Rank Players from this century outside of Fedalovic

Ok, so let's give spots 1,2 and 3 to Fedalovic and to stop this turning into a debate about them, let's rank players from this century from 4 onwards - when rating someone like Pete Sampras or Agassi, only their performances from 2000 onwards can be taken into account. Here is my top 10:

4. Murray (clear # 4: 3 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF and 13 Masters titles)
5. Hewitt (2 slams, 2 YE#1, 2 WTF, 2 Masters titles)
6. Agassi (hard to separate him from Hewitt: 3 slams and 7 Masters titles)
7. Kuerten (2 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF & 3 Masters titles)
8. Wawrinka (3 slams, 1 Masters title)
9. Safin (2 slams, 4 Masters titles)
10. Roddick (just slightly over Sampras: 1 slam (quite a few finals), 1 YE#1, 5 Masters titles)

I found it tough to split Hewitt and Agassi and also tough to split Roddick and Sampras.
 

Raining hopes

Hall of Fame
Ok, so let's give spots 1,2 and 3 to Fedalovic and to stop this turning into a debate about them, let's rank players from this century from 4 onwards - when rating someone like Pete Sampras or Agassi, only their performances from 2000 onwards can be taken into account. Here is my top 10:

4. Murray (clear # 4: 3 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF and 13 Masters titles)
5. Hewitt (2 slams, 2 YE#1, 2 WTF, 2 Masters titles)
6. Agassi (hard to separate him from Hewitt: 3 slams and 7 Masters titles)
7. Kuerten (2 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF & 3 Masters titles)
8. Wawrinka (3 slams, 1 Masters title)
9. Safin (2 slams, 4 Masters titles)
10. Roddick (just slightly over Sampras: 1 slam (quite a few finals), 1 YE#1, 5 Masters titles)

I found it tough to split Hewitt and Agassi and also tough to split Roddick and Sampras.


Roddick might just be 9th tbh, he made a Slam Final every year form 2003-2006 and a lot of SF during that period and after it.

Safin was not that consistent.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Hewitt barely edges Agassi because of the masters cups and slightly more consistency. Roddick has a case for as high as 7. He had more deep slam runs than any of those 3 guys, and we all know why those guys got 2-3 slams and he only got 1 (besides Safin, but Roddick just had way more deep slam runs). Prime Stan in his place from 03-09 probably has at most 1 slam (04 RG, but only if his 15 form aligned with it or else he'd almost definitely be slamless, and a pretty similar thing could be said for Murray as well).
Kuerten's masters cup is very impressive but he did very little in slams outside the 2 wins and was done as a top player after 01 due to injuries, so I'd probably put him last. So I'd go
Murray, Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Stan, Safin, Kuerten.

People forget that the average level of slam WINNERS from 04-09 was clearly higher than 11-16, and go nuts over the "big 4", so that in fact deflates the totals of guys like Roddick/Hewitt in comparison to a Murray or Stan. It was much harder to actually win a slam between 04-09 because of the 1 or 2 guys you always had to go through, and it's not even close compared to 11-16 when Djoker was giving out his handouts. Many more opportunities in the latter period. 04 RG was the only one in the former, and even then the winner would have had to beat several in-form quality opponents.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hewitt barely edges Agassi because of the masters cups and slightly more consistency. Roddick has a case for as high as 7. He had more deep slam runs than any of those 3 guys, and we all know why those guys got 2-3 slams and he only got 1 (besides Safin, but Roddick just had way more deep slam runs). Prime Stan in his place from 03-09 probably has at most 1 slam (04 RG, but only if his 15 form aligned with it or else he'd almost definitely be slamless, and a pretty similar thing could be said for Murray as well).
Kuerten's masters cup is very impressive but he did very little in slams outside the 2 wins and was done as a top player after 01 due to injuries, so I'd probably put him last. So I'd go
Murray, Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Stan, Safin, Kuerten.

People forget that the average level of slam WINNERS from 04-09 was clearly higher than 11-16, and go nuts over the "big 4", so that in fact deflates the totals of guys like Roddick/Hewitt in comparison to a Murray or Stan. It was much harder to actually win a slam between 04-09 because of the 1 or 2 guys you always had to go through, and it's not even close compared to 11-16 when Djoker was giving out his handouts. Many more opportunities in the latter period. 04 RG was the only one in the former, and even then the winner would have had to beat several in-form quality opponents.

Agree with this but would put Safin over Wawrinka for sure, he's arguably over Roddick as well.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Agree with this but would put Safin over Wawrinka for sure, he's arguably over Roddick as well.
Just not enough deep slam runs compared to Stan/Roddick especially considering that many of those deep slam runs ended in disaster (02 AO, 02 RG, 08 Wimby was nice but he was never a serious contender, 01 USO was a fairly disappointing performance too). Obviously his best 3 slam runs are better than anyone's on the list by a large amount probably, but it thins out after that.

Stan has had like 9-10 deep slam runs, Roddick like 11, 12 if you count 01 USO, and 13 if you count 04 AO. Safin only had 6. Too big a gap. Safin did have a bunch of impressive masters wins though so maybe that gives him a better case on Stan,
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Ok, so let's give spots 1,2 and 3 to Fedalovic and to stop this turning into a debate about them, let's rank players from this century from 4 onwards - when rating someone like Pete Sampras or Agassi, only their performances from 2000 onwards can be taken into account. Here is my top 10:

4. Murray (clear # 4: 3 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF and 13 Masters titles)
5. Hewitt (2 slams, 2 YE#1, 2 WTF, 2 Masters titles)
6. Agassi (hard to separate him from Hewitt: 3 slams and 7 Masters titles)
7. Kuerten (2 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF & 3 Masters titles)
8. Wawrinka (3 slams, 1 Masters title)
9. Safin (2 slams, 4 Masters titles)
10. Roddick (just slightly over Sampras: 1 slam (quite a few finals), 1 YE#1, 5 Masters titles)

I found it tough to split Hewitt and Agassi and also tough to split Roddick and Sampras.
I agree with this list pretty much, but I'd put Roddick above Safin due to consistency.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Just not enough deep slam runs compared to Stan/Roddick especially considering that many of those deep slam runs ended in disaster (02 AO, 02 RG, 08 Wimby was nice but he was never a serious contender, 01 USO was a fairly disappointing performance too). Obviously his best 3 slam runs are better than anyone's on the list by a large amount probably, but it thins out after that.

Stan has had like 9-10 deep slam runs, Roddick like 11, 12 if you count 01 USO, and 13 if you count 04 AO. Safin only had 6. Too big a gap. Safin did have a bunch of impressive masters wins though so maybe that gives him a better case on Stan,
Roddick was way more consistent but his peak level was marginally lower than Safin's.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick was way more consistent but his peak level was marginally lower than Safin's.
Not marginally, but Safin's peak on hard at least was higher than anyone's on the list besides Agassi by a large amount. If he had any discipline he would have been dangerous on clay and grass as well. But yeah Safin's consistency definitely falls short.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Not marginally, but Safin's peak on hard at least was higher than anyone's on the list besides Agassi by a large amount. If he had any discipline he would have been dangerous on clay and grass as well. But yeah Safin's consistency definitely falls short.
I agree.

Safin was good indoors too.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Hewitt barely edges Agassi because of the masters cups and slightly more consistency. Roddick has a case for as high as 7. He had more deep slam runs than any of those 3 guys, and we all know why those guys got 2-3 slams and he only got 1 (besides Safin, but Roddick just had way more deep slam runs). Prime Stan in his place from 03-09 probably has at most 1 slam (04 RG, but only if his 15 form aligned with it or else he'd almost definitely be slamless, and a pretty similar thing could be said for Murray as well).
Kuerten's masters cup is very impressive but he did very little in slams outside the 2 wins and was done as a top player after 01 due to injuries, so I'd probably put him last. So I'd go
Murray, Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Stan, Safin, Kuerten.

People forget that the average level of slam WINNERS from 04-09 was clearly higher than 11-16, and go nuts over the "big 4", so that in fact deflates the totals of guys like Roddick/Hewitt in comparison to a Murray or Stan. It was much harder to actually win a slam between 04-09 because of the 1 or 2 guys you always had to go through, and it's not even close compared to 11-16 when Djoker was giving out his handouts. Many more opportunities in the latter period. 04 RG was the only one in the former, and even then the winner would have had to beat several in-form quality opponents.
04-09 players all disappeared at 26-28, and the best of them was reduced. Champions define the level of an era. It is 1000 times more likely 2-3 especially good players are born rather than 7-8 or more. Also, those players often lost to outsiders, meaning their problem wasn't only 7-8 players.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree.

Safin was good indoors too.
Yeah, the paris/madrid runs were absolutely beast performances in some of those matches. The 00 Paris final is, along with the 96 WTF final and 06 Rome, probably my favorite non-slam match. Some of his finest stuff for the people that say he only showed his top level in 2 matches in his whole career (and even those 2 matches are better wins than 99% of players have in their whole career). He showed that level in several matches, including the match before the Sampras match and the match after the Federer match. Of course, the highlights and name only crew won't understand that.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
04-09 harder than 11-16... I heard them all now.

04-09 players all disappeared at 26-28, and the best of them was reduced. Champions define the level of an era. It is 1000 times more likely 2-3 especially good players are born rather than 7-8 or more. Also, those players often to outsiders, meaning their problem.
Please respond to the user whose post you are addressing or else it may create some confusion. Also, the 04-09 champions who you had to go through to win slams may be found somewhere near the top of the world rankings today. You may have heard of them.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Please respond to the user whose post you are addressing or else it may create some confusion. Also, the 04-09 champions who you had to go through to win slams may be found somewhere near the top of the world rankings today. You may have heard of them.

Who? In 2007-10 all the top players were replaced, even the younger ones. The only left were Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, who in 2004-09 were nowhere near the following years' results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
4. Murray
5. Wawrinka
6. Safin
7. Agassi
8. Hewitt
9. Kuerten
10. Roddick
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
NEWS FLASH! The 21st century started on 01/01/2001

Sorry to rain on your parade, @titoelcolombiano. But the year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century (hence the name). This is not a matter of opinion or subject to debate. It is cold hard fact. Sadly, popular culture and a majority of the population get this wrong.

With that said, Agassi, Kuerten, Sampras, and Safin all lose a slam for the true 21st-century account. Likewise, Kuerten’s YE#1, happened at the end of the last century and cannot be credited to the current century.

I have not looked who, in your list, won master titles in 2000.
 
Last edited:

clareyont

Rookie
Good thread idea OP

4. Murray
5. Wawrinka (3 slams in the big4 era)
6. Hewitt
7. Agassi
8. Safin, Roddick, Kuerten

Safin roddick own djokovic
Murray and wawrinka only have multiple slams as djokovic couldnt own them

Ok sorry to derail...
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Who? In 2007-10 all the top players were replaced, even the younger ones. The only left were Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, who in 2004-09 were nowhere near the following years' results.
Your English really is very bad then.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Ok, so let's give spots 1,2 and 3 to Fedalovic and to stop this turning into a debate about them, let's rank players from this century from 4 onwards - when rating someone like Pete Sampras or Agassi, only their performances from 2000 onwards can be taken into account. Here is my top 10:

4. Murray (clear # 4: 3 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF and 13 Masters titles)
5. Hewitt (2 slams, 2 YE#1, 2 WTF, 2 Masters titles)
6. Agassi (hard to separate him from Hewitt: 3 slams and 7 Masters titles)
7. Kuerten (2 slams, 1 YE#1, 1 WTF & 3 Masters titles)
8. Wawrinka (3 slams, 1 Masters title)
9. Safin (2 slams, 4 Masters titles)
10. Roddick (just slightly over Sampras: 1 slam (quite a few finals), 1 YE#1, 5 Masters titles)

I found it tough to split Hewitt and Agassi and also tough to split Roddick and Sampras.

For one very special user on these forums it might be kinder to say Andy Murray has been the 4th best player this millennium.

(Looking at you @Red Rick )
 
Not marginally, but Safin's peak on hard at least was higher than anyone's on the list besides Agassi by a large amount. If he had any discipline he would have been dangerous on clay and grass as well. But yeah Safin's consistency definitely falls short.

Safin really was a beast....
Just could not maitain his level consistently for long season due to lack of hardworking
 
NEWS FLASH! The 21st century started on 01/01/2001

Sorry to rain on your parade, @titoelcolombiano. But the year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century (hence the name). This is not a matter of opinion or subject to debate. It is cold hard fact. Sadly, popular culture and a majority of the population get this wrong.

With that said, Agassi, Kuerten, Sampras, and Safin all lose a slam for the true 21st-century account. Likewise, Kuerten’s YE#1, happened at the end of the last century and cannot be credited to the current century.

I have not looked who, in your list, won master titles in 2000.

Cool! Sorry to upset you - let's just make the theme of this post who are the top ten since 2000 so you can calm down.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
NEWS FLASH! The 21st century started on 01/01/2001

Sorry to rain on your parade, @titoelcolombiano. But the year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century (hence the name). This is not a matter of opinion or subject to debate. It is cold hard fact. Sadly, popular culture and a majority of the population get this wrong.

With that said, Agassi, Kuerten, Sampras, and Safin all lose a slam for the true 21st-century account. Likewise, Kuerten’s YE#1, happened at the end of the last century and cannot be credited to the current century.

I have not looked who, in your list, won master titles in 2000.

Cool! Sorry to upset you - let's just make the theme of this post who are the top ten since 2000 so you can calm down.

@SystemicAnomaly seems to have a Y2K bug up his matrix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NEWS FLASH! The 21st century started on 01/01/2001

Sorry to rain on your parade, @titoelcolombiano. But the year 2000 is the last year of the 20th century (hence the name). This is not a matter of opinion or subject to debate. It is cold hard fact. Sadly, popular culture and a majority of the population get this wrong.

@SystemicAnomaly, the measuring convention we use is a Civil one based on popularity and general Global acceptance. It is not historically authoritative and is constantly subject to debate. It is not based on any scientifically validated facts.

Research the term "Anno Domini", and the Scholar Dionysius Exiguus.

Based on historical evidence, it is just as likely that the Third Millenium began on 1/1/2000 as it did on 1/1/2001 if we measure the passing of the years using the A.D. or C.E. system of counting. (And both dates may be wrong if you consider all the changes that have been made to the counting system since the time of Christ.)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Wawrinka's 7-9 score in slam finals, SF and QF against the big4 is very impressive.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
That 7-9 score goes from the 2011 Australian Open to the 2017 French Open. In that span of time the big4, excluding Wawrinka, won

- 21 slams out of 22
- 6 yec out of 6
- 2 olympic gold out of 2
- 54 masters out of 58

:eek:

That's why I think that score is impressive.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
54.6% to 40.6%

Wawrinka has a much higher winning percentage than Federer against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray in slam F/SF/QF :p
 

JackGates

Legend
Safin is my nr.1. None of the rest won their slams beating peak Federer. And on top of that he also won one major beating Sampras close to his peak form. Hey, if Pete can make USO final, he is for sure in very top form.

I think if they had to face Pete and peak Fed, all the rest would have 0 majors.
 
Safin is my nr.1.

Several players and coaches have publicly declared Safin as the hardest hitter the game has ever seen.

Lendl was a hard hitter too but Safin had the benefit of slightly newer technologies. Personally, I think Safin is probably the most under-rated Professional Tennis Player of all time.

And his sister Dinara Safina also reached #1. Amazing!
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Cool! Sorry to upset you - let's just make the theme of this post who are the top ten since 2000 so you can calm down.

No distress or anxiety here. Actually added the emphasis, after the fact, so that the post would not go unnoticed. Appears to have worked. But yeah, way to deflect.

@SystemicAnomaly, the measuring convention we use is a Civil one based on popularity and general Global acceptance. It is not historically authoritative and is constantly subject to debate. It is not based on any scientifically validated facts.

Research the term "Anno Domini", and the Scholar Dionysius Exiguus.

Based on historical evidence, it is just as likely that the Third Millenium began on 1/1/2000 as it did on 1/1/2001 if we measure the passing of the years using the A.D. or C.E. system of counting. (And both dates may be wrong if you consider all the changes that have been made to the counting system since the time of Christ.)

Just because it’s a popular notion or convention doesn’t make it valid. There was a time when it was generally accepted that the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Just because everyone said it was so, did not make it correct.

It’s simple math really. Most of us have adopted the Gregorian calendar which, for AD, starts with a year one with respect to a given reference. Sure, some adjustments have been made to the adopted calendar, But that is not really germane to this discussion. If the general populace decides it wants to start centuries with years ending in 00, this would violate the basic counting employed the adopted calendar. To decree that the century starts with a 00 year, necessitates that the first century AD only had 99 years. This does not make sense mathematically or otherwise.

Let’s look at it another way. The century designation takes takes it’s name from the last year of that century. The 1st century (AD), in effect, derives its name from the year 100 AD. Likewise, 19th century takes its name from the year, 1900. And so on.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Safin's peak is so overrated, in all his career he won only one ATP final against a >2 slam champion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top