Ranking tennis greats by different tiers.

[bigbadboaz]

No silliness here. Agassi raised his credentials by extending his career, right there in the same era. Connors displayed longevity well before, and you can go all the way back to Rosewall for examples. The idea that the '90s was some Dark Age for sports science is laughable. Everything advances, sure. But nutrition and fitness knowledge/technology was already pretty damn advanced.

For someone who displayed such drive and dedication to his craft in capturing the year-end No. 1 record, it was obvious and shocking how completely his desire and commitment fell off afterwards. It was almost a different person. Let's not forget the form, lackadaisical presence, struggles and questions he carried for the two years leading up to 31. Had he not found one last great run, we'd all be talking about how he effectively fell off the map at 29, and that was due to the almost complete loss of the passion and focus that had once defined him.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal all soldiered on to 35 and beyond without ever losing that drive to push and do even more. In the end, their love of what they do seemed purer and drove numbers to unthinkable levels. Who else in this era is doing anything comparable? Maybe it's actually that these three ARE that special, and that their unique level of commitment never waned. For those who feel they stand above, this is a clear, concrete distinction.

 

[Razer]

No silliness here. Agassi raised his credentials by extending his career, right there in the same era. Connors displayed longevity well before, and you can go all the way back to Rosewall for examples. The idea that the '90s was some Dark Age for sports science is laughable. Everything advances, sure. But nutrition and fitness knowledge/technology was already pretty damn advanced.

For someone who displayed such drive and dedication to his craft in capturing the year-end No. 1 record, it was obvious and shocking how completely his desire and commitment fell off afterwards. It was almost a different person. Let's not forget the form, lackadaisical presence, struggles and questions he carried for the two years leading up to 31. Had he not found one last great run, we'd all be talking about how he effectively fell off the map at 29, and that was due to the almost complete loss of the passion and focus that had once defined him.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal all soldiered on to 35 and beyond without ever losing that drive to push and do even more. In the end, their love of what they do seemed purer and drove numbers to unthinkable levels. Who else in this era is doing anything comparable? Maybe it's actually that these three ARE that special, and that their unique level of commitment never waned. For those who feel they stand above, this is a clear, concrete distinction.

2 names like Connors/Rosewall in a 50 years span does not make the era like today. Big 3 would all be getting their ass kicked in 30s if there were in past eras.

80s and 90s was not an era of longevity, the number of people in top 100 proves it

 

[Olli Jokinen]

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.

Remember Stich, Kafelnikov, Bruguera in tier 5! Not sure about Muster, Ferrero, Moya. Alcaraz is probably tier 4 already.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

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

Weeks as number one and GS finals should be a factor. Wawrinka loses here. Tournament (and masters) wins: Murray by a landslide. And I'm a big Wawrinka fan.

 

[crimson87]

I would say poly/ homogenized era titles and achievments should count as 0.5 vs the true ones.

PETE is the goat.

 

[SonnyT]

Tier 1: Borg, Sampras, Djokovic
Tier 2: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Federer, Nadal
Tier 3: Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Murray, Wawrinka

 

[Wurm]

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.

Courier won half as many ATP titles as Murray, only managed four seasons where he finished in the top 10, made 3 fewer slam finals than Murray and won 5 Masters series titles versus Murray's 14 (plus Murray has those two Olympic Golds and a WTF) and Murray did pretty much all but 6 months of it in a much more challenging era than that slightly transitional phase Courier sneaked in between - Lendl was falling away and not a factor in any of Courier's slam titles; Becker was a headcase on and off the court (and relatively poor on clay) and wasn't a factor in any of Courier's slam titles; Agassi hadn't grown up yet when Courier beat him in the FO final; Sampras hadn't reached his full potential and wasn't a factor in any of Courier's slam titles... leaving Edberg. Props to Courier for beating him when it mattered most (for 3/4 slam titles iirc) but if anyone wants to claim a 6 slam winner is as tough to beat deep into a slam as a 20+ slam winner then I've got a canal on Mars for sale.

Given that, on paper, pretty much every other number of Murray's career (pre-\m/, anyway) leaves him slap bang in the mix with Wilander, Edberg and Becker then either you take the view that Murray's poor return of 3/11 slam finals was a product of his era, and more specifically his match-up with Novak at the AO (the obvious counter argument being Stan, which is two of his slam finals away from being a convincing argument for me) and he belongs above the line with them or you don't and take the view that he should've managed 5 or 6 slams regardless and he belongs below that line.

I've never agreed with that semi-arbitrary "6 slam titles to be an ATG" line and I certainly don't like the arguments that reduce players careers to slam titles alone. For me Courier belongs with the other three on the basis of what he did over those 4 seasons. Hewitt and Kuerten probably should've been up there with them but for career limiting injuries and delPo certainly had the talent to be in that group. Stan simply has nowhere near the depth of achievements outwith the slams but he didn't win 3 slams by accident, so the debate there is what held him back before 2014?

 

[alexio]

 

[LaVie en Rose]

Tier 1 Djokovic
Tier 2 Laver ,Federer,Nadal,Sampras,Borg
Tier 3 Connors,Agassi,Willander,JMac,Becker,Edberg

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Courier won half as many ATP titles as Murray, only managed four seasons where he finished in the top 10, made 3 fewer slam finals than Murray and won 5 Masters series titles versus Murray's 14 (plus Murray has those two Olympic Golds and a WTF) and Murray did pretty much all but 6 months of it in a much more challenging era than that slightly transitional phase

That is all fine and well but Courier leads the two most important stats.

Murray did pretty much all but 6 months of it in a much more challenging era than that slightly transitional phase Courier sneaked in between - Lendl was falling away and not a factor in any of Courier's slam titles; Becker was a headcase on and off the court (and relatively poor on clay) and wasn't a factor in any of Courier's slam titles; Agassi hadn't grown up yet when Courier beat him in the FO final; Sampras hadn't reached his full potential and wasn't a factor in any of Courier's slam titles... leaving Edberg. Props to Courier for beating him when it mattered most (for 3/4 slam titles iirc) but if anyone wants to claim a 6 slam winner is as tough to beat deep into a slam as a 20+ slam winner then I've got a canal on Mars for sale.

Courier won his slams in incredibly tough years. Go check the top ten in 91 and 92. Lol at calling it transitional phase, most of his slam wins and also his runner-ups had pretty tough draws, as for Murray: his H2H against the big three at slams is worse than Berdych’s, his weeks at number one he vultured when Fedal were absent and Djoko clowning around with Pepe Imaz.
To scoff at Jim’s competition is pretty laughable to be honest. Am quite sure Jim would have got to No.1 in 2016 as well, likely had amassed more weeks than Murray.

For me Courier belongs with the other three on the basis of what he did over those 4 seasons.

With which other three?