flyingforehands
Rookie
There are 5 mens players in the Open Era with 3 majors. I will do the men first and how I would rank them.
1. Andy Murray- I do think he is a bit overrated by some of the people who trumpet the "he was so unlucky to be in the big 3, he should be a 12 slam winner" yada yada, crowd. Still I do think he has to be #1. He has a huge number of slam finals, slam semis, Masters titles, 2 Olympic Golds, a YE#1, a YEC title, very good longevity and great consistency over a long period of time in the game. I did consider putting Ashe over him but it would be difficult when Murray was so consistently performing as a top 3/4 player in the world for almost a whole decade.
2. Arthur Ashe- He has to be ranked her not only for his extremely high peak level of tennis (in fact probably higher than Murray's peak level) but for the intangible impact he had on the game in so many ways. 2 of his 3 slam titles were also won in very impressive fashion, beating the seemingly unbeatable Connors in the final for his Wimbledon title, and winning the first Open Era US Open in a stellar field. Actually considering he has 76 singles titles there is a possible case for him to be over Murray in fact, but I will let others make that. While majors then weren't the most important thing like today I do think 3 majors accurately reflects how he fit into the mens game in that period, unlike many other players (both women and men) whose number of majors way over or under reflects their true status/position in the game of the time.
3. Gustavo Kuerten- I did consider putting Wawrinka here as he is more of an all surface player, but Kuerten having such a legacy at one slam/one surface, having a YE#1, a YEC title (which wasn't on clay, and something Wawrinka couldn't manage or even make a final), and Wawrinka's lack of performance outside of slam wins, he has to be here.
4. Stanislav Wawrinka- His slam wins were impressive, but honestly he is the epitome of a slam only player. I still can't put him behind the far less talented Kodes though.
5. Jan Kodes- You know when I said major counts for players often didn't accuratley reflect their true status in the game. Kodes's 3 majors goes well beyond his true status in the game.
The women have 6 players in the Open Era with 3 majors- Virginia Wade, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Angelique Kerber, Ashleigh Barty, Iga Swaitek. I won't rank Swiatek as her career is ongoing, so will just rank the other 5.
1. Lindsay Davenport- Her 4 YE#1, even if 1 or 2 of them were completely bogus, already cement her as easy #1 on this list, along with many other things. Super unlucky to have her peak coincide with the Williams sisters too.
2. Ash Barty- She was quite a solid #1 for awhile, so for that alone has to be above the others remaining in this group.
3. Virginia Wade- Like Ashe, she is a player whose majors count of 3, accurately reflects her position in the game of the time, despite that the focus back then was not around majors. She was a great player, but has lopsided losing records vs literally all the big guns of her time. Navratilova, Evert, Court, King, and even Goolagong. Her tournament title count is impressive, but even there it would not be much more of an argument vs say Davenport, who herself has over 50 at a time players play fewer tournaments. The biggest problem she faces is she was never close to being considered the #1 player, which back then was a more important thing to the player than the majors. Plus she never won a YEC type event, which back then was also bigger than many of the majors. This seems the right place for her, I think she still belongs over Capriati and for sure Kerber.
4. Jennifer Capriati- She was definitely more talented than Wade, but her career was ultimately not as good. Only 14 singles titles. Got to #1 very briefly, but never made a Wimbledon or US Open final. Don't see any arguments to even consider ranking her higher really.
5. Angelique Kerber- This seems obvious. A totally majors centric player, who didn't even win a Tier 1 title her entire career. Wawrinka who tanked most of his regular tour play, atleast managed this.
1. Andy Murray- I do think he is a bit overrated by some of the people who trumpet the "he was so unlucky to be in the big 3, he should be a 12 slam winner" yada yada, crowd. Still I do think he has to be #1. He has a huge number of slam finals, slam semis, Masters titles, 2 Olympic Golds, a YE#1, a YEC title, very good longevity and great consistency over a long period of time in the game. I did consider putting Ashe over him but it would be difficult when Murray was so consistently performing as a top 3/4 player in the world for almost a whole decade.
2. Arthur Ashe- He has to be ranked her not only for his extremely high peak level of tennis (in fact probably higher than Murray's peak level) but for the intangible impact he had on the game in so many ways. 2 of his 3 slam titles were also won in very impressive fashion, beating the seemingly unbeatable Connors in the final for his Wimbledon title, and winning the first Open Era US Open in a stellar field. Actually considering he has 76 singles titles there is a possible case for him to be over Murray in fact, but I will let others make that. While majors then weren't the most important thing like today I do think 3 majors accurately reflects how he fit into the mens game in that period, unlike many other players (both women and men) whose number of majors way over or under reflects their true status/position in the game of the time.
3. Gustavo Kuerten- I did consider putting Wawrinka here as he is more of an all surface player, but Kuerten having such a legacy at one slam/one surface, having a YE#1, a YEC title (which wasn't on clay, and something Wawrinka couldn't manage or even make a final), and Wawrinka's lack of performance outside of slam wins, he has to be here.
4. Stanislav Wawrinka- His slam wins were impressive, but honestly he is the epitome of a slam only player. I still can't put him behind the far less talented Kodes though.
5. Jan Kodes- You know when I said major counts for players often didn't accuratley reflect their true status in the game. Kodes's 3 majors goes well beyond his true status in the game.
The women have 6 players in the Open Era with 3 majors- Virginia Wade, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Angelique Kerber, Ashleigh Barty, Iga Swaitek. I won't rank Swiatek as her career is ongoing, so will just rank the other 5.
1. Lindsay Davenport- Her 4 YE#1, even if 1 or 2 of them were completely bogus, already cement her as easy #1 on this list, along with many other things. Super unlucky to have her peak coincide with the Williams sisters too.
2. Ash Barty- She was quite a solid #1 for awhile, so for that alone has to be above the others remaining in this group.
3. Virginia Wade- Like Ashe, she is a player whose majors count of 3, accurately reflects her position in the game of the time, despite that the focus back then was not around majors. She was a great player, but has lopsided losing records vs literally all the big guns of her time. Navratilova, Evert, Court, King, and even Goolagong. Her tournament title count is impressive, but even there it would not be much more of an argument vs say Davenport, who herself has over 50 at a time players play fewer tournaments. The biggest problem she faces is she was never close to being considered the #1 player, which back then was a more important thing to the player than the majors. Plus she never won a YEC type event, which back then was also bigger than many of the majors. This seems the right place for her, I think she still belongs over Capriati and for sure Kerber.
4. Jennifer Capriati- She was definitely more talented than Wade, but her career was ultimately not as good. Only 14 singles titles. Got to #1 very briefly, but never made a Wimbledon or US Open final. Don't see any arguments to even consider ranking her higher really.
5. Angelique Kerber- This seems obvious. A totally majors centric player, who didn't even win a Tier 1 title her entire career. Wawrinka who tanked most of his regular tour play, atleast managed this.