Is Sinner a top 50 player of all time in men's tennis?

?


  • Total voters
    94

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
This would require no huge analysis for open era. But no one knows all time

Sinner is with 127 GOAT points on UTS at number 30 now. So open era top 30 already. By end of the year he might have jumped 6 spots inside top 25.


The pace is frightening.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
This would require no huge analysis for open era. But no one knows all time

Sinner is with 127 GOAT points on UTS at number 30 now. So open era top 30 already. By end of the year he might have jumped 6 spots inside top 25.


The pace is frightening.
Cool but I was actually including pre open era as well. For the oldies.
 

RSJfan

Hall of Fame
Depends how much or if you tax him for steroids but taking that out of the equation he's clearly there
This is a good example of why the disclosure rule changes in the current draft 2027 WADA Code can’t be implemented soon enough.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Not for me yet.

He has had (arguably) ONE good year on the tour, yeah it stretches slightly longer than that but 1 year is nothing. I could (but won't) name 50 players better than him right now, be it superior slam numbers or less but superior quality players and I would say that most of this forum would agree with the names. Give him a couple of years of dominance and he will easily slide into the top 50 or even top 20.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Not for me yet.

He has had (arguably) ONE good year on the tour, yeah it stretches slightly longer than that but 1 year is nothing. I could (but won't) name 50 players better than him right now, be it superior slam numbers or less but superior quality players and I would say that most of this forum would agree with the names. Give him a couple of years of dominance and he will easily slide into the top 50 or even top 20.
One good year is wrong. It's 2 good years from post AO in 2023 to now.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
One good year is wrong. It's 2 good years from post AO in 2023 to now.

You're right, I did consider changing the post but i figured that most of his big title wins came in 2024 so I rounded it down. My point still stands though, I don't think It's fair to judge him yet as a top 50, for all we know he could be the next Raducanu and barely make it past R1 for the rest of his career, y'know? Let's give him a couple more years before we rank him. Same with Alcaraz.
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
My immediate reaction was this is fake Shams has been hacked so that pretty much says it all about how ridiculous it is. I don’t know how the Lakers constantly luck into this crap but it’s incredibly annoying.
I actually am more confused 24 hours later than I was at the time. I still have yet to find a plausible angle for Dallas that doesn’t involve Luka having some sort of degenerative leg injury or DeShaun Watson scandal
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
This is some big misunderstanding...

Indeed, on your part. Even WADA isn’t talking about doping and will be forced to adjust its guidelines to avoid contamination getting increasingly misconstrued as doping.

You're right, I did consider changing the post but i figured that most of his big title wins came in 2024 so I rounded it down. My point still stands though, I don't think It's fair to judge him yet as a top 50, for all we know he could be the next Raducanu and barely make it past R1 for the rest of his career, y'know? Let's give him a couple more years before we rank him. Same with Alcaraz.

Sinner has won a higher percentage of points in 2024 than Sampras ever did in his career, Raducanu played one great tournament. His great streak started arguably at Wimbledon where Djokovic won in straights by being better in the big moments. His level was surprisingly close as DR and TPW indicated.
 

timnz

Legend
Find me 50 players above him.
Heres the first 17 (in no particular order) as at feb 25 - laver, Federer, rosewall, djokovic, Gonzales, Borg, Sampras, Tilden, Nadal, budge, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Kramer
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Talking strictly about his results and not his potential -

Clearly ahead (charitable to Pre-Open):
Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Laver, Rosewall, Murray, Courier, Alcaraz clearly ahead in the Open Era/Transition Era. That's 17.
Pre-Open, anyone commonly referred to as a titan of his time is probably up there too. Budge, Perry, Tilden, Vines, Lacoste, Cochet, Riggs, Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert. 10.

Clearly behind:
Pretty much anyone that had 2 slams or less that wasn't #1 for a good number of weeks. Already this disqualifies Rafter, Kafelnikov, Safin, Bruguera, Smith.


The question marks:
(Open Era/Transition): Newcombe (let's give it to him), Kodes (played a weak 1973 Wimbledon in boycott. Never reached #1. Not giving it), Nastase (only 2 slams, but significant time at #1. 4 YECs, many more titles. I'm leaning his way for now.), Ashe (won 3 slams, but was never #1. Not enough other stuff to put him ahead.), Vilas (With 4 slams and arguably some time owed him at #1, it's tough to not put Vilas ahead. Combine that with a career of other accomplishments, Vilas is ahead.), Kuerten (Significant time at #1, 3 slams. Pretty even. Less versatile, short career. For now let's lean Kuerten's way just on title count.), Hewitt (2 slams, but significant time at #1, 2 YEC titles, 30 titles total... tough to say. Let's lean in Hewitt's favor), Wawrinka (3 slams, but no time at #1. Not many other significant titles. I'd argue he's behind.) +5
Pre-open question marks: Hoad, Emerson, Segura, Kramer (I'm choosing to only put Emerson above because of the sheer number he won + the 6 non-AO amateur slams he got). +1.

Beginning of tennis numbers guys, but context holds them back
Larned, Doherty, Renshaw, Sears, Wilding, Crawford, all have high slam counts in the early days of tennis, but the competition was on the scale of a national competition - if that, not worldwide. Still, if all you see are numbers, you could put these guys ahead. Another 6 potentially if you want to be extremely charitable to them.


Tallying all that up, that's 39 ahead of him, being charitable to the amateur era. If you include the tough decisions I didn't go for, that's another +11, putting 50 ahead of him, so you'd need to agree with just 1 of my picks to justify putting Sinner in the top 50. Honestly, I could've been more selective - my laxness toward the Pre-Open era and those on the border with Sinner went against him. Honestly, I put him around 30th to 35th at the moment based on current achievements. Room to grow obviously.

To place him beyond 51st, you'd either need to pick 3-5 amateur slam winners in the 1950s (a la Santana, Cooper, Fraser - but I respect them less as they did that during the Pro Slam era), 3 amateur slam winners in their national eras (not even close to a modern slam), or a 1-slam winner that lived in a tough era (a la Delpo. Love the guy, but not enough going his way to make up for 2 missing slams and time at #1). So at absolute worst, you'd get Sinner is maybe 55th. And that's with every decision going against Sinner.
 

Smecz

Professional
Indeed, on your part. Even WADA isn’t talking about doping and will be forced to adjust its guidelines to avoid contamination getting increasingly misconstrued as doping.
If he was in the same position in the ATP ranking as K.Majchrzak, he could have long ago only competed on Virtua Tennis or Top Spin.....

Or maybe we are slowly entering the era of allowing the use of doping, in accordance with the progress of humanity.:unsure:
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Talking strictly about his results and not his potential -

Clearly ahead (charitable to Pre-Open):
Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Laver, Rosewall, Murray, Courier, Alcaraz clearly ahead in the Open Era/Transition Era. That's 17.
Pre-Open, anyone commonly referred to as a titan of his time is probably up there too. Budge, Perry, Tilden, Vines, Lacoste, Cochet, Riggs, Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert. 10.

Clearly behind:
Pretty much anyone that had 2 slams or less that wasn't #1 for a good number of weeks. Already this disqualifies Rafter, Kafelnikov, Safin, Bruguera, Smith.


The question marks:
(Open Era/Transition): Newcombe (let's give it to him), Kodes (played a weak 1973 Wimbledon in boycott. Never reached #1. Not giving it), Nastase (only 2 slams, but significant time at #1. 4 YECs, many more titles. I'm leaning his way for now.), Ashe (won 3 slams, but was never #1. Not enough other stuff to put him ahead.), Vilas (With 4 slams and arguably some time owed him at #1, it's tough to not put Vilas ahead. Combine that with a career of other accomplishments, Vilas is ahead.), Kuerten (Significant time at #1, 3 slams. Pretty even. Less versatile, short career. For now let's lean Kuerten's way just on title count.), Hewitt (2 slams, but significant time at #1, 2 YEC titles, 30 titles total... tough to say. Let's lean in Hewitt's favor), Wawrinka (3 slams, but no time at #1. Not many other significant titles. I'd argue he's behind.) +5
Pre-open question marks: Hoad, Emerson, Segura, Kramer (I'm choosing to only put Emerson above because of the sheer number he won + the 6 non-AO amateur slams he got). +1.

Beginning of tennis numbers guys, but context holds them back
Larned, Doherty, Renshaw, Sears, Wilding, Crawford, all have high slam counts in the early days of tennis, but the competition was on the scale of a national competition - if that, not worldwide. Still, if all you see are numbers, you could put these guys ahead. Another 6 potentially if you want to be extremely charitable to them.


Tallying all that up, that's 39 ahead of him, being charitable to the amateur era. If you include the tough decisions I didn't go for, that's another +11, putting 50 ahead of him, so you'd need to agree with just 1 of my picks to justify putting Sinner in the top 50. Honestly, I could've been more selective - my laxness toward the Pre-Open era and those on the border with Sinner went against him. Honestly, I put him around 30th to 35th at the moment based on current achievements. Room to grow obviously.

To place him beyond 51st, you'd either need to pick 3-5 amateur slam winners in the 1950s (a la Santana, Cooper, Fraser - but I respect them less as they did that during the Pro Slam era), 3 amateur slam winners in their national eras (not even close to a modern slam), or a 1-slam winner that lived in a tough era (a la Delpo. Love the guy, but not enough going his way to make up for 2 missing slams and time at #1). So at absolute worst, you'd get Sinner is maybe 55th. And that's with every decision going against Sinner.
Great answer.

I would have off head said somewhere 35-50 range as a original hunch. With pre open era I am sure there might be some guys who achieved a lot but didn't have there achievements well documented because of how long ago it was.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Not for me yet.

He has had (arguably) ONE good year on the tour, yeah it stretches slightly longer than that but 1 year is nothing. I could (but won't) name 50 players better than him right now, be it superior slam numbers or less but superior quality players and I would say that most of this forum would agree with the names. Give him a couple of years of dominance and he will easily slide into the top 50 or even top 20.
Top 60-70?
 

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
If he was in the same position in the ATP ranking as K.Majchrzak, he could have long ago only competed on Virtua Tennis or Top Spin.....

Confirms your big misunderstanding, you obviously never heard about the Bortolotti case. Ignorance can be a bliss.…

Talking strictly about his results and not his potential -

To place him beyond 51st, you'd either need to pick 3-5 amateur slam winners in the 1950s (a la Santana, Cooper, Fraser - but I respect them less as they did that during the Pro Slam era), 3 amateur slam winners in their national eras (not even close to a modern slam), or a 1-slam winner that lived in a tough era (a la Delpo. Love the guy, but not enough going his way to make up for 2 missing slams and time at #1). So at absolute worst, you'd get Sinner is maybe 55th. And that's with every decision going against Sinner.

Great overview. Everybody who places Sinner with clear conviction outside the top 50 is either trolling or doesn’t know the history or present of tennis. Likely both.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I want to ask this for Alcaraz as well maybe a separate thread unless someone beats me to it.
 

thrust

Legend
I want to ask this for Alcaraz as well maybe a separate thread unless someone beats me to it.
As of now, I would rank Alcaraz above Sinner. Carlos has won slams on clay, Hard and grass, Sinner only on hard. Alcaraz has won 4 slams, Sinner-3
 

RS

Bionic Poster
As of now, I would rank Alcaraz above Sinner. Carlos has won slams on clay, Hard and grass, Sinner only on hard. Alcaraz has won 4 slams, Sinner-3
Yeah I imagine most people rank Alcaraz higher so I was gonna ask if he makes top 40 or something. But Sinner is starting to close the gap pretty fast.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Very few current fans of tennis could name 50 players better than Sinner

It is debatable how much that says about Sinner vs how much it says about them
Well spread some light about were you would have him if you don't mind.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I don't think It's fair to judge him yet as a top 50, for all we know he could be the next Raducanu
I hope you are not serious about this. Raducanu is the living exemplar of "fluke." Her U.S. Open triumph is the only title of her career. It's the only tour-level final of her career. Sinner has three straight hard court slams plus the YEC. Raducanu has spent a total of five weeks in the WTA top 10 in her entire career (and all at no. 10, so barely there). Sinner has spent 35 weeks at no. 1 already and is holding that rank. Even if Sinner retired tomorrow, he could not possibly be compared to Raducanu in terms of total achievements.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Talking strictly about his results and not his potential -

Clearly ahead (charitable to Pre-Open):
Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Laver, Rosewall, Murray, Courier, Alcaraz clearly ahead in the Open Era/Transition Era. That's 17.
Pre-Open, anyone commonly referred to as a titan of his time is probably up there too. Budge, Perry, Tilden, Vines, Lacoste, Cochet, Riggs, Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert. 10.

Clearly behind:
Pretty much anyone that had 2 slams or less that wasn't #1 for a good number of weeks. Already this disqualifies Rafter, Kafelnikov, Safin, Bruguera, Smith.


The question marks:
(Open Era/Transition): Newcombe (let's give it to him), Kodes (played a weak 1973 Wimbledon in boycott. Never reached #1. Not giving it), Nastase (only 2 slams, but significant time at #1. 4 YECs, many more titles. I'm leaning his way for now.), Ashe (won 3 slams, but was never #1. Not enough other stuff to put him ahead.), Vilas (With 4 slams and arguably some time owed him at #1, it's tough to not put Vilas ahead. Combine that with a career of other accomplishments, Vilas is ahead.), Kuerten (Significant time at #1, 3 slams. Pretty even. Less versatile, short career. For now let's lean Kuerten's way just on title count.), Hewitt (2 slams, but significant time at #1, 2 YEC titles, 30 titles total... tough to say. Let's lean in Hewitt's favor), Wawrinka (3 slams, but no time at #1. Not many other significant titles. I'd argue he's behind.) +5
Pre-open question marks: Hoad, Emerson, Segura, Kramer (I'm choosing to only put Emerson above because of the sheer number he won + the 6 non-AO amateur slams he got). +1.

Beginning of tennis numbers guys, but context holds them back
Larned, Doherty, Renshaw, Sears, Wilding, Crawford, all have high slam counts in the early days of tennis, but the competition was on the scale of a national competition - if that, not worldwide. Still, if all you see are numbers, you could put these guys ahead. Another 6 potentially if you want to be extremely charitable to them.


Tallying all that up, that's 39 ahead of him, being charitable to the amateur era. If you include the tough decisions I didn't go for, that's another +11, putting 50 ahead of him, so you'd need to agree with just 1 of my picks to justify putting Sinner in the top 50. Honestly, I could've been more selective - my laxness toward the Pre-Open era and those on the border with Sinner went against him. Honestly, I put him around 30th to 35th at the moment based on current achievements. Room to grow obviously.

To place him beyond 51st, you'd either need to pick 3-5 amateur slam winners in the 1950s (a la Santana, Cooper, Fraser - but I respect them less as they did that during the Pro Slam era), 3 amateur slam winners in their national eras (not even close to a modern slam), or a 1-slam winner that lived in a tough era (a la Delpo. Love the guy, but not enough going his way to make up for 2 missing slams and time at #1). So at absolute worst, you'd get Sinner is maybe 55th. And that's with every decision going against Sinner.
Good stuff!
Perhaps, hold onto this, and adapt as "necessary".
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
The past is better narrative isn't flying.
BOOM

I am all for respecting the past but the site was way too much past oriented for long time. How everything past was 10 times better.

Now the tide has shifted completely. Present can not be a prisoner of the past. Past had its time.
 
Top