The best men's tennis players for each nation with a minimum of tennis tradition

[Winner Sinner]

Let's move on to the most obvious;

Spain= Nadal
Czech Rep.= Lendl
Switzerland= Federer
Serbia= Djokovic
Germany= Becker
Japan= Nishikori
Brazil= Kuerten
Chile= Rios
Belgium= Goffin
Romania= Nastase
Netherlands= Krajicek
Cyprus = Baghdatis
Greece= Tsitsipas
Great Britain= Murray
Jamaica= Dustin Brown

Others discounted but less than those above;

United States = Sampras
Australia=Laver
Italy= Sinner
France= Noah
Sweden= Borg
Canada= Raonic
South Africa= Anderson
Croatia= Ivanisevic
Poland= Hurkacz

Dilemma=

Argentina= Del Potro or Vilas?

Austria= Muster or Thiem?

Russia= Kafelnikov or Medvedev?

These are the first nations that come to mind for now.
I would like to point out that for example for France and Great Britain I only took into consideration tennis players, let's say, from the Open era, I did not mention tennis players from the first decades of the twentieth century because it was unreliable and above all I don't know that let's say primordial historical phase of tennis.

 

[buscemi]

South Africa= Anderson

I think both Kriek and Curren would both have a good argument as well.

 

[buscemi]

Ukraine=Andrei Medvedev

 

[buscemi]

Mexico=Raúl Ramírez

 

[Winner Sinner]

Bulgaria= Dimitrov

 

[Winner Sinner]

I think both Kriek and Curren would both have a good argument as well.

Anderson didn't win two slams like Kriek but he reached two slam finals in the Open era and in the big three era.

I don't know, it's a bit like the pre-Sinner debate in Italy, is Pietrangeli or Panatta better?
Curriculum in hand there was no competition in favor of Pietrangeli, but Panatta achieved the few victories he achieved against the best of the best that was in the world at that specific moment, Pietrangeli was not.
So in my way of seeing Panatta>Pietrangeli.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Denmark = Holger Rune
Finland = Jarkko Nieminen
Norway = Kasper Ruud

 

[Bartelby]

New Zealand = Chris Lewis

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Let's move on to the most obvious;

Spain= Nadal
Czech Rep.= Lendl
Switzerland= Federer
Serbia= Djokovic
Germany= Becker
Japan= Nishikori
Brazil= Kuerten
Chile= Rios
Belgium= Goffin
Romania= Nastase
Netherlands= Krajicek
Cyprus = Baghdatis
Greece= Tsitsipas
Great Britain= Murray
Jamaica= Dustin Brown

Others discounted but less than those above;

United States = Sampras
Australia=Laver
Italy= Sinner
France= Noah
Sweden= Borg
Canada= Raonic
South Africa= Anderson
Croatia= Ivanisevic
Poland= Hurkacz

Dilemma=

Argentina= Del Potro or Vilas?

Austria= Muster or Thiem?

Russia= Kafelnikov or Medvedev?

These are the first nations that come to mind for now.
I would like to point out that for example for France and Great Britain I only took into consideration tennis players, let's say, from the Open era, I did not mention tennis players from the first decades of the twentieth century because it was unreliable and above all I don't know that let's say primordial historical phase of tennis.

Russia is Safin, Argentina is Vilas and it's not even close. Poland is Wojciech Fibak, and South Africa is Kriek.

 

[SteffiGoat]

Safin > Kafelnikov > Medvedev as of now IMO.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Russia is Safin, Argentina is Vilas and it's not even close. Poland is Wojciech Fibak, and South Africa is Kriek.

Yes, I forgot Safin, it happens when you do everything without help. But in any case, even if Safin is the number 1 candidate, I wouldn't take it for granted that he should be considered the best Russian tennis player ever, here we're talking about career and not potential.

As regards South Africa, I have already had my say.
I would like to know why he should be preferred to Anderson.
Why did he win 2 slams?

At the time, were the Australian Open still snubbed compared to the other 3 slams as happened subsequently until the mid-80s?

And above all, were all the best players in the world still amateurs at the time?

This is why, as an Italian, I made the Pietrangeli-Panatta comparison.

As for Argentina, if Vilas has a CV in hand he is superior to Del Potro, if forced to choose I'll take Vilas, well aware however that Del Potro played in the most competitive period in history.

 

[buscemi]

Anderson didn't win two slams like Kriek but he reached two slam finals in the Open era and in the big three era.

I don't know, it's a bit like the pre-Sinner debate in Italy, is Pietrangeli or Panatta better?
Curriculum in hand there was no competition in favor of Pietrangeli, but Panatta achieved the few victories he achieved against the best of the best that was in the world at that specific moment, Pietrangeli was not.
So in my way of seeing Panatta>Pietrangeli.

Curren is right there, too. Two Major finals, including one of the most impressive runs to a Major final ever, straight setting Edberg, McEnroe, and Connors before losing to Becker at Wimbledon in 1985. Also, if doubles counts at all, Curren won the U.S. Open in 1982.

 

[Winner Sinner]

However, I think that of Russia could be the most interesting debate.
We are really talking about minimal differences between Kafelnikov, Safin and Medvedev.
Medvedev so far is the one who has won the fewest slams of the 3, but due to his consistency I have serious doubts that at the end of his career he will not be the one considered the best Russian tennis player ever.
As of today, however, one of the other two, if not both, may be preferred.

On Austria, in the end I would choose Muster over Thiem, but here too the debate is open.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Morocco= El Aynaoui
In 2003 he reached number 14 in the ranking, let's realize how low Italian tennis had fallen, even a nation with a poor tennis tradition like Morocco managed to bring a player into the top 15, an achievement that Italy from Barazzutti to Fognini for decades it no longer reached.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Egypt= El Shafei
Only Egyptian tennis player to reach the top 40.

China= Zhang
Obviously after a few years this scepter will pass into the hands of Shang.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Canada, the fact that Raonic can be considered the best Canadian tennis player in history is legitimate, but I think that until a few years ago few would have bet on the fact that at the end of 2024 Raonic could still be considered the best Canadian tennis player after two talents like Shapovalov and FAA appeared.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Russia is Safin, Argentina is Vilas and it's not even close. Poland is Wojciech Fibak, and South Africa is Kriek.

Sorry, I forgot, Fibak never better than Hurkacz.
Hurkacz achieved a slam vs qf slam semifinal, a better best ranking (7 vs 10) and heavier titles (two masters 1000).
I think there is no doubt that Hurkacz can be considered the best Polish tennis player in history, even taking into account his limitations in the best of 5 sets, and in general his being so inconsistent.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Yes, I forgot Safin, it happens when you do everything without help. But in any case, even if Safin is the number 1 candidate, I wouldn't take it for granted that he should be considered the best Russian tennis player ever, here we're talking about career and not potential.

As regards South Africa, I have already had my say.
I would like to know why he should be preferred to Anderson.
Why did he win 2 slams?

At the time, were the Australian Open still snubbed compared to the other 3 slams as happened subsequently until the mid-80s?

And above all, were all the best players in the world still amateurs at the time?

This is why, as an Italian, I made the Pietrangeli-Panatta comparison.

As for Argentina, if Vilas has a CV in hand he is superior to Del Potro, if forced to choose I'll take Vilas, well aware however that Del Potro played in the most competitive period in history.

Kriek won more tournaments and was a top player for a long time with solid results, and Anderson was a late bloomer whos was a journeyman for many years before finally breaking into the top ten. Title count is 14-7.

Fibak I may have overrated actually.

Amateurs when? They were all pros after 1968.

Vilas won 4 GS and had 4 additional finals, whereas Delpo had 1 GS and one addtional final. Title count is 62-22.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Sorry, I forgot, Fibak never better than Hurkacz.
Hurkacz achieved a slam vs qf slam semifinal, a better best ranking (7 vs 10) and heavier titles (two masters 1000).
I think there is no doubt that Hurkacz can be considered the best Polish tennis player in history, even taking into account his limitations in the best of 5 sets, and in general his being so inconsistent.

You're right about Hurkaz.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Kriek won more tournaments and was a top player for a long time with solid results, and Anderson was a late bloomer whos was a journeyman for many years before finally breaking into the top ten. Title count is 14-7.

Fibak I may have overrated actually.

Amateurs when? They were all pros after 1968.

Vilas won 4 GS and had 4 additional finals, whereas Delpo had 1 GS and one addtional final. Title count is 62-22.

On the amateur issue I was referring to the Kriek vs Anderson debate.
If Kriek achieved what he achieved when many of the best players in the world were on an alternative professional circuit, it obviously loses value in comparison (like Pietrangeli vs Panatta).

I wasn't referring to Vilas, I know very well that he played in the Open era, I'm simply saying that Del Potro had even worse competition and was more complete than Vilas.
But apart from this, yes, Vilas must rightly be considered the best Argentine tennis player in history, indeed for many he is considered the best South American tennis player ever, therefore superior even to Kuerten himself.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Thailand = Paradorn Srichaphan
Equador – Andres Gomez
Paraguay = Victor Pecci
India = Vijay Amritraj

 

[Winner Sinner]

Question that partially goes outside the thread;

Who was the best Spanish tennis player before Nadal?

Here too, resume in hand, there is no doubt that Santana should be considered, but we return to the usual question that he won what he won when the best players in the world were on the alternative circuit.

So basically between Santana, Orantes, Bruguera, Moya and Ferrero, who was the best?

 

[Winner Sinner]

Tunisia= Jaiziri
Best ranking 42

 

[vokazu]

Spain, USA, Australia, Great Britain, France all have strong tennis tradition, not minimum.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Spain, USA, Australia, Great Britain, France all have strong tennis tradition, not minimum.

I meant that those nations that have at least a minimum of tennis tradition should be taken into consideration.
It is clear that there are nations especially in Africa and Asia that have never had a medium-high level tennis player.

 

[timnz]

New Zealand = Chris Lewis

Nope . Former world number 1, Anthony wilding

 

[Sudacafan]

I would start by listing the countries that don't have a minimum of tennis tradition. Probably easier.

 

[travlerajm]

I would start by listing the countries that don't have a minimum of tennis tradition. Probably easier.

Bolivia = Hugo?

 

[travlerajm]

 

[Sudacafan]

Bolivia = Hugo?

Benavides?

 

[travlerajm]

Benavides?

If he’s been joining your weekend beer league doubles at your club in his retirement years, then ok.

 

[Sudacafan]

If he’s been joining your weekend beer league doubles at your club in his retirement years, then ok.

I never saw him drink.
He led a very frugal life, and competed on the senior regional tour with decent results.
Maybe I caught him tired in his last years.