Rank the Number 1s by accomplishments.

Deon Sanders said:
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
Click to expand...

Not sure Federer makes the top 14, since grass is historically generally perceived as a third tier surface of no significance outside England. "Grass is just for cows."- Manolo Santana.

Pretty embarrassing career for him in this conversation.
 
Sport said:
Not sure Federer makes the top 14, since grass is historically generally perceived as a third tier surface of no significance outside England. "Grass is just for cows."- Manolo Santana.

Pretty embarrassing career for him in this conversation.
Click to expand...


Governing body of tennis disagrees

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/other/history.aspx

Federer is the greatest of all time on both real tennis courts (hard) and the first generation of new tennis (grass)

Nadal is an afterthought, much like clay courts
 
Pretty decent list. Wouldn't put Wilander so high though. He won the Aussie open a couple of times when it wasn't a highly regarded tournament. He has no real memorable matches. And most importantly after his dominant 1988 he vanished.

Yes he won seven majors same as McEnroe but there's a reason why McEnroe had a far more memorable career.
 
Deon Sanders said:
Governing body of tennis disagrees

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/other/history.aspx

Federer is the greatest of all time on both real tennis courts (hard) and the first generation of new tennis (grass)

Nadal is an afterthought, much like clay courts
Click to expand...

Manolo Santana disagrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Santana#cite_note-2

Nadal is the man with more Majors on clay of all time. Federer is not even the man with more Majors on grass, Laver won 12 Majors on grass. Reference: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/213115
 
Sport said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but a player with 3 slams and 30 Masters is much better than someone with 4 slams and 0 Masters. I definitely want some of whatever it is you're smoking though. ;)
 
Deon Sanders said:
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
Click to expand...

First, didn't you know the US Open was played on clay some years before the 80s? Second, that claim is false if you cannot find the exact reference. Can you find the specific quote of the ITF saying that "clay is a third tier surface"?

"Clay courts are mainly found in Europe and South America and up until the 1980s, virtually all the courts in Spain and Italy were clay courts. The French Open championships at Roland Garros is the only Grand Slam event to be played on clay."

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/other/history.aspx

They doni't say anywhere that "clay is a third tier surface" as you said.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'm sorry but a player with 3 slams and 30 Masters is much better than someone with 4 slams and 0 Masters. I definitely want some of whatever it is you're smoking though. ;)
Click to expand...

Haha. But then the Number of Grand Slam titles is not the most relevant criterion of greatness for you :D.
 
Deon Sanders said:
Governing body of tennis disagrees

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/courts/other/history.aspx

Federer is the greatest of all time on both real tennis courts (hard) and the first generation of new tennis (grass)

Nadal is an afterthought, much like clay courts
Click to expand...
As much as I want this to be true, there is something slightly wrong here. :D:D

"Real" tennis doesn't mean "the tennis that is real" in this context. "Real tennis" as described in that article, is a different sport, played on wood, and it is no longer relevant. "Real" could be thought of as "Regal" or "Royal" here. Like Real Madrid, the football team. Real tennis was played by the British royals and aristocracy.

Lawn tennis (or tennis) is the current sport. Grass is the original surface. Hard courts are becoming the surface of choice. Clay has also been a surface - although I agree that it has never enjoyed the status of being the top or main surface used.

I suspect that clay (and grass) will largely disappear from tennis within 20-30 years. Wimbledon could well keep the grass, as it should.

Fun fact: Wimbledon isn't just the most important and valued tournament ever - it was also literally the first lawn tennis tournament (at least of any size) anywhere. For as long as there has been tennis, there has been Wimbledon.

As far as I'm concerned Wimbledon is the World Championship. The other events are of varying levels of significance by comparison. Most agree that the US Open is the second most valuable.
 
Sport said:
First, didn't you know the US Open was played on clay some years before the 80s? Second, that claim is false if you cannot find the exact reference. Can you find the specific quote of the ITF saying that "clay is a third tier surface"?
Click to expand...

The US Open was played on clay for 3 years in the 70s before changing surfaces after a suitable site was found at the current USTA National Tennis Center

They went from Grass from start until well until open era to a third tier surface at a temporary location and then to hard court which they have claimed as superior since 1978

More of a reason clay is trash

Spaniards love it though... but 28% of Spaniards are unemployed so who cares what they think
 
Sport said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you disagree with me, I still respect your opinion because it is based on facts rather than preference.

Slam counts and no.1 ranking(the number of weeks being no. 1 and also YE#1) are the 2 biggest criteria in discussing greatness of players because those stats show how much of a big time player one was and also how dominant he was in his time. Between Nadal and Sampras, I think you can have many arguments for each of them. I would normally give slam counts the first consideration, in which case, I have to give Nadal the edge. However, Nadal having 10 of 15 slams at RG and 5 on others in this 'homonization of surface' era doesn't trump Sampras' 14 slams on more 'surfaces with specific characters' era. You might say Sampras won half of his on grass, but the other half of his slams come from HC which is more neutral ground. Also, winning both clay and grass slams in this era certainly should be regarded differently as doing it in the era before 2000s.

I just think the tennis in Sampras' time was very different from what it is now. The characteristics difference in surface was more clear and we had 'specialists' for certain type of surfaces. One proof of homonization is that it's not just the big 4 but the guys behind them who get basically the same results regardless of surfaces, ie., top 10-20 level players like Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, etc, usually do well regardless of the surface type(Grass may be a little different because the season is so short, but still, it is mostly higher ranked players who go deep). That was simply my point. Winning all 4 different slams now and in 1989, for example, have to be regarded differently even though career grand slam should still be recognised as a special achievement.

This homonization has more effect than just on surface level as well. Because players now think they can do well on all surfaces with less adjustment, they believe they can do well on their weak surface as well. In the previous eras, people just believed that certain style cannot succeed on certain surface. Take Becker for example, he never won any clay tournaments. Sampras also had really mediocre results on FO for his usual high standard. Psychology affected their approach and that played a huge part in their relative lack of success on clay,I think.

Other than surface argument, I think no.1 ranking is a very important measure of greatness of a player. Sampras was quite invincible and there was the aura of dominance about him during the 90s. Nadal's aura was also special, but Sampras actually has the numbers to show his dominance, which is his record of weeks at no.1 and YE#1 count. Even though Hewitt has less slams, I put him above Wawrinka for this reason when it comes to greatness. Greatness should be displayed not just during 2 week period but over 12 months period for substantial amount of time.

Well, that's just how I see greatness. There are more points of arguments like YEC and M1000 counts, etc, but I think slams and no.1 ranking are two most important criteria. You may disagree, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I tried my best to answer your question.
 
Sport said:
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?
Click to expand...
For me, sometimes a grand slam final is so close that both people deserved the title. However, someone needs to lose. Like the 2012 US Open final and 2007 Wimbledon final. In this case, one player is denied a slam they more or less deserved, only the other guy deserved it more.

This is what makes me extremely reluctant to say 4 GS > 3 GS, and not look at any other factors. In your first example- Player A with 30 Masters 1000 and 3 GS vs Player B with 4 GS and no Masters.

I would argue that Player A is greater. Masters 1000 are mandatory events played by the best in the world. To win 30 takes incredible consistency and commitment. On the other hand, winning a grand slam requires you to be on top of your game for 2 weeks straight. A tough ask, but someone always wins. However, if they have no Masters, then it just shows they zone for the Grand Slam sometimes, but they can't muster enough energy to win the next best tournament.

Then it gets into even murkier waters. Imagine Player C: 5 GS, 15 RU and Player D: 6 GS, 1 RU. In my mind, Player C is better due to the consistency it takes to make those finals. Sure, they converted very few, but I think 12 slam finals is better than a slam win. I'd rank someone with no slam wins and 12 RU over someone with 1 slam win and no RU.
 
Sport said:
Not sure Federer makes the top 14, since grass is historically generally perceived as a third tier surface of no significance outside England. "Grass is just for cows."- Manolo Santana.

Pretty embarrassing career for him in this conversation.
Click to expand...

Not half as embarrassing as it was for Santana when he went on to win Wimbledon on a surface he had thought only fit for cows! :cool:
 
TripleATeam said:
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
Click to expand...

Looks about right but:

-I would say McEnroe achieved more than Agassi even with Agassi's Career Slam and having 1 more slam. McEnroe won a combined 7 Wimbledon/U.S Open back when those were by far the 2 most important tournaments. The 4 slams werent relatively equal then as they are today. McEnroe has 3 YE#1s, Agassi has only 1. McEnroe has many more WCT. McEnroe was both more dominant and more consistent, even though he has less longevity. McEnroe is a great on grass, hard courts, and indoors. Agassi despite winning a big title on all surfaces really only is on hard courts.

-IMO Roddick achieved more than Kafelikov despite Yevgeny's 2 slams. Kafelnikov didnt even win a Masters which is pretty bad, while Roddick won numerous and has a YE#1, and more slam finals.

-No way Moya achieved more than Muster. Muster has a ton more Masters, tournament tites, and while Moya did better in slams both still won only 1, and Moya still made only 2 slam finals. Both were predominantly clay courters, and Muster achieved far more on clay.
 
deacsyoga said:
Looks about right but:

-I would say McEnroe achieved more than Agassi even with Agassi's Career Slam and having 1 more slam. McEnroe won a combined 7 Wimbledon/U.S Open back when those were by far the 2 most important tournaments. The 4 slams werent relatively equal then as they are today. McEnroe has 3 YE#1s, Agassi has only 1. McEnroe has many more WCT. McEnroe was both more dominant and more consistent, even though he has less longevity. McEnroe is a great on grass, hard courts, and indoors. Agassi despite winning a big title on all surfaces really only is on hard courts.

-IMO Roddick achieved more than Kafelikov despite Yevgeny's 2 slams. Kafelnikov didnt even win a Masters which is pretty bad, while Roddick won numerous and has a YE#1, and more slam finals.

-No way Moya achieved more than Muster. Muster has a ton more Masters, tournament tites, and while Moya did better in slams both still won only 1, and Moya still made only 2 slam finals. Both were predominantly clay courters, and Muster achieved far more on clay.
Click to expand...
-Fair enough. I took Agassi due to him being in Sampras' generation. Mac was partly in Borg and had to contend with Connors, I suppose, though. It's somewhat subjective and I ranked his longevity and distribution above total dominance.

-Maybe. I looked at their maximum achievements in each slam. Looking back on their whole career, I think you might be right. Roddick was more consistent and faced stronger competition.

-I just can't look past Muster's Wimbledon record.
 
TripleATeam said:
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
Click to expand...
The absence of Vilas in this #1's list shows the big failure of the first few years of the ATP rankings.
 
Here's the problem with all the #1s.

If you take away their achievements, then none of them have actually achieved anything.
 
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Wilander
11. Edberg
12. Becker
13. Newcombe
14. Murray
15. Courier
16. Hewitt
17. Kuerten
18. Safin
19. Nastase
20. Roddick
21. Rafter
22. Kafelnikov
23. Muster
24. Ferrero
25. Moya
26. Rios

That is my ranking list based on achievements alone pretty much. If it was on my subjective views on greatness (heavily considering achievements still) I would go:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. McEnroe
7. Connors
8. Lendl
9. Agassi
10. Edberg
11. Becker- was so tough to choose between him and Edberg
12. Newcombe
13. Wilander
14. Courier
15. Murray
16. Hewitt
17. Safin
18. Kuerten
19. Roddick
20. Rafter
21. Nastase
22. Muster
23. Ferrero
24. Kafelnikov
25. Moya
26. Rios
 
spirit95 said:
Literally just a GOAT list. There are no GOAT contenders who were never #1 so what is the point of this thread
Click to expand...

Not GOATs but there were some great players who were never #1 though like Vilas, Wawrinka, Bruguera who certainly rank above some of the bottom people on the list like Rios, Muster, Ferrero, Kafelnikov. Not to mention many of the greats, some who are GOAT contenders, who were never technically #1 due to no computer rankings- Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden, Vines, Hoad, Kramer, and tons of others. So no, not the same as a GOAT list. A top 25 player all time list would never be talking about Kafelnikov or Rios after all.
 
deacsyoga said:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Wilander
11. Edberg
12. Becker
13. Newcombe
14. Murray
15. Courier
16. Hewitt
17. Kuerten
18. Safin
19. Nastase
20. Roddick
21. Rafter
22. Kafelnikov
23. Muster
24. Ferrero
25. Moya
26. Rios

That is my ranking list based on achievements alone pretty much. If it was on my subjective views on greatness (heavily considering achievements still) I would go:

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

Only thing I find really disagreeable is Wilander above Becker and Edberg?
 
Rating Sampras, Nadal, and Nole with respect to each other is very difficult in my view.

Sampras has dominated 2 surfaces, and has 5 WTFs, most weeks at #1 among the 3 and the most YE #1s, but he was a relative non-entity on clay and has the fewest Masters titles (by far) -and he is the only guy among these 3 with no career GS.

Djokovic has the joint most Masters, and a lot more weeks at #1 than Rafa, besides also having a relatively even spread of Slams across surfaces and 5 WTFs. He has also been more consistent at Slams than Rafa and his peak was probably more dominant than either Rafa or Pete. But he is the last of the 3 on the most important count- Slam titles.

Rafa has the most Slams (and is the only player with multiple Slams on each surface) and joint most Masters, an Olympic gold, and he dominated one surface more than any player has dominated any surface, but he is the last on weeks at #1 and YE#1. He also has no WTF titles, which is a big gap in his resume.

Personally, I'd put Rafa at no.2 in the list after Federer- who is the undisputed #1, then Nole, closely followed by Pete.
 
NatF said:
Only thing I find really disagreeable is Wilander above Becker and Edberg?
Click to expand...

I put him above them in achievements and below them in my personal rankings of greatness/rating. As you will notice I have Wilander only 13th on my 2nd list and Edberg and Becker 10th and 11th, while Wilander just ahead on my "achievements " list.

I think Wilander absolutely belongs above Edberg and even moreso Becker in achievements. He has 7 majors to their 6. He has won multiple majors on each surface (remember his first 2 Australian Open wins were on grass). He has a 3 slam year. And he has a YE#1, Edberg has 2 (the second very weak with two 1st round slam losses), and Becker technically has 0 even if he probably deserved 1989. Becker doesnt even have a 2 slam year either, and he never even won a tournament on clay. Even his YECs, and he doesnt have that many of those, arent enough to make up the gap.

I ranked him lower than both in my personal rankings as I think both are still better players and had more impact on the sport, and I think Wilander had a bit of luck in his achievements, but in pure achievements I would have to put him over them.
 
deacsyoga said:
I put him above them in achievements and below them in my personal rankings of greatness/rating.

I think Wilander absolutely belongs above Edberg and even moreso Becker in achievements. He has 7 majors to their 6. He has won multiple majors on each surface (remember his first 2 Australian Open wins were on grass). He has a 3 slam year. And he has a YE#1, Edberg has 2 (the second very weak with two 1st round slam losses), and Becker technically has 0 even if he probably deserved 1989. Becker doesnt even have a 2 slam year either, and he never even won a tournament on clay. Even his YECs, and he doesnt have that many of those, arent enough to make up the gap.

I ranked him lower than both in my personal rankings as I think both are still better players and had more impact on the sport, and I think Wilander had a bit of luck in his achievements, but in pure achievements I would have to put him over them.
Click to expand...

Becker won 2 slams in 1989. He narrowly deserves it over Lendl that year - I don't care if he technically didn't finish that year at #1 :P

I don't think Wilander's extra slam is enough, Edberg was #1 for 2 years which cancels out that slam IMO. The rest of Edberg's career is clearly superior. Both he and Becker won significantly more titles. Not to mention in Becker's corner is his record at the YEC, his indoor prowess winning the YEC multiple times puts him clearly above Wilander IMO.
 
TripleATeam said:
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
Click to expand...
Seems pretty legit to me. The only thing I'd question is putting Conners and Lendl over Agassi. They all won 8 majors, but Agassi won a career grand slam (which Conners and Lendl both failed to do). Agassi also won an Olympic Gold and won 17 masters titles.
 
captainbryce said:
Seems pretty legit to me. The only thing I'd question is putting Conners and Lendl over Agassi. They all won 8 majors, but Agassi won a career grand slam (which Conners and Lendl both failed to do). Agassi also won an Olympic Gold and won 17 masters titles.
Click to expand...

Agassi was only #1 for one year and his late career slam wins were pretty tame. Plus Lendl excelled at the YEC and won a bunch of titles there when it was a truly prestigious event (much bigger than the OG in Agassi's era).
 
NatF said:
Becker won 2 slams in 1989. He narrowly deserves it over Lendl that year - I don't care if he technically didn't finish that year at #1 :p

I don't think Wilander's extra slam is enough, Edberg was #1 for 2 years which cancels out that slam IMO. The rest of Edberg's career is clearly superior. Both he and Becker won significantly more titles. Not to mention in Becker's corner is his record at the YEC, his indoor prowess winning the YEC multiple times puts him clearly above Wilander IMO.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I still dont see it that way. As I think you know, I value slams more heavily than you, and some other things less than you do. Wilander not only having 7 slams to 6, but his 3 slam year, and having multiple slams on every surface (and he beat legit top people to win his Australian Opens on grass, especialy 83) is enough to put him over Becker and Edberg in achievements. And I think Edberg's 2nd YE#1 was so weak (arguably deserved but still a really weak #1 year) I wouldnt say it cancels out a slam even if I felt a single YE#1 always equaled a slam, which I dont.
 
If you took titles and simply gave relational points for each players based on achievements in each and ever tournament they competed, you would have an accurate list. This doesn't just mean one they win, but the true consistent level they achieved during the time. Just equal out any inconsistencies for era and you're good to go.
 
aman92 said:
Sampras was pathetic on clay and didn't get past the SF at Roland Garros. That alone should exclude him from the top 3
Click to expand...
Nadal is a complete non factor indoors even in Mickey Mouse tournaments. Should Nadal be excluded for same reason? Sampras was ATG level on three surfaces grass, hard and indoors but bad on clay. Federer is GOAT on 3 surfaces and Djokovic is ATG on 2 surfaces
 
NatF said:
Agassi was only #1 for one year and his late career slam wins were pretty tame. Plus Lendl excelled at the YEC and won a bunch of titles there when it was a truly prestigious event (much bigger than the OG in Agassi's era).
Click to expand...
I'll give you the YEC vs OG argument. But I still think the career grand slam and masters titles put Agassi ahead. I also think Agassi was a better player in general. The ranking is actually the least impactful stat to me.
 
TennisATP said:
Or he didn't even know that Laver's career went into the Open era...
Click to expand...

Or you know... Laver never hit ATP #1 and therefore doesn't qualify to be on the list. Not saying he's not great and doesn't belong higher than many of the people on this list, but this is a ranking of players who have hit ATP #1. It creates a slightly different discussion than "list your top players by accomplishments", which has been done to death in many different forms.
 
xFullCourtTenniSx said:
Or you know... Laver never hit ATP #1 and therefore doesn't qualify to be on the list. Not saying he's not great and doesn't belong higher than many of the people on this list, but this is a ranking of players who have hit ATP #1. It creates a slightly different discussion than "list your top players by accomplishments", which has been done to death in many different forms.
Click to expand...
I was really trying to discuss the lower ranked players- not the top 5 like everyone always does. Sampras v Nadal is one we always hear. Courier-Murray is less common, and Kafelnikov-Roddick I've never seen before the thread.
 
I'd consider bumping Marcelo Rios to 25 ahead of Moya

0 Slams of course but he has 2 pretty big achievements

- Sunshine Double

- first guy to complete Masters trio of Monte Carlo, Rome & Hamburg (Kuerten, Nadal, Djokovic have followed... Lendl did it before Masters was a 'thing' so to speak )... if Muster couldn't do it, it was a bloody difficult thing to do

---

@Phoenix1983 & @NatF

Good lists, as expected

One point I disagree with you guys is Newcombe > Edberg & Wilander

Accomplishments seem to favour Edberg -

6 Slams to 5 (pure Open)
11 Slam finals to 7
72 weeks #1 to 8
2 YE #1 to 0
1 YEC each (counting Newk's WCT title)
3 YEC finals to 1 (including WCT Finals)


Wilander too I'd place above Newcombe - a difference of 2 Slams (when 2 Slams constitute a 40% increase on Newcombe's total) is a big fat load to overcome if Newcombe is to be ranked higher... I don't see what he's accomplished outside the Slams to justify it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Rank the No.1s
Replies
34
Views
4K
FlamEnemY
FlamEnemY
Hitman
Djokovic has more weeks at number one than....
Replies
31
Views
998
NatF
NatF
Lew II
% of GS matches played against top5
Replies
14
Views
1K
ABCD
A
5555
UPDATE - Weeks at number 1
2
Replies
78
Views
11K
5555
5555
money_ball
Total weeks at #1 ranking by age
Replies
6
Views
1K
money_ball
money_ball
Back
Top