Ranking all slam winners since 2000.

[PeterHo]

Here's my rank of all the players who has won a slam since 2000.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Nole
5. Agassi
6. Kuerten
7. Murray
8. Roddick
9. Hewitt
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ivan
13. Ferrero
14. Delpo
15. Cilic
16. johanson
17. Gaudio
18. Costa

Go ahead and give your rankings.

Edits:
1. Added missing Goran
2. Swapped ferrero Delpo.

Potential changes:
Roddick down 2
Nadal over Sampras
Kuerten down 3

 

[Djokovic2011]

How can you have Sampras in 2nd place when he only won two slams since 2000?!

 

[PeterHo]

How can you have Sampras in 2nd place when he only won two slams since 2000?!

Ranking overall achievements, while including only those player who have won a slam since 2000.

 

[The Green Mile]

I would put Murray over Kuerten, as much as I like the guy...

 

[The Green Mile]

And I would put Ferrero over Delpo too. That's just me though...

 

[Faker]

Definitely Nadal over Sampras. Call me biased as a Rafa fan, but lack of a career slam and masters from Sampras is still too huge. Federer still as #1 though.

 

[The Harkleroad]

Ferrero over Del Potro. 1 Slam and 2 RUs, No. 1 ranking, 4 masters.

Where's Goran? Id put him ahead of Ferrero and DelPo maybe even ahead of Stan. Goran have 3 QF at OZ, 3 QF at RG, 1 SF at USO and 2SF/3RU/1W at Wimbledon.

I'd put Nadal over Sampras.

 

[PeterHo]

I would put Murray over Kuerten, as much as I like the guy...

Fair call.

Kuerten did win 3 slams and was the master on clay for a few years. Murray obviously was fighting all the time against the big 3 and never dominated a surface.

I think Murray can and should surpass him if he wins another one.

 

[PeterHo]

And I would put Ferrero over Delpo too. That's just me though...

Both on a single slam. So can argue both ways depending on other achievements. Delpos slam over fed seems more impressive to me IMO.

A lot of these guys on 1 or 2 slams are quite close and can be argued one way or another.

 

[PeterHo]

Definitely Nadal over Sampras. Call me biased as a Rafa fan, but lack of a career slam and masters from Sampras is still too huge. Federer still as #1 though.

Yes, you may be a biased Rafa fan, but that's fine. I'm not a fan of either, some would say I'm a fan of Rafa even (and some other guys think I would boost Rafa in order to boost Nole), but I do not think he is above sampras, yet. Sampras has been 6 years consecutive no.1, that's a great feat and whether he had won RG or not, they both have 14 slams. Sampras also won multiple wtfs.

 

[PeterHo]

Ferrero over Del Potro. 1 Slam and 2 RUs, No. 1 ranking, 4 masters.

Where's Goran? Id put him ahead of Ferrero and DelPo maybe even ahead of Stan. Goran have 3 QF at OZ, 3 QF at RG, 1 SF at USO and 2SF/3RU/1W at Wimbledon.

I'd put Nadal over Sampras.

Ivan was forgotten, agree with where u rank him.

Yep ferrero had better overall stats than Delpo, although I think Delpo has a higher peak. Updated rankings.

 

[timnz]

Here's my rank of all the players who has won a slam since 2000.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Nole
5. Agassi
6. Kuerten
7. Murray
8. Roddick
9. Hewitt
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ivan
13. Ferrero
14. Delpo
15. Cilic
16. johanson
17. Gaudio
18. Costa

Go ahead and give your rankings.

Edits
1. Added missing Goran
2. Swapped ferrero Delpo.

Ranking Sampras over Nadal comes down to Philosophical choices. Is 5 WTF's (Sampras) a greater or smaller achievement that 16 more Masters 1000's (Nadal). Is a more diverse Slam portfolio (Sampras very dominant in two slams - Wimbledon 7, US Open 5 - whereas Nadal dominant only at French Open) more important or it is of no consequence ie are all slam wins equal.

I for one used to think Sampras....but now I think that it is hard to argue that 5 WTF's (as much as I love the WTF event) is of more value than 16 Masters 1000.

 

[PeterHo]

Ranking Sampras over Nadal comes down to Philosophical choices. Is 5 WTF's (Sampras) a greater or smaller achievement that 16 more Masters 1000's (Nadal). Is a more diverse Slam portfolio (Sampras very dominant in two slams - Wimbledon 7, US Open 5 - whereas Nadal dominant only at French Open) more important or it is of no consequence ie are all slam wins equal.

I for one used to think Sampras....but now I think that it is hard to argue that 5 WTF's (as much as I love the WTF event) is of more value than 16 Masters 1000.

Interesting take.

The prestige of wtf has not changed over the years, the fact that nadal hasn't win one is a hole in his resume.

The masters however, has increased in importance.

If two players are very close in terms of achievements, I would give the higher ranking to the older guy. The younger generation had a target to chase => better motivation.

 

[nowhereman]

Here's my rank of all the players who has won a slam since 2000.

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Nole
5. Agassi
6. Kuerten
7. Murray
8. Roddick
9. Hewitt
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ivan
13. Ferrero
14. Delpo
15. Cilic
16. johanson
17. Gaudio
18. Costa

Go ahead and give your rankings.

Edits
1. Added missing Goran
2. Swapped ferrero Delpo.

Agree with most of the list, except I would put Roddick below Hewitt and Safin and Goran above Stan. Even though Stan's won two slams, I feel like Goran's overall career and level of play have been greater than Stan's.

 

[Dave1982]

Nice list and makes for an interesting discussion.

Whilst for the most part I think you've listed majority in their correct position (or at least within one or two of correct positions - this is what makes it fun though) Kuerten to me is the one you've probably rated significantly more highly than where I believe he belongs. I know he won 3 Slams but all at the French and never went beyond QF at any of the others....in my opinion I'd have him about on a par with Goran at number 12.

Probably also have Hewitt and Safin ahead of Roddick...keep Stan behind him as whilst Stan's best is definitely ahead of Roddick's it's his inconsistency which in my opinion puts him behind...arguably Stan has greatest potential to rise on the list (of the very few who can).

 

[PeterHo]

Agree with most of the list, except I would put Roddick below Hewitt and Safin and Goran above Stan. Even though Stan's won two slams, I feel like Goran's overall career and level of play have been greater than Stan's.

stans beat prime nadal and djokovic, those are more impressive wins than beating rafter...

anyway the main point is he's on 2 slams, and is very likely to pad his resume with more deep runs at slams, so normally he should be rated higher, unless goran beats him in every other category then we have a case.

as to roddick, i feel he's been incredibly unlucky to have faced federer all his life, during his own peak. not only is federer an ATG, he also has a matchup advantage over roddick. Roddick has been a more consistent player than the others, so i ranked him higher. There may be a good argument for hewitt, but Safin does not have any consistency at all.

 

[Russeljones]

Ranking overall achievements, while including only those player who have won a slam since 2000.

Why talk about overall achievements but choose 2000 as starting point? Still no sense.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Nadal/Sampras is a dead heat for me

 

[PeterHo]

Nice list and makes for an interesting discussion.

Whilst for the most part I think you've listed majority in their correct position (or at least within one or two of correct positions - this is what makes it fun though) Kuerten to me is the one you've probably rated significantly more highly than where I believe he belongs. I know he won 3 Slams but all at the French and never went beyond QF at any of the others....in my opinion I'd have him about on a par with Goran at number 12.

Probably also have Hewitt and Safin ahead of Roddick...keep Stan behind him as whilst Stan's best is definitely ahead of Roddick's it's his inconsistency which in my opinion puts him behind...arguably Stan has greatest potential to rise on the list (of the very few who can).

kuerten at no.12? wow thats a huge drop. he did get to no.1 ranking. does surface matter if you've just won more majors?

as to roddick, i think he's more consistent than hewitt or safin. maybe there's a good case for hewitt, but safin is a very inconsistent player throughout his entire career, having a career match winning % of mid 60s.

 

[PDJ]

Agree with most of the list, except I would put Roddick below Hewitt and Safin and Goran above Stan. Even though Stan's won two slams, I feel like Goran's overall career and level of play have been greater than Stan's.

Yup, this.
Much prefer Roddick, but Hewitt achieved more, plus he won Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi
5. Joker
6. Kuerten
7. Hewitt
8. Murray
9. Roddick
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ferrero
13. Ivan
14. Delpo
15. Johansson
16. Gaudio
17. Costa
18. Cilic

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Anybody who ranks Roddick over Hewitt didn't watch them play.

Roddick's "consistency" doesn't outweigh the fact he held a 2-6 record against him, peak for peak, achieved less and spent way less time at #1.

"Consistency" is your only angle point, and even then external factors caused Hewitt to decline so quickly.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi
5. Joker
6. Kuerten
7. Hewitt
8. Murray
9. Roddick
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ferrero
13. Ivan
14. Delpo
15. Johansson
16. Gaudio
17. Costa
18. Cilic

Andre above Novak?

Explain.

 

[PeterHo]

Why talk about overall achievements but choose 2000 as starting point? Still no sense.

its the rank of those players who had won a slam after 2000 by their overall greatness

there just needs to be a cut off point... once we get back in the 90s, 80s, it becomes increasingly difficult to compare players (espescially those with 1 or 2 majors).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Andre above Novak?

Explain.

Played in a tougher time period and accumulated nearly as much.

 

[PeterHo]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Agassi
5. Joker
6. Kuerten
7. Hewitt
8. Murray
9. Roddick
10. Safin
11. Stan
12. Ferrero
13. Ivan
14. Delpo
15. Johansson
16. Gaudio
17. Costa
18. Cilic

nadal over sampras?

agassi over nole?

if nadal is better than sampras, nole should be even greater than how he's rated currently, given he had beaten nadal so many times and took over his no.1 position... so this seems to be a conflict.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Played in a tougher time period and accumulated nearly as much.

Novak has had to contend with Fedal and you rank both of them ahead of Sampras.

Would you agree that Novak is likely to finish ahead of Agassi, then in your view? (I know this is a current not projected list, but just asking)

 

[6august]

4. Agassi
5. Joker

WTF?!?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Novak has had to contend with Fedal and you rank both of them ahead of Sampras.

Not at their best like Agassi had to with Sampras.

Would you agree that Novak is likely to finish ahead of Agassi, then in your view? (I know this is a current not projected list, but just asking)

He's got a chance.

I would have given his GS titles this year more merit if he did it against a better field, like 2011.

 

[PeterHo]

Not at their best like Agassi had to with Sampras.

This doesn't compute Saby.

Agassi is ranked higher due to tough competition, ie. Sampras.

Nadal > Sampras (in your list)

Nole is ranked lower due to easier competition, ie. Nadal

=> Agassi is better than Nole

?????????

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This doesn't compute Saby.

Agassi is ranked higher due to tough competition, ie. Sampras.

Nadal > Sampras (in your list)

Nole is ranked lower due to easier competition, ie. Nadal

=> Agassi is better than Nole

?????????

I know it's hard for you to understand, but Nole never competed against peak Rafa.

 

[NatF]

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Nole
5. Agassi
6. Hewitt
7. Murray
8. Kuerten
9. Roddick
10. Safin
11. Ivanisevic
12. Ferrero
13. Wawrinka
14. Del Potro
15. Johanson
16. Costa
17. Cilic
18. Gaudio

 

[Deleted member 307496]

nadal over sampras?

agassi over nole?

if nadal is better than sampras, nole should be even greater than how he's rated currently, given he had beaten nadal so many times and took over his no.1 position... so this seems to be a conflict.

He had to wait for Fedal to decline before he pounced, thus why his numbers are inflated.

 

[PeterHo]

He had to wait for Fedal to decline before he pounced, thus why his numbers are inflated.

So fedal declined in 2011?

Nadal declined at 25??? 25????

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So fedal declined in 2011?

Nadal declined at 25??? 25????

He wasn't at his peak in 2011 (struggled with confidence for the longest time). He was prime level, I'll give you that, but that's not the same thing as going toe to toe with him at his absolute best.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Reasonable list OP.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Nole
5. Agassi
6. Hewitt
7. Murray
8. Kuerten
9. Roddick
10. Safin
11. Ivanisevic
12. Ferrero
13. Wawrinka
14. Del Potro
15. Johanson
16. Costa
17. Cilic
18. Gaudio

Voting for this ^^^^

Maybe Nads ahead of Pete, only change I'd make.
Close though.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I know it's hard for you to understand, but Nole never competed against peak Rafa.

He did.

But he lost.

 

[NatF]

Voting for this ^^^^

Maybe Nads ahead of Pete, only change I'd make.
Close though.

Pete was the best player of his era. He didn't have competition like Nadal but the 6 YE#1's to 3 YE #1's is still a little bit too much for me to switch them - even considering 1998 was the weakest YE #1 finish ever...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Pete was the best player of his era. He didn't have competition like Nadal but the 6 YE#1's to 3 YE #1's is still a little bit too much for me to switch them - even considering 1998 was the weakest YE #1 finish ever...

Indeed, but I like Nadal's 9 RG, Career slam... sigh... and his dominance of Federer.

I think one can argue for Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Indeed, but I like Nadal's 9 RG, Career slam... sigh... and his dominance of Federer.

I think one can argue for Nadal.

No doubt you can argue for Nadal. I think Borg-Nadal-Sampras are all really close. I value being the best very highly which comes out in my ratings of various players. A YE#1 to me pretty much balances out an extra slam for example.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Here's my rank of all the players who has won a slam since 2000.

I'm assuming you're ranking them based on their full careers, rather than just what they did since 2000. In which case:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Andre Agassi
6. Gustavo Kuerten
7. Lleyton Hewitt
8. Andy Murray
9. Marat Safin
10. Andy Roddick

11. Stan Wawrinka
12. Goran Ivanisevic
13. Juan Carlos Ferrero
14. Juan Martin Del Potro
15. Albert Costa
16. Marin Cilic
17. Thomas Johansson
18. Gaston Gaudio

 

[Russeljones]

its the rank of those players who had won a slam after 2000 by their overall greatness

there just needs to be a cut off point... once we get back in the 90s, 80s, it becomes increasingly difficult to compare players (espescially those with 1 or 2 majors).

I think you should only compare Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Everything else is too difficult.

 

[PeterHo]

I think you should only compare Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Everything else is too difficult.

well if we only have these 3, then its pretty obvious isn't it?

the fun thing in this thread is where all the others sit, all those from 1-3 slam guys. its interesting that some have argued kuerten to be ranked lower than a 1 slammer, and then we have 1 slammers potentially higher than 2 slammers, etc.

So far, what i am considering are:

Potential changes:
Roddick down 2
Nadal over Sampras
Kuerten down 3

i think its a bit tough since there are arguments for and against these, they are close.

 

[Phoenix1983]

The most interesting debates when ranking these players are:

- Sampras or Nadal at No 2?
- Position of Kuerten (could be as high as #6, but as low as #10, depending on how much you value winning 3 FO's)
- Position of Wawrinka (2-slam winner but has done precious little else in his career, most of us rank at least Roddick above him from the 1-slam winners)
- Hewitt or Murray higher?
- Ranking of the bottom four (in alphabetical order Cilic, Costa, Gaudio, Johansson)

 

[Dave1982]

kuerten at no.12? wow thats a huge drop. he did get to no.1 ranking. does surface matter if you've just won more majors?

as to roddick, i think he's more consistent than hewitt or safin. maybe there's a good case for hewitt, but safin is a very inconsistent player throughout his entire career, having a career match winning % of mid 60s.

Well you yourself have said that Stan has beaten both peak Nadal & Djokovic & that along with 2 Slams on different surfaces puts him ahead of Kuerten in my opinion (add Kuerten's average results at other 3 Slams) & subsequently drops Kuerten down to around 11/12 as I also wouldn't be putting Stan ahead of those you have him behind...I even think you could make a case for Goran being ahead of him but 3 to 1 Slam count is significant.

Safin is undoubtedly a difficult one to rate because yes he was inconsistent & erratic but his best tennis was scary good, that along with extra Slam puts him ahead of Roddick in my book but behind Hewitt due to Hewitt's weeks spent at #1.
Hewitt's peak definitely better than Roddick's (not by huge margin), extra Slam, significantly more weeks at number 1...limited by injuries but I'd take Hewitt's career over Roddick's every day of the week.

 

[torpantennis]

I'm assuming you're ranking them based on their full careers, rather than just what they did since 2000. In which case:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Andre Agassi
6. Gustavo Kuerten
7. Lleyton Hewitt
8. Andy Murray
9. Marat Safin
10. Andy Roddick

11. Stan Wawrinka
12. Goran Ivanisevic
13. Juan Carlos Ferrero
14. Juan Martin Del Potro
15. Albert Costa
16. Marin Cilic
17. Thomas Johansson
18. Gaston Gaudio

Almost exactly my list. I'd just put Hewitt ahead of Kuerten, ever so slightly.

 

[mike danny]

stans beat prime nadal and djokovic, those are more impressive wins than beating rafter...

anyway the main point is he's on 2 slams, and is very likely to pad his resume with more deep runs at slams, so normally he should be rated higher, unless goran beats him in every other category then we have a case.

as to roddick, i feel he's been incredibly unlucky to have faced federer all his life, during his own peak. not only is federer an ATG, he also has a matchup advantage over roddick. Roddick has been a more consistent player than the others, so i ranked him higher. There may be a good argument for hewitt, but Safin does not have any consistency at all.

In a way that's what I was thinking. Roddick never got an opportunity to see how he would do against a non-Federer opponent in a slam final.

He might have won an extra slam or two had this opportunity been presented to him.

 

[PeterHo]

Well you yourself have said that Stan has beaten both peak Nadal & Djokovic & that along with 2 Slams on different surfaces puts him ahead of Kuerten in my opinion (add Kuerten's average results at other 3 Slams) & subsequently drops Kuerten down to around 11/12 as I also wouldn't be putting Stan ahead of those you have him behind...I even think you could make a case for Goran being ahead of him but 3 to 1 Slam count is significant.

Safin is undoubtedly a difficult one to rate because yes he was inconsistent & erratic but his best tennis was scary good, that along with extra Slam puts him ahead of Roddick in my book but behind Hewitt due to Hewitt's weeks spent at #1.
Hewitt's peak definitely better than Roddick's (not by huge margin), extra Slam, significantly more weeks at number 1...limited by injuries but I'd take Hewitt's career over Roddick's every day of the week.

i really dont have an answer to this.

when slams is not the definitive measure, it becomes really difficult to compare players. you can have all sorts of arguments, who he played in finals, h2hs, master wins, all surfaces, etc,etc.

kuerten at 3 slams it doesn't seem to make sense to rank him below a 1 slammer. in that case he should at least be higher than Roddick. then we have roddick who i believe played the toughest competition compared to hewitt/safin (roddick met GOATing Fed in all his slam finals), and obviously hes the most consistent of the three.

yeah i too would take hewitts career, in these rankings im trying to obtain greatness and that itself is subjective.

tbh its very hard to split some of these players, I prefer to see them as one group in the grand scheme of things.

 

[PeterHo]

The most interesting debates when ranking these players are:

- Sampras or Nadal at No 2?
- Position of Kuerten (could be as high as #6, but as low as #10, depending on how much you value winning 3 FO's)
- Position of Wawrinka (2-slam winner but has done precious little else in his career, most of us rank at least Roddick above him from the 1-slam winners)
- Hewitt or Murray higher?
- Ranking of the bottom four (in alphabetical order Cilic, Costa, Gaudio, Johansson)

sampras nadal is pretty much tied. prefer sampras here just because he dominated all his rivals.

yep, kuerten is an interesting one. i still think 3 majors is quite significant, it puts him in some rarified air since there are a lot of 1 or 2 slammers in the history of tennis, while not many with 3 or 4.

wawrinka hasnt done much outside his 2 slam wins, so he would be below all the other 2 slammers, and a consistent 1 slammer has a case to be above him.

hewitt vs murray, title wise they are on par, with murray having overall better stats if you look deeper. hewitt has no.1 while murray faced tougher opponents. but with murray still playing i think he will end up clearly above hewitt.

bottom four - cilic and johanson has performed reasonably well in all 4 slams. the other 2 are clay only. so i would rate them lowest.