Ranking tennis greats by different tiers.

[nevermind]

Disclaimer: I'm not ranking tennis players inside the same tier in order of greatness, it's more random. For example, I'm not stating here that Djokovic is greater than Nadal and Federer(even though I think he is, but that's another topic/discussion...)

Tier 1 is undisputed: Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal.

Tier 2 : Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Emerson, Laver, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Rosewall. Sampras is the leader of this tier I think and definitely 4th best player ever.

Tier 3: Newcombe, Courier, Nastase, Villas, Murray, Wawrinka, Kafelnikov, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten, Ashe, Kodes, Rafter, Stan Smith, Carlos Alcaraz(just for now, he'll go higher in the future). Courier or Newcombe are probably the best of this tier, maybe Murray. I'm not sure.

Tier 4: Rios, Moya, Ferrero, Cilic, Thiem, Del Potro, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Gerulaitis, Stich, Chang, Pat Cash, Muster, Krajicek, Andres Gomez, Noah, Daniil Medvedev...

 

[TsitsiBH]

If we are going by level Murray belongs to the 2nd tier as I don't think Edberg Becker and Wilander deserve to be above him. Then again they also don't deserve to be ranked on the same level as Sampras, Borg...

 

[a10best]

Any player than can win Wimbledon 7 out of 8 years is definitely not tier 2. Once in the teens you can't be tier 2.
The big 3 benefited from a weak era. None of their opponents would have won a slam in the early 2000s or 90s except for Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Murray.

 

[MaxTennis]

Big 3 (20 slams minimum): Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
Tier 1 (10+ slams): Sampras, Laver, Borg
Tier 2 (6-10 slams): Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Tier 3 (3-5 slams): Murray, Wawrinka, Courier, Guga

 

[Fabresque]

Any player than can win Wimbledon 7 out of 8 years is definitely not tier 2. Once in the teens you can't be tier 2.
The big 3 benefits from a weak era. None of their opponents would have won a slam in the early 2000s or 90s except for Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Murray.

I like Sampras but he’s 6 slams behind the nearest one in the tier above him and a whole 10(!) slams behind the slam leader. He just isn’t in the same tier as them.

“Weak era” is totally subjective.

 

[Kralingen]

Tier 1 Pre-OE: Rosewall, Laver, Pancho, Budge, Tilden, Kramer* (depending on your view of his Tour style)

Tier 1 Post-OE: Big 3, Sampras, Borg

 

[ND-13]

If you place Pete and Borg in any tier that is not the first , then your tennis knowledge is questionable

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think by now we are only caring about the top top players like big 3 Pete rod and Bjorn.

 

[crimson87]

Putting Vilas, Nastase and Newcombe on the same tier as Rafter, Safin and Kodes, I don't know TBH...

PETE is tier 1. Pre homogenization and poly stats should be more valuable.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Putting Vilas, Nastase and Newcombe on the same tier as Rafter, Safin and Kodes, I don't know TBH...

PETE is tier 1. Pre homogenization and poly stats should be more valuable.

Pete is tier 1.

 

[Razer]

Tier 1 - Djokovic, Sampras, Federer, Nadal & Borg
Tier 2 - Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 - Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 - Courier, Murray, Vilas, Kuerten, Safin, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Arthur Ashe, Bruguera
Tier 5 - Roddick, Ivanisevic, Chang, Medvedev
Tier 6 - Tsonga, Berdych, Nalbandian, Zverev, Philippoussis, Johansson, Gaudio etc etc
Tier 7 - Kyrgios, Rudd, Gasquet and the other mugs
Tier 8 : Journeymen in the top 100

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

Big 3 (20 slams minimum): Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
Tier 1 (10+ slams): Sampras, Laver, Borg
Tier 2 (6-10 slams): Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Tier 3 (3-5 slams): Murray, Wawrinka, Courier, Guga

It's not all about slams. Players in the 70s, 80s, and 90s had to play more to make a decent living.
McEnroe is tier one for me because of his huge amount of wins, singles(77) and doubles (77).

 

[nolefam_2024]

Tier 1 - Djokovic, Sampras, Federer, Nadal & Borg
Tier 2 - Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 - Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 - Courier, Murray, Vilas, Kuerten, Safin, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Arthur Ashe, Bruguera
Tier 5 - Roddick, Ivanisevic, Chang, Medvedev
Tier 6 - Tsonga, Berdych, Nalbandian, Zverev, Philippoussis, Johansson, Gaudio etc etc
Tier 7 - Kyrgios, Rudd, Gasquet and the other mugs
Tier 8 : Journeymen in the top 100

This makes sense. Where is rafter Krajicek and other 90s guys. But this is a list I would approve.

 

[Razer]

This makes sense. Where is rafter Krajicek and other 90s guys. But this is a list I would approve.

Tier 1 - Djokovic, Sampras, Federer, Nadal & Borg
Tier 2 - Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 - Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 - Courier, Murray, Vilas, Kuerten, Safin, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Arthur Ashe,
Tier 5 - Roddick, Ivanisevic, Chang, Bruguera, Medvedev, Rafter, Krajicek, Alcaraz
Tier 6 - Tsonga, Berdych, Nalbandian, Zverev, Philippoussis, Johansson, Gaudio etc etc
Tier 7 - Kyrgios, Rudd, Gasquet and the other mugs
Tier 8 : Journeymen in the top 100

It is tough rating players of the past whom we never saw live, so I'll put Rafter and Krajicek along with Roddick, Ivanisevic.

Alcaraz is already in Tier 5 I guess, 1 more slam and he can jump to Tier 4. Then he will need to make it 6-7 slams to enter tier 3, then 9-10 to enter tier 2 ..... then he will need 18-20 to enter tier 1.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Tilden won over 100 titles that required a Bo5 final and won 8 slams in a row. His influence can't be underestimated. However, very difficult to compare Pre-OE with Open Era.

 

[Terenigma]

Anyone who puts Murray/Wawrinka in the same tier is immediately a joke to me. Murray is twice the player Wawrinka is and is easily on the level of players that have more slams than him, and very arguably better than players on a higher slam count than him but one thing for sure is he significantly better than Wawrinka.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Tier 1 - Big 3 + Laver
Tier 2 - Sampras, Borg
Tier 3 - All the 6-8 slam winners
Tier 4 - All the 3-4 slam winners
Tier 5 - All the 1-2 slam winners
Tier 6 - All of those who made one or more slam finals and were overall consistent top players, yet never won
Tier 7 - The rest of the losers, who never made any slam finals and shown varied levels of consistency...

 

[Razer]

Murray is twice the player Wawrinka is and is easily on the level of players that have more slams than him, and very arguably better than players on a higher slam count than him but one thing for sure is he significantly better than Wawrinka.

Murray has same number of slams as Wawrinka
Murray also has a losing best of 5 sets h2h in slams to Wawrinka


Can't be in a higher tier based on masters and olympics alone

Opponent	Best Rank	Matches	Won	Lost	Win %	Last Match	Stats	H2H
Novak Djokovic	1	10	2	8	20.0%	L [ 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 ] at 2016 Roland Garros Clay F	Stats	H2H
Rafael Nadal	1	9	2	7	22.2%	L [ 6-3 6-2 6-1 ] at 2014 Roland Garros Clay SF	Stats	H2H
Stan Wawrinka	3	8	3	5	37.5%	L [ 6-1 6-3 6-2 ] at 2020 Roland Garros Clay R128	Stats	H2H
Roger Federer	1	6	1	5	16.7%	L [ 7-5 7-5 6-4 ] at 2015 Wimbledon Grass SF	Stats	H2H

 

[Mark-Touch]

..

 

[Mark-Touch]

If you place Pete and Borg in any tier that is not the first , then your tennis knowledge is questionable

Big 3 (20 slams minimum): Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
Tier 1 (10+ slams): Sampras, Laver, Borg
Tier 2 (6-10 slams): Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Tier 3 (3-5 slams): Murray, Wawrinka, Courier, Guga

MaxTennis solved that problem nicely.

 

[Third Serve]

Anyone who puts Murray/Wawrinka in the same tier is immediately a joke to me. Murray is twice the player Wawrinka is and is easily on the level of players that have more slams than him, and very arguably better than players on a higher slam count than him but one thing for sure is he significantly better than Wawrinka.

Agree partly. Murray is clearly better than Stan, but the only player with more Slams that I think Murray is actually better than is Courier. The likes of Becker/Edberg and others… a bridge too far for me.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

Murray has same number of slams as Wawrinka
Murray also has a losing best of 5 sets h2h in slams to Wawrinka


Can't be in a higher tier based on masters and olympics alone

Opponent	Best Rank	Matches	Won	Lost	Win %	Last Match	Stats	H2H
Novak Djokovic	1	10	2	8	20.0%	L [ 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 ] at 2016 Roland Garros Clay F	Stats	H2H
Rafael Nadal	1	9	2	7	22.2%	L [ 6-3 6-2 6-1 ] at 2014 Roland Garros Clay SF	Stats	H2H
Stan Wawrinka	3	8	3	5	37.5%	L [ 6-1 6-3 6-2 ] at 2020 Roland Garros Clay R128	Stats	H2H
Roger Federer	1	6	1	5	16.7%	L [ 7-5 7-5 6-4 ] at 2015 Wimbledon Grass SF	Stats	H2H

Masters, YEC, Olympics, 3 x more ATP titles, Better Win%, Better Slam Record, Better H2H.

Wawrinka should really be in a tier below with the 2-slam champs like Hewitt and Safin, who were both world number 1s and significantly more successful outside of the slams, but people remember Stan peaking for about 6-8 weeks out of an entire career and think he's Murray equal.

 

[Razer]

Masters, YEC, Olympics, 3 x more ATP titles, Better Win%, Better Slam Record, Better H2H.

Wawrinka should really be in a tier below with the 2-slam champs like Hewitt and Safin, who were both world number 1s and significantly more successful outside of the slams, but people remember Stan peaking for about 6-8 weeks out of an entire career and think he's Murray equal.

If I place Stan in a tier below Safin then I will have to place him with Roddick, that is again contradictory because Roddick has only 1 slam while Wawrinka has 3. Being rank 1 is not enough to rate people in higher tiers. In a slam centric we need grand slams on the resume.

 

[bostontennis]

Djokovic now has 24, and I won't be surprised he would get 26+. I don't think 26 should be in the same tier as 20. And you need to know this, not every GS should be weighted the same. One GS at 25th should weight more than the one at 20th and the one at 20th should weight more than the one at 15th.

 

[DSH]

Djokovic now has 24, and I won't be surprised he would get 26+. I don't think 26 should be in the same tier as 20. And you need to know this, not every GS should be weighted the same. One GS at 25th should weight more than the one at 20th and the one at 20th should weight more than the one at 15th.

Don't count your chickens before they hatched.

 

[nevermind]

If you place Pete and Borg in any tier that is not the first , then your tennis knowledge is questionable

I started watching tennis in 2007(first tournament was AO 2007 which Roger dominated as I remember).

And yes, I think that big 3 are in the tier of their own(even though I wasn't old enough to witness Pete's and Borg's greatness, except some highlights).

Nadal would absolutely destroy Borg at the Roland Garros(their favorite slam), I'm sure of it even though I don't really like Nadal(but I respect his greatness, of course). Nadal at court Philippe Chatrier at Roland Garros(especially in later stages of the tournament) is the highest level of tennis I've ever seen, the most invincible a player has ever looked(although I don't think he's the GOAT, and he's my least favorite of the big 3).

And Roger is a more complete player than Sampras and even beat him once while Pete still wasn't that old and before he won his last slam(famous Wimbledon 2001 match). I think peak Fed beats peak Sampras at Wimbledon and basically every other tournament/conditions(even easier on slower courts).

 

[nevermind]

Masters, YEC, Olympics, 3 x more ATP titles, Better Win%, Better Slam Record, Better H2H.

Wawrinka should really be in a tier below with the 2-slam champs like Hewitt and Safin, who were both world number 1s and significantly more successful outside of the slams, but people remember Stan peaking for about 6-8 weeks out of an entire career and think he's Murray equal.

I said that people inside the same tier are not necessarily equal in terms of greatness, but there could be some comparability - there is not a huge difference between them. I believe that Murray is better(greater) than Stan, he's probably the leader of the tier 3, but if you have the same amount of majors you are not a drastically greater player than the other.

The level that peak Stan has produced is truly remarkable, he's beaten all of the big 4 at majors and deserves some serious recognition in my opinion.

 

[Wurm]

Murray has same number of slams as Wawrinka
Murray also has a losing best of 5 sets h2h in slams to Wawrinka
Can't be in a higher tier based on masters and olympics alone

Good thing there's a whole load of other reasons why.

Murray's the only 10+ slam finalist without at least 6 slam titles (though if you'd paused Agassi, Connors and Lendl at 10/11 finals then they wouldn't either). Every other part of his career puts him on a par with Edberg, Becker and Wilander (and I would put Courier in that tier), none of which had to spend all but 6 months of their 10 seasons as a top 5 player in the shadow of three GOAT level candidates.

Stan is an anomaly. He's well worth those 3 slam titles but given the era he played in, and given the lack of notable achievements outside the slams, you'd have expected him to have no more than 1 and with worse timing as to which 4 slam finals he played in then it was entirely possibly he might've had none.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

If I place Stan in a tier below Safin then I will have to place him with Roddick, that is again contradictory because Roddick has only 1 slam while Wawrinka has 3. Being rank 1 is not enough to rate people in higher tiers. In a slam centric we need grand slams on the resume.

In your model, you're right. Despite Roddick's additional MS titles, tour titles and reaching #1, I don't think it makes up a 2 slam shortfall.

 

[thrust]

Tier 1 Pre-OE: Rosewall, Laver, Pancho, Budge, Tilden, Kramer* (depending on your view of his Tour style)

Tier 1 Post-OE: Big 3, Sampras, Borg

I Agree, the pre and open era players should be separated.

 

[a10best]

Tier 1 - Djokovic, Sampras, Federer, Nadal & Borg
Tier 2 - Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 - Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 - Courier, Murray, Vilas, Kuerten, Safin, Wawrinka, Hewitt, Arthur Ashe,
Tier 5 - Roddick, Ivanisevic, Chang, Bruguera, Medvedev, Rafter, Krajicek, Alcaraz
Tier 6 - Tsonga, Berdych, Nalbandian, Zverev, Philippoussis, Johansson, Gaudio etc etc
Tier 7 - Kyrgios, Rudd, Gasquet and the other mugs
Tier 8 : Journeymen in the top 100

It is tough rating players of the past whom we never saw live, so I'll put Rafter and Krajicek along with Roddick, Ivanisevic.

Alcaraz is already in Tier 5 I guess, 1 more slam and he can jump to Tier 4. Then he will need to make it 6-7 slams to enter tier 3, then 9-10 to enter tier 2 ..... then he will need 18-20 to enter tier 1.

I did see Rafter live and he definitely deserves tier 4 at worst.
He won (2) USO, made 2 Wmbldn finals (losing to Pete and Goran in 5 sets by 1 break). He also made semis of the French and AO in a tough era.
His achievements are easily a tier above Chang, Roddick, Goran, and Bruguera.

~ and you have Safin & Hewitt in tier 3 above him? Their records are virtually the same in slam singles achievements incl. No. 1 rankings

 

[PMChambers]

I started watching tennis in 2007(first tournament was AO 2007 which Roger dominated as I remember).

And yes, I think that big 3 are in the tier of their own(even though I wasn't old enough to witness Pete's and Borg's greatness, except some highlights).

Nadal would absolutely destroy Borg at the Roland Garros(their favorite slam), I'm sure of it even though I don't really like Nadal(but I respect his greatness, of course). Nadal at court Philippe Chatrier at Roland Garros(especially in later stages of the tournament) is the highest level of tennis I've ever seen, the most invincible a player has ever looked(although I don't think he's the GOAT, and he's my least favorite of the big 3).

And Roger is a more complete player than Sampras and even beat him once while Pete still wasn't that old and before he won his last slam(famous Wimbledon 2001 match). I think peak Fed beats peak Sampras at Wimbledon and basically every other tournament/conditions(even easier on slower courts).

If you dropped any version of Nadal into Borg's era he would struggle to get through the first set. He has too much bulk and needs too much time to recoup between points. In 70s players 2nd serve where hit ften whilst the ball boys where still running. There's no towling off, no stop of play, 20s was Max time between points and Borg was often down at 12s between points and 5s between 1st and 2nd.
Nadal got great "hand eye" but he's not going to be able to use that power, wood and gut limited ability to control power. Borg was stringing hit racquets at 75lb and had a lot of fibreglass in it to make it stiff, and they broke under the tension.
This is like putting a body builder into marathon. Nadal would not be able to oxygenate his muscles. The first long rally and he'd be spent.
Don't under estimate the era differences, there a reason 5"10 was perfect height then and Roswell and Laver could win at their height.
There where no time outs, no physio, often no coaches, etc. Not sure if toilet breaks where allowed as I remember Connors threatening to dump on the flower beds at USO if they wouldn't allow him toilet break.
FO was played in light rain. They didn't stop unless raining solid.
When your body broke you retired. Nadal broke before he even started, his first Major was Wimbledon because he was injured pre-FO.

 

[nevermind]

I meant in today's conditions. Today's tennis is much more advanced and requires much more athleticism than it did in the 70s. With wooden racquets, Borg would probably beat Nadal because Nadal is not used to that.

 

[thrust]

Putting Vilas, Nastase and Newcombe on the same tier as Rafter, Safin and Kodes, I don't know TBH...

PETE is tier 1. Pre homogenization and poly stats should be more valuable.

I agree that Pete should be in tier 1. Newcombe is at least one tier above: Nastase, Rafter, Safin and Kodes.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If we are going by level Murray belongs to the 2nd tier as I don't think Edberg Becker and Wilander deserve to be above him. Then again they also don't deserve to be ranked on the same level as Sampras, Borg...

Lol, of course all three are clearly above Murray.

 

[alexio]

interesting tier where pete together with becker and edberg, more like e.g. pete and borg in one tier which is higher tier than those two

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Agree partly. Murray is clearly better than Stan, but the only player with more Slams that I think Murray is actually better than is Courier. The likes of Becker/Edberg and others… a bridge too far for me.

Courier has 58 weeks at No.1 compared to Murray’s 41 and was ranked No.1 in an incredibly competitive year. If at all Murray is better than Vilas who also has more slams than him.

 

[GoatNo1]

T1 - No1e
T2 - fed & rafa
T3 - Sampras & Borg

 

[Nadal_King]

I think there should be a GOAT tier where Big 3 should be and Tier A should be where Sampras, Borg ,Laver should be there and then remaining in Tier B. Sampras and company if don’t deserve to be with Big 3 then certainly they deserve to be higher than other with whom they are placed there

 

[Third Serve]

Courier has 58 weeks at No.1 compared to Murray’s 41 and was ranked No.1 in an incredibly competitive year. If at all Murray is better than Vilas who also has more slams than him.

Forgot Vilas had more Slams tbh

Courier had a higher peak given his successes in a strong era but imo Murray’s consistency weighs far more heavily in his favor than Courier’s peak does for him.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

For the love of PETE...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Forgot Vilas had more Slams tbh

Courier had a higher peak given his successes in a strong era but imo Murray’s consistency weighs far more heavily in his favor than Courier’s peak does for him.

4 vs 3 slams us big imo, I would only put Murray ahead if he was leading all other stats. As things stand though, Courier is also ahead in weeks at No.1, so he is leading Murray in the two most important metrics. This sets the deal imho.

 

[bostontennis]

Don't count your chickens before they hatched.

They robbed a few chickens from Djokovic, you know.

 

[alexio]

tier 1 pete, borg, laver, gonzales, big 3
tier 2 agassi, mac, lendl, connors
tier 3 courier, murray, vilas, becker, edberg, wilander
tier 4 stanimal, roddick, hewitt, kuerten, safin

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Tier 1 (need 24 open era slams to qualify) - Novak

Tier 2 - Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall

Tier 3 - Borg ( could have have been tier two or even 1 if he kept going)

Tier 4 - Nadal, Lendl, Agassi, Pete

 

[Holmes]

Tier 1: GOAT candidates: Nole, Laver
Tier 2 : Generational GOATs: Pete, Borg
Tier 3: Generational near GOATs: Nadal, Federer, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi
Tier 4: ATGs: Connors, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Wilander, Courier, Gerulaitis
Tier 5: Generational talents: Murray, Rafter, Bruguera, Guga, the Mannis, Safin, Kafelnikov, Kracijek, Goran, Hewitt
Tier 6: Talktennis tough competition: Srichaphan, Roddick, Baghdatis, Phillippoussis, Gonzalez, Cilic, Ancic, Kiefer, Youzhny, Ljubicic

 

[Holmes]

If you place Pete and Borg in any tier that is not the first , then your tennis knowledge is questionable

Thank goodness there exists a modicum of tennis knowledge around here.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Pete did not display any particular longevity, which has been a factor in elevating several ATG careers to greatness. It's also a clear differentiator between him and the Big 3. Placing him out of the first tier is completely defensible.

 

[Tennfan123]

Tier 1: Sampras, Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Borg, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Emerson.

Tier 2: Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander.

Tier 3: Edberg, Becker, Courier, Newcombe.

Tier 4: Kuerten, Murray, Ashe, Wawrinka, Hewitt.

Tier 5: Safin, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Rafter, Chang, Roddick.

 

[Holmes]

Pete did not display any particular longevity, which has been a factor in elevating several ATG careers to greatness. It's also a clear differentiator between him and the Big 3. Placing him out of the first tier is completely defensible.

Don't be silly. The fact is no one other than Agassi, who had a break, had longevity in the 90s. It was an era with the same level of athletic intensity as today but without treatments to preserve and extend careers, yet even with Thalassemia minor he dominated his era and played til 31. Having Pete equal to the big 3 is completely defensible.