list? He never dominated an era. O YE at #1 13 weeks at #1, 6 slams, the same as Edberg, who had 2 YE at #1 and 72 weeks at #1. Wilander had 1 YE at #1 and won 7 slams. Lendl leads Becker by a wide margin in weeks and YE at #1, has 2 more slams and won many more tournaments.

Tbh neither of Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Agassi dominated their careers entirely to get votes, the weeks at 1 might give some figures for these people and edberg does have 2 year end 1s but that is not overall domination. Neither of these guys dominated the tour for their entire careers which is what the poll is about. People have voted Federer which I can understand since he ruled the 2000s and was considered the goat by fans for 14-15 years, but the rest of the dudes like wilander/edberg have no case in the poll for their names to even be included. Wilander has less big titles or total titles than many people of his times, his resume is inflated like hell.

Wilander is probably the weakest ATG among these 12 men, second weakest is Edberg.

 

[Razer]

Number of Best of 5 Finals Won in their Careers
Becker - 28 won out of 47 played (almost 60% won)
Edberg - 19 won out of 36 played (almost 53% won)
Wilander - 14 won out of 26 played (almost 54% won)

Number of Big titles
Becker - 23
Edberg - 15
Wilander - 14

Becker also has a winning H2H over these 2, so Becker did dominate his rivals even though it does not reflect in the ranking.

So this means Wilander was the worst of these 3 and Becker was the best of these 3.

 

[accidental]

I voted for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic

 

[thrust]

Tbh neither of Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Agassi dominated their careers entirely to get votes, the weeks at 1 might give some figures for these people and edberg does have 2 year end 1s but that is not overall domination. Neither of these guys dominated the tour for their entire careers which is what the poll is about. People have voted Federer which I can understand since he ruled the 2000s and was considered the goat by fans for 14-15 years, but the rest of the dudes like wilander/edberg have no case in the poll for their names to even be included. Wilander has less big titles or total titles than many people of his times, his resume is inflated like hell.

Wilander is probably the weakest ATG among these 12 men, second weakest is Edberg.

Mostly true, but Edberg's 2 YE at #1 and Wilander' 1 YE at #1 is closer to dominating an era than Becker's 0 YE and very few weeks at #1. Sampras dominated an era as did Roger, Novak and Rafa did on clay.

 

[Razer]

I voted for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic

No vote for Sampras who dominated his era but you voted for 3 people who are still battling it out to see who emerges ahead ?