Ranking all slam winners since 2000.

[Dave1982]

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.

Yeah totally see where you're coming from & logically 3 Slams should automatically put you ahead of certainly 1 Slam winners & 99% of 2 Slam winners.
In case of Kuerten though we really are talking about a guy who only excelled on a single surface in an era where clearly the best player seriously struggled on it.
Agree with your comments on Roddick & that's why I think he deserves some bonus points beyond what you might typically afford a single slam winner & why I'd actually rate him ahead of Kuerten.

Like you say it's all subjective & that's the fun of it!!

 

[Phoenix1983]

Yeah totally see where you're coming from & logically 3 Slams should automatically put you ahead of certainly 1 Slam winners & 99% of 2 Slam winners.
In case of Kuerten though we really are talking about a guy who only excelled on a single surface in an era where clearly the best player seriously struggled on it.
Agree with your comments on Roddick & that's why I think he deserves some bonus points beyond what you might typically afford a single slam winner & why I'd actually rate him ahead of Kuerten.

Like you say it's all subjective & that's the fun of it!!

To note about Kuerten: he did finish 2000 as YE #1 and won the YEC that year, beating Agassi and Sampras in that tournament. So his achievements were not quite all on clay.

 

[PeterHo]

To note about Kuerten: he did finish 2000 as YE #1 and won the YEC that year, beating Agassi and Sampras in that tournament. So his achievements were not quite all on clay.

yeah he must have at least done something off clay, otherwise its near impossible to get the YE no.1 ranking.

 

[Dave1982]

To note about Kuerten: he did finish 2000 as YE #1 and won the YEC that year, beating Agassi and Sampras in that tournament. So his achievements were in not quite all on clay.

Fair point & certainly buys him some credit...still tend to feel he sits below that group of Hewitt, Safin, Stan & Roddick...guess I just never warmed to Kuerten no matter how likeable he was...kind of felt same about Sampras but his achievements make his place (2 or 3) fairly secure!

 

[tennisaddict]

There is Fed, Pete and Rafa and then the rest.

 

[The Harkleroad]

To note about Kuerten: he did finish 2000 as YE #1 and won the YEC that year, beating Agassi and Sampras in that tournament. So his achievements were not quite all on clay.

The No.1 ranking + YE#1 + YEC is pretty significant in his case. Without the no.1 ranking it would have been easy to put the 2slammers ahead of him. and 3 slams is indeed rarefied air. You have way too many 2 slammers in the last 2-3 decades like Rafter, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Hewitt, Safin, Murray, Wawrinka... 3 slams is 3 slams. Only the Big 3/Pete/Andre, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Wilander and Courier has won more in the last 3 decades.

There was also his impressive 2001 Cincinnati win where he beat Roddick, Haas, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Henman and Rafter.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

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

Overall achievements of players who have won slams in the 2000s. Sounds about right.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Pros for Nadal. Career Grand Slam, 16 more M1000, most dominant player at any slam ever, harder competition

Pros for Sampras. More YE #1, 5WTF, more weeks at #1

Sampras might have been more consistent but Nadal at his best is better than Sampra(Novak too but his slam difference is too much a). So Nadal is 2nd to Fed, Sampras 3rd, Novak 4th, Agassi 5. Then a gigantic drop off but I mostly agree with your list.