Rank the Number 1s by accomplishments.

[TripleATeam]

Pretty much this. Rank every #1 based on what they achieved over their career, not based on what they did as #1. Open era ATP only.

My list:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Edberg
12. Becker
13. Newcombe
14. Murray
15. Courier
16. Kuerten
17. Nastase
18. Hewitt
19. Safin
20. Kafelnikov
21. Roddick
22. Ferrero
23. Rafter
24. Moya
25. Muster
26. Rios

 

[Chadillac]

Nadal above sampras? LOL?

Sampras has 6 yrs ending number one, aka the best player all year.

Nadal gets some points on useless clay then fades.

There is no comparison.

Murray at #14, are you high or drunk? He has dont nothing since being #1

Fed
Petros
Djok
Lendl


Would be my top 4 as far as #1's

 

[TennisATP]

Pretty much this. Rank every #1 based on what they achieved over their career, not based on what they did as #1. Open era ATP only.

My list:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Wilander
11. Edberg
12. Becker
13. Newcombe
14. Murray
15. Courier
16. Kuerten
17. Nastase
18. Hewitt
19. Safin
20. Kafelnikov
21. Roddick
22. Ferrero
23. Rafter
24. Moya
25. Muster
26. Rios

Laver who does not figure on your list won 5 of his slams in the Open era including the calendar grand slam.

 

[vex]

Laver who does not figure on your list won 5 of his slams in the Open era including the calendar grand slam.

OP excluded Laver. Rightly so, he's his own GOAT from a completely different version of the game. Leave him be IMO.

 

[TennisATP]

OP excluded Laver. Rightly so, he's his own GOAT from a completely different version of the game. Leave him be IMO.

Or he didn't even know that Laver's career went into the Open era...

 

[KingKyrgios]

1.Federer
2.Sampras
3.Borg
4.Djokovic

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray isn't above Courier. Before someone mentions "Masters" in '92 they did not really matter.

Not to mention the fact he has an extra YE No. 1 and an extra slam.

 

[Krish872007]

Or he didn't even know that Laver's career went into the Open era...

... and you would have a point if they actually had a rankings system when Laver was playing. The first rankings were published in 1973 and Rod's last proper year on tour was 1969, his Grand Slam year and only the second year of the Open Era.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Murray isn't above Courier. Before someone mentions "Masters" in '92 they did not really matter.

Not to mention the fact he has an extra YE No. 1 and an extra slam.

Courier was more dominant at his best, yeah. the only argument Murray really has is prestige of Wimbledon

 

[TripleATeam]

Laver who does not figure on your list won 5 of his slams in the Open era including the calendar grand slam.

Or he didn't even know that Laver's career went into the Open era...

If you had read a little more into my post, I wrote ATP #1s. Was Laver an ATP #1?

No.

The ATP was established September of 1972, after Rod Laver had all but stopped playing professionally- he only played the US Open that year. There was no way for him to get to #1.

Next time, give me the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm speaking about. I don't talk out of my *ss, I do some research before starting a discussion.

 

[Fabresque]

Sampras over Djokovic is debatable because Djokovic has found considerably more success on clay than Sampras ever will. Also, Nadal shouldn't be ranked so high. I'd put both Sampras and Djokovic and maybe Laver over him. Take away his clay court powers and you have nothing much anymore as far as an ATG goes.

 

[TripleATeam]

Nadal above sampras? LOL?

Sampras has 6 yrs ending number one, aka the best player all year.

Nadal gets some points on useless clay then fades.

There is no comparison.

Murray at #14, are you high or drunk? He has dont nothing since being #1

Fed
Petros
Djok
Lendl


Would be my top 4 as far as #1's

For Murray, I wrote specifically career-wise. Not since #1. The whole career. Frankly, I rank 15 slams over 14. Plus Nadal had Federer to contend with, whereas Sampras had Agassi. Not exactly the same. I don't know- you're entitled to your view. You should list it out yourself, too.

But don't put Lendl over Nadal. I think 14 slams over 8 clearly shows the distinction.

 

[TripleATeam]

Murray isn't above Courier. Before someone mentions "Masters" in '92 they did not really matter.

Not to mention the fact he has an extra YE No. 1 and an extra slam.

I more based that off of Grand Slam finals, and it as a tough decision for me. Murray has 3 slams, 6 finals, 1 WTF, and 1* OG. Courier has 4 slams, 2 finals, no WTF, and R3 at Olympics. I thought Murray barely edged Courier.

*Edit: 2 OG.

 

[Mainad]

Nadal above sampras? LOL?

Sampras has 6 yrs ending number one, aka the best player all year.

Nadal gets some points on useless clay then fades.

There is no comparison.

Murray at #14, are you high or drunk? He has dont nothing since being #1

Fed
Petros
Djok
Lendl


Would be my top 4 as far as #1's

You obviously didn't read what the OP said, did you? He said to rank them according to what they achieved over their entire career, not just what they did while ranked #1. In which case, Murray is ranked quite reasonably and fairly IMO.

Incidentally, while it's true he didn't achieve anything of significance this year, Murray won the WTF after achieving the #1 ranking so give it a rest with your "he has done nothing since being #1" baloney!

 

[Chadillac]

For Murray, I wrote specifically career-wise. Not since #1. The whole career. Frankly, I rank 15 slams over 14. Plus Nadal had Federer to contend with, whereas Sampras had Agassi. Not exactly the same. I don't know- you're entitled to your view. You should list it out yourself, too.

But don't put Lendl over Nadal. I think 14 slams over 8 clearly shows the distinction.

Lendl was dominate most of the year, nadal is dominate during clay season.

Lendl has 21 more titles than nadal and his masters were played 3 out of 5, not the wta 2/3 guys are today. Also won over 200 more matches

 

[Mainad]

Courier was more dominant at his best, yeah. the only argument Murray really has is prestige of Wimbledon

Courier had more weeks at #1 and won 1 more Slam. However Murray won a WTF and many more Masters titles as well as 2 Olympic singles titles (although they don't count in the rankings) plus twice as many titles overall so I think it kind of balances out one way or the other.

 

[TripleATeam]

Lendl was dominate most of the year, nadal is dominate during clay season.

Lendl has 21 more titles than nadal and his masters were played 3 out of 5, not the wta 2/3 guys are today. Also won over 200 more matches

But Lendl never really was unbeatable, was he? He was good on clay and fast hard during his prime, winning 6 slams, and afterwards played on slow hard, winning 2 more. Sure he dominated, but people could stop him and his prime ended quickly.

Nadal has been an unstoppable force on clay for over a decade now. He lost at RG only twice and he only withdrew from it once. Plus, Nadal dominated the tour over 2 years at one point- 2010 and 2013. In those 2 years alone, Nadal equaled what Lendl did in his prime.

 

[TennisATP]

Murray won 2 gold medals in an era where they are ranked up there with the slams. He has the equivalent of 5 slams.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Courier had more weeks at #1 and won 1 more Slam. However Murray won a WTF and many more Masters titles as well as 2 Olympic singles titles (although they don't count in the rankings) plus twice as many titles overall so I think it kind of balances out one way or the other.

It is close yeah. I think the 2 are comparable players in more ways than 1

 

[Chadillac]

Murray won 2 gold medals in an era where they are ranked up there with the slams. He has the equivalent of 5 slams.

Gold medals mean nothing because its not an open draw. Little countries put guys in who dont belong and big countries only get 2 in.

But Lendl never really was unbeatable, was he?

Over 200 more match wins and has a 81.53% winning %, while nadal is 82.42%. The stats tell you how dominate lendl was, there were more than 2 players on the tour back then as well

 

[Phoenix1983]

Pretty much this. Rank every #1 based on what they achieved over their career, not based on what they did as #1. Open era ATP only.

My list is fairly similar to yours...

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Becker
11. Newcombe
12. Edberg
13. Wilander
14. Courier
15. Murray
16. Kuerten
17. Nastase
18. Hewitt
19. Safin
20. Roddick
21. Kafelnikov
22. Rafter
23. Ferrero
24. Muster
25. Moya
26. Rios

 

[TripleATeam]

Gold medals mean nothing because its not an open draw. Little countries put guys in who dont belong and big countries only get 2 in.

You mean to tell me that the number 3 ranked player in any country could beat Murray? I'd say maybe- in we are talking about France or Spain. Anyone else had no chance of beating Murray, and the draw was minimally limited. But fine, even disregarding Olympics, his career is nothing to scoff at. Are you recommending I put Murray at #20? Below Kafelnikov, who had 2 slam wins and a WTF?

Over 200 more match wins and has a 81.53% winning %, while nadal is 82.42%. The stats tell you how dominate lendl was, there were more than 2 players on the tour back then as well

But you just said Nadal's percentage is higher. And if there were only "2 players on the tour" during Nadal and Federer, doesn't that have to mean they were dominant?

 

[Chadillac]

But you just said Nadal's percentage is higher. And if there were only "2 players on the tour" during Nadal and Federer, doesn't that have to mean they were dominant?

Lendl played in a much deeper era was my point. Nadal wouldnt of been nearly as successful in lendls era. Lendl would of won many wimbledons in todays era (slow grass)

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Laver who does not figure on your list won 5 of his slams in the Open era including the calendar grand slam.

Rather suspect to leave Laver out, when its clear his Grand Slam would be the ultimate accomplishment as a number one player....

 

[TripleATeam]

Rather suspect to leave Laver out, when its clear his Grand Slam would be the ultimate accomplishment as a number one player....

You must be kidding me.

 

[Kuclas]

Lendl was dominate most of the year, nadal is dominate during clay season.

Lendl has 21 more titles than nadal and his masters were played 3 out of 5, not the wta 2/3 guys are today. Also won over 200 more matches

I agree. Lendl is highly underappreciated by most of the mainstream media. 8-11 in grand slam finals hurts him but he was very consistent for over an entire decade.

Won a ton of titles. Only behind Connors. Fed will past Lendl for 2nd all time in titles.

Lendl was besides "so so" on grass was a great player on carpet, hard courts and clay. He wasn't bad on grass. 2 finals at Wimbledon. Multiple semis. 4 times year end number 1. And frankly if he didn't skip the clay season in 1990 he likely would have been year end number one in 1990 as well.

I think Pete Sampras is the one whose is over rated. Someone who can't win (or even remotely be competitive on clay) can't and shouldn't be considered as one of the greats of all time. Nadal won on all surfaces. Sampras barely sniffed a semi final at the French. Sampras just sucked on clay.

 

[NEW_BORN]

Ferrero should not be above Rafter for starters.

Rafter had back-back USO victories and back-back Wimbledon finals appearances, as opposed to Ferrero's 1 French and a couple of finals elsewhere.

 

[BGod]

I think Pete Sampras is the one whose is over rated. Someone who can't win (or even remotely be competitive on clay) can't and shouldn't be considered as one of the greats of all time. Nadal won on all surfaces. Sampras barely sniffed a semi final at the French. Sampras just sucked on clay.

Nadal dominated 1 Slam. Pete dominated 2. Pete had a lot more weeks at #1 and leads in Tour Finals 5-0.......

 

[Djokovic2011]

Murray isn't above Courier. Before someone mentions "Masters" in '92 they did not really matter.

Not to mention the fact he has an extra YE No. 1 and an extra slam.

I'd say they're about equal.

 

[timnz]

I agree. Lendl is highly underappreciated by most of the mainstream media. 8-11 in grand slam finals hurts him but he was very consistent for over an entire decade.

Won a ton of titles. Only behind Connors. Fed will past Lendl for 2nd all time in titles.

Lendl was besides "so so" on grass was a great player on carpet, hard courts and clay. He wasn't bad on grass. 2 finals at Wimbledon. Multiple semis. 4 times year end number 1. And frankly if he didn't skip the clay season in 1990 he likely would have been year end number one in 1990 as well.

I think Pete Sampras is the one whose is over rated. Someone who can't win (or even remotely be competitive on clay) can't and shouldn't be considered as one of the greats of all time. Nadal won on all surfaces. Sampras barely sniffed a semi final at the French. Sampras just sucked on clay.

Sampras wasn't great on clay that is for sure. But I think you are overstating it a tad. After all he won Rome on clay and the Davis Cup final on clay.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'd say they're about equal.

I wouldn't.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I wouldn't.

Why doesn't that surprise me?!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Why doesn't that surprise me?!

Ditto.

 

[Sport]

Nadal dominated 1 Slam. Pete dominated 2. Pete had a lot more weeks at #1 and leads in Tour Finals 5-0.......

I don't think winning 5 US Open can be put as genuine "domination", especially when comparing with another guy who won 10 Roland Garros. Nadal has won 5 Madrid Open and I don't think he has been "dominant" in this tournament. He has been quite irregular in fact.

Anyhow, yes Sampras was better than Nadal on hard courts and grass. But he was horrible on clay. Nadal was overall more complete since he wasn't so bad on any GS surface (hard, clay and grass). Nadal has the Career Grand Slam. Sampras lacks the French Open. Nadal also has a weakness as Sampras: indoor hard courts. But Nadal has achieved slightly better results on indoor hard courts than Sampras on clay. Nadal won the Madrid Open 2005 on indoor hard courts and Sampras won the Italian Open on clay. But Nadal has arrived to the final of the World Tour Finals twice. Sampras never arrived to the French Open final.

Sampras has more weeks and years as #1. But Nadal won 1 more Grand Slam which is more relevant. I know Sampras won 5 WTF, but he only won 11 Masters 1000 while Nadal won 30. (Even Agassi won more Masters 1000 than Sampras). WTF are less relevant than GS anyway, and Nadal doesn't lack any GS title.

Overall, I think the main criteria to determine a player's greatness is the number of Grand Slam titles. Otherwise, Djokovic would be better than Sampras since he doesn't suck on any surface. The only reason why Sampras is considered better than Djokovic despite having 0 French Open is because he won 2 more Grand Slams.

 

[Sport]

1.Federer
2.Sampras
3.Borg
4.Djokovic

3 Grand Slams is a giant difference. When Nadal had 14 GS I still thought he was better than Djokovic but I could understand a different opinion. In 2017 he has the same number of Masters 1000 (30) and 3 more GS. Sorry but 3 more GS makes a giant difference.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sampras over Djokovic is debatable because Djokovic has found considerably more success on clay than Sampras ever will.

Sampras has 7 Wimbledon's and 14 slams.

End of story. It's not remotely debatable who is greater at this point.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sampras has 7 Wimbledon's and 14 slams.

End of story. It's not remotely debatable who is greater at this point.

More YE No.1s too even though that's a sort of hollow achievement between 1996 and 2000 where the older guard were starting to give way (Becker, Edberg, even arguably Sampras) and the newer guard weren't ready to take over yet (Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Federer, etc).

 

[Sport]

Sampras over Djokovic is debatable because Djokovic has found considerably more success on clay than Sampras ever will. Also, Nadal shouldn't be ranked so high. I'd put both Sampras and Djokovic and maybe Laver over him. Take away his clay court powers and you have nothing much anymore as far as an ATG goes.

Take away the hard courts powers of Djokovic and you have a man with 4 Grand Slams only.

The point is that you can't exclude neither Rafa's clay titles nor Djokovic hard courts titles. As much as I love most of your comments, I disagree with you here. Plus, Rafa has 15 Grand Slams not 12. Sorry but 3 more Grand Slams is a difference too big. And how can you complain about Rafa's success on clay when he has the Career Grand Slam? Sampras never adapted his game enough to clay. Nadal has won Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Nadal is more complete than Sampras.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

1. Rafa
2. The rest [emoji6]

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk

 

[NatF]

Something like this;

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Djokovic
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
11. Newcombe
12. Edberg
13. Wilander
14. Murray
15. Courier
16. Nastase
17. Hewitt
18. Kuerten
19. Safin
20. Roddick
21. Kafelnikov
22. Rafter
23. Ferrero
24. Muster
25. Moya
26. Rios

 

[aman92]

Nadal dominated 1 Slam. Pete dominated 2. Pete had a lot more weeks at #1 and leads in Tour Finals 5-0.......

Sampras was pathetic on clay and didn't get past the SF at Roland Garros. That alone should exclude him from the top 3

 

[Bukmeikara]

Lendl played in a much deeper era was my point. Nadal wouldnt of been nearly as successful in lendls era. Lendl would of won many wimbledons in todays era (slow grass)

Firstly I am "young" and didnt had the chance to watch the 80's or even the 90's but from what I have read, was it so deep really? I mean Lendl was officially the first player to concentrate over the conditioning, one of the first to travel with his own coach and probably the only one to install a surface from an upcoming event, in his backyard, to practice. Imagine if today, only Federer/ Nadal had their own physios and no one else had a coach traveling with him, huge advantage!!! Borg retired early, Mcenroe wanted to be a playboy and number 1 at the same time . who is left? Connors and Vilas are old and that leaves Wilander. Not to mention that players below top 20-30 were more of a filler for draws than a threath. Was it possible the 2nd best player in the era to lose 4 straight times to someone outside top 100 at Wimbledon, I doubt that.

In terms of everything, tennis is more competitive today than any other era. I agree that top players are protected in a way but below them it is a war for every possible cm/inch. You have 35-36 years old players returning from long injuries, grinding back to top 100 just to enter few more Slam. At 36, Lorenzi reached R16 !!!

 

[Bukmeikara]

Sampras was pathetic on clay and didn't get past the SF at Roland Garros. That alone should exclude him from the top 3

Is Thiem pathetic on clay or Davydenko or Ferrer ?

 

[Sport]

Is Thiem pathetic on clay or Davydenko or Ferrer ?

Thiem arrived to the French Open SF twice and he is 24 years old. Sampras only arrived once to the FO SF in his whole career.

 

[Newcomer]

Nadal above sampras? LOL?

Sampras has 6 yrs ending number one, aka the best player all year.

Nadal gets some points on useless clay then fades.

There is no comparison.

Murray at #14, are you high or drunk? He has dont nothing since being #1

Fed
Petros
Djok
Lendl


Would be my top 4 as far as #1's

Yes, Nadal is above Sampras. Deal with it.

 

[aman92]

Is Thiem pathetic on clay or Davydenko or Ferrer ?

Thiem is still young...and Sampras is being measured by the yardstick of ATG players not the Davydenkos and Ferrers

 

[chjtennis]

In Sampras' time, it was much more difficult to be good on all surfaces. There were a lot of clay specialists as well. I would still put Sampras above Nadal, even if Nadal has 1 more slam. The week in no.1 stats, no. of YECs, and YE#1 should also be considered.

 

[Sport]

In Sampras' time, it was much more difficult to be good on all surfaces. There were a lot of clay specialists as well. I would still put Sampras above Nadal, even if Nadal has 1 more slam. The week in no.1 stats, no. of YECs, and YE#1 should also be considered.

You forgot Nadal's advantadge with the Olympic Gold Medal (Sampras participated in Barcelona 92) and the 30 Masters 1000 (even Agassi won more Masters 1000 than Sampras). Anyhow, I disagree. For me, all the things you mention would be relevant only in case they were tied with the same number of Grand Slams. Then the second criterion would be to see who has the Career Grand Slam (because it shows one player was more complete than the other).

Greatness' criteria in order of relevance:

1. Number of GS titles

2. Career Grand Slam (only necessary if they are tied in GS titles)

3. It would be largely debatable (but this criterion would be only necessary if the players are tied in the criteria 1 and 2)

Let's see how to apply these criteria with this example:

Player A: 30 Masters 1000. 3 Grand Slams.
Player B: 0 Masters 1000. 4 Grand Slams.

For me, the player B is better. The most important criterion is the number of Grand Slams.

Let's see this another example:

Player A: 30 Masters 1000. 4 Grand Slams.
Player B: 0 Masters 1000. 4 Grand Slams.

Player A is better. We can see other factors/criteria only in case they are tied in GS titles. A greatness' criteron must be universal. Otherwise, the discussion about ATG would be very subjective and anyone could argue his favorie player is better than others taking under consideration the criteria they want.

If you disagree, what would be your main greatness' criterion?

 

[Deon Sanders]

Not sure Nadal makes the top 15 when you take into account the ITF considers clay a third tier surface of no significance outside Europe and even then only since the 80s

Pretty embarrassing career for him in this conversation

 

[Krish872007]

Would be really interesting to rank these guys based on what they did as #1 as well to see how much of a discrepancy there is between the two and to determine who felt the most "pressure" as top dog.