I agree except that I’d move Agassi to Tier 3. I understand that tiers are not ordered and I have ne problem with that.
Agassi only had 1 year we he ended as World No 1 and had a very inferior H2G record against the other ATG of his era
Tough for me to see Ashe, Murray, and Vilas in Tier 2, but not Courier.
this feels about right and covers off on all the decades since the 70's
Mmmm....this is much broader bucketing. I struggle a bit w/Murray and Vilas in that 2nd tier. Ashe is tricky since he was pre-Open as well, no? Newk spanned both eras too, no? That makes it harder
Yeah, if we're including players who straddled the pre-Open and Open Eras, Newk is right there with Becker, Edberg, and Wilander.
If you think about this a bit more broadly, not just GS, but in terms of impact upon the game, legacy, etc., these tiers do work actually
would say he's in a large Tier 3 near Wawrinka and Roddick. doesn't have the same sort of sustained dominance or historical presence as the Tier 2 players
i would have put them in brackets like Laver and Rosewall, but i figured it was ok since they emerged near the end of the pro-am split and enough of their career and accomplishments are associated with the Open Era
yeah it's meant to be much less focused on counting majors and much more interested in their careers as a whole, how they were viewed by competition and media and audiences alike, and how they influenced the sport in their era and beyond
Courier has more Majors than Murray and Ashe and 58 weeks at #1 vs. 0 for Ashe and Vilas and 41 weeks for Murray. Plus, as had been noted, Vilas's AOs were against terrible fields, and the field at the French Open he won wasn't much better.
There are at least two completely different ways to look at this data. One is by considering the length of careers and how long players are absolutely at the top. But the other is to look at dominance during peaks even if the peaks were shorter.
Swap Federer and Borg and you have a deal.
Regardless, Borg was still the best of his era, Federer the third of his. He should be grateful to be placed in a special Tier "1.5" rather than Mayor of Bronze-ville.
pls explain to me how any version of Agassi (aside from 1997) loses to Connors on any surface, hav u seen Connors serve +forehand, it's from a bygone era? +Agassi has a winning H2H against all his 90s rivals except Samps +Courier. + only player in history to win all slams, YEC + Olympic gold
Huh? Borg played Mac many times, what are you talking about? He was just tired, burnt out and quit the game.
Um, PRIME Connors, not 37yr old Connors. His "weak" forehand is greatly exaggerated. 37yr old Connors more than held his own against Agassi in '89. Rollback the clock and it would be even more interesting. Andre's serve is no great shakes either, by the way. So that's nearly a wash. Connors would likely win on grass, lose to him on clay and it's gonna be a toss up on hard. And, I could care less about the Olympics (sorry to the rest of you, I just don't see it as all that and an eggroll). He's not the only player to win all 4 slams...in his era maybe.
Not bad at all. I’d put laver in top tier though
The fact that people are seriously putting Andre at tier III or tier IV is absolutely insane. People who weren't alive or who never saw Andre play shouldn't vote or make lists and expose their rampant ignorance. I sure don't ever comment on Laver or Rosewall since I never saw either of them play and weren't alive when they were active.
Murray, but no Newcombe or Courier?
I like it! Put Mac in tier 1. I won’t argue against that!
More versatile game than anyone on the list? Laver, Newcombe, and Edberg were all up there in terms of both surface versatility in singles and being excellent doubles players. In fact, Newcombe won the same number of singles Majors as McEnroe, but had 17 doubles Majors.
Newcombe was a great player. Mac had more singles titles and twice as many doubles titles. Both are two of the most well rounded players in history.
Well, obviously, we'd look at him differently if he played as long as Connors did...good bad or otherwise. I've got to think he'd be in the mix at the GS events. Aside from Mac's dominant '84, Borg probably would have taken a few FOs from Lendl and Wilander, I suspect. But, I don't think he quit because he feared playing Mac, or anyone for that matter.
I've seen every #1 from the early 80s' through current day play, in person. Andre is tricky to classify, I will agree. It's not like he hasn't had some great accomplishments. But, I'm hard pressed to put him on equal footing w/Connors, Lendl and yes, Mac. Mainly because of his up and down career and Lendl and Connors have far more weeks at #1 and # of titles. They both had periods where they were very dominant Andre redeemed himself late in his career, but even then, he loaded up on a bunch of AOs which will always be regarded a bit less than USO or W. Maybe he and Mac are about equal, some would argue that case.
You are probably right.
I think he gets lost in the shuffle between the pre-Open Era and the Open Era. If someone is making a list of the ATGs of the pre-Open Era, he doesn't make the cut b/c five of his seven Majors came in the Open Era. And then, most people say six Majors in the cutoff for ATGs in the Open Era, and he only has five Open Era Majors (setting aside that he has a big chance to win Wimbledon in 1972/1973 if he's allowed to play).
Only considered Open era achievements
Ok then
I agree that Lendl and Connors are significantly ahead of Andre, even though all have 8 slams. But Andre has to be clearly ahead of Mac with 7 slams.
It's a very fair case to make, I agree. A lot of folks will point to Mac's doubles success, but I think that should be separate. Mac had a very fluid, one-of-a-kind game which when he was on, was amazing to watch. I think I like Mac's trophy case a bit better than Andre's, and I'd say the same for Jimmy over Ivan. But, a win is a win.
