The king amongst mid-tier open era ATGs?

[Djokodalerer31]

I categorize as "mid-tier ATG" those players, who won more than 4 grand slams in their respective careers, but never reached double digits! For this sake lets only take open era ones, to avoid including players, who at this day and age doesn't even have retro profile photo! LOL (No disparaging or anything, but yeah...amateur era of tennis didn't exactly age that well...) The exceptions are those, who began playing and started winning grand slams/pro slams in amateur era, but won majority of them in an open era, so Newcombe qualifies, Rosewall and Laver don't! Here is the list - Newcombe (5 open era grand slams! All on grass!), Edberg (6 open era grand slams! two at each of the three different grand slams spread even with RG being the only one, where he never succeeded!), Becker (6 open era grand slams! Known to be one of the Wimbledon ATGs, despite having won only three titles there!), Wilander (7 open era grand slams! Probably the most known for his 1988 season run), McEnroe (7 open era grand slams! Now we have one of US Open ATGs and one of the best serve and volleyers of all times...wait he IS actually the best!), Connors (8 open era grand slams, including open era setting at the moment USO record), Lendl (8 open era grand slams, which are pretty evenly distributed! Was known to be one of the players, who wins nearyl everything everywhere...you know Djokovic kind of guy...well, that is if we entirely exclude grass, but still...) and the last but not least - Agassi! (8 open era grand slams! but the only one of the group to win them all at least once!) There you go! Lets imagine for a second, that there3 is no player ever with double digit slam count and 8 grand slams is an open era record still held to this day, who would you pick as the ultimate king from these guys? My pick is Agassi, not only for his 8 grand slams, but the fact he won them all at least once, on top of having won olympic singles gold and ATP finale...The point of this topic is to try and determine, who can pick the crown as the better player amongst these, since the slam count between them all is tightly packed and several of them are tied for the same slam count!

 

[Nadal_Django]

Judging by today standards, Lendl no doubt.

 

[NatF]

IMO before someone brings up Murray

Lendl > Connors > McEnroe > Agassi > Becker > Edberg > Wilander > Newcombe for me.

 

[r2473]

Federer

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Federer

Mm...guy has double digits slam count, no?...

 

[r2473]

Mm...guy has double digits slam count, no?...

No, he has 20

 

[Djokodalerer31]

No, he has 20

Which is why he doesn't qualify in my list...

 

[Djokodalerer31]

IMO before someone brings up Murray

Lendl > Connors > McEnroe > Agassi > Becker > Edberg > Wilander > Newcombe for me.

I can agree with this ranking, except for this - McEnroe over Agassi?? What is your argument for this?

 

[Towny]

Between Lendl and Connors. I lean towards Connors as he won 8 slams with less opportunity than Lendl.

Only played AO twice, didn't play the French for 5 years in the middle of his prime and had his best slam changed to his worst surface for 3 years, also in the middle of his prime. Even then, he matched Lendl's total and won on all surfaces. Lendl couldn't win Wimbledon and couldn't win AO while it was on grass either. Connors won USO on green clay.

Sure, Lendl had better competition, but Connors had to deal with Borg, Mac and Lendl himself. Not exactly a bunch of mugs. Overall, Lendl has the better achievements outside of slams but Connors performance at the slams in spite of his disadvantages is what makes it for me. Definitely very close between them though but I think these two are clearly the best of the bunch

 

[NatF]

I can agree with this ranking, except for this - McEnroe over Agassi?? What is your argument for this?

McEnroe had much more time at #1, more dominant, dominated the biggest events of his time e.g. USO and Wimbledon, way more overall titles, + all those indoor majors when the AO wasn't a big deal etc...

Really cut and dry for me that McEnroe deserves to be ahead.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

McEnroe had much more time at #1, more dominant, dominated the biggest events of his time e.g. USO and Wimbledon, way more overall titles, + all those indoor majors when the AO wasn't a big deal etc...

Really cut and dry for me that McEnroe deserves to be ahead.

Okay, fair enough...i beg to differ here, but to each his own...you made your point!

 

[BeatlesFan]

Really cut and dry for me that McEnroe deserves to be ahead.

One could argue that Andre has one more major and the CGS. But your list and the order you placed them is perfect.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Double digits is a completely meaningless measure in historical terms.

 

[SuperSpinner]

Double digits is a completely meaningless measure in historical terms.

As is subjective judgment of the level of competition a player faced.

 

[Hamnavoe]

Lendl
Connors
Agassi
McEnroe
Becker
Edberg
Newcombe
Wilander

 

[Xavier G]

Connors overall is just ahead of Lendl for me with his longevity and consistency.
I think peak McEnroe was actually the best player of the lot though.

 

[King No1e]

I categorize as "mid-tier ATG" those players, who won more than 4 grand slams in their respective careers, but never reached double digits! For this sake lets only take open era ones, to avoid including players, who at this day and age doesn't even have retro profile photo! LOL (No disparaging or anything, but yeah...amateur era of tennis didn't exactly age that well...) The exceptions are those, who began playing and started winning grand slams/pro slams in amateur era, but won majority of them in an open era, so Newcombe qualifies, Rosewall and Laver don't! Here is the list - Newcombe (5 open era grand slams! All on grass!), Edberg (6 open era grand slams! two at each of the three different grand slams spread even with RG being the only one, where he never succeeded!), Becker (6 open era grand slams! Known to be one of the Wimbledon ATGs, despite having won only three titles there!), Wilander (7 open era grand slams! Probably the most known for his 1988 season run), McEnroe (7 open era grand slams! Now we have one of US Open ATGs and one of the best serve and volleyers of all times...wait he IS actually the best!), Connors (8 open era grand slams, including open era setting at the moment USO record), Lendl (8 open era grand slams, which are pretty evenly distributed! Was known to be one of the players, who wins nearyl everything everywhere...you know Djokovic kind of guy...well, that is if we entirely exclude grass, but still...) and the last but not least - Agassi! (8 open era grand slams! but the only one of the group to win them all at least once!) There you go! Lets imagine for a second, that there3 is no player ever with double digit slam count and 8 grand slams is an open era record still held to this day, who would you pick as the ultimate king from these guys? My pick is Agassi, not only for his 8 grand slams, but the fact he won them all at least once, on top of having won olympic singles gold and ATP finale...The point of this topic is to try and determine, who can pick the crown as the better player amongst these, since the slam count between them all is tightly packed and several of them are tied for the same slam count!

Connors wins by country mile, he's more of a top-tier player with Sampras and Borg than mid-tier.
1. Connors
2. Lendl
3. Agassi
4. McEnroe
5. Newcombe
6. Wilander
7. Edberg
8. Becker
9. Murray
10. Courier/Vilas

 

[Sport]

Agassi > Lendl

No Career Grand Slam, no party.

Lendl won 0 Wimbledon titles. Without the biggest trophy in tennis, he ain't better than Agassi.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Agassi > Lendl

No Career Grand Slam, no party.

Lendl won 0 Wimbledon titles. Without the biggest trophy in tennis, he ain't better than Agassi.

Becker >> Agassi then, judging on the biggest trophy in tennis (Wimby) and the most difficult to win (WTF)

3 Wimbledon >>> 1 Wimbledon

3 WTF + 5 finals >>>>>> 1 WTF + 3 finals

 

[TMF]

Agassi > Lendl

No Career Grand Slam, no party.

Lendl won 0 Wimbledon titles. Without the biggest trophy in tennis, he ain't better than Agassi.

But Lendl achieved way more than Agassi in many area:
Weeks at #1(270 to 101)
Year end #1(4 to 1)
made 4 more slam finals
YEC/Master Cup(5 to 1)
Single titles(94 to 60)

You can certainly argue Lendl is better than Agassi.

 

[TMF]

Becker >> Agassi then, judging on the biggest trophy in tennis (Wimby) and the most difficult to win (WTF)

3 Wimbledon >>> 1 Wimbledon

3 WTF + 5 finals >>>>>> 1 WTF + 3 finals

@Sport is a Nadal fan. Using his criteria, that means Nole is greater than Nadal since 4 Wimbledon >>>>> 2 Wimbledon.

 

[Nadal_Django]

No way Agassi is in front of Lendl. Lendl was dominating the whole era, no way CGS can make up for that.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Lendl the greatest of this group, although a case can be made for Connors.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I'v e long vacillated among Connors, Mac, and Lendl. I would have them leading this pack, though (since Rosewall is ineligible.

For now, I would go with:

Lendl
Connors
McEnroe (though I think that his peak may have been the highest of the three)

Agassi
Becker
Edberg
Newcombe
Wilander

 

[zvelf]

Open Era only:

1. Ivan Lendl
2. Jimmy Connors (but a good case can certainly be made for Connors to be at the top)
3. John McEnroe
4. Andre Agassi
5. Boris Becker
6. Stefan Edberg
7. Mats Wilander
8. Guillermo Vilas
9. Andy Murray
10. Ilie Nastase

 

[Xavier G]

Agassi > Lendl

No Career Grand Slam, no party.

Lendl won 0 Wimbledon titles. Without the biggest trophy in tennis, he ain't better than Agassi.

Nah, this "Career Grand Slam" thing didn't matter so much in the 1980's.
Lendl was more dominant and a more consistent winner as a top player than Agassi even without Wimbledon and arguably greater.
Agassi has a case because he won all the Slams but really...

Lendl > Agassi

 

[fezer]

Connors wins by country mile, he's more of a top-tier player with Sampras and Borg than mid-tier.
1. Connors
2. Lendl
3. Agassi
4. McEnroe
5. Newcombe
6. Wilander
7. Edberg
8. Becker
9. Murray
10. Courier/Vilas

if Jimbo is such a superior player, how come he has a losing record to nearly all of the other players? only tied with Newcombe/Edberg only positive over Vilas...

 

[King No1e]

if Jimbo is such a superior player, how come he has a losing record to nearly all of the other players? only tied with Newcombe/Edberg only positive over Vilas...

Fedr has losing record against Nadalovic and used to against Murray for much of his career.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

if Jimbo is such a superior player, how come he has a losing record to nearly all of the other players? only tied with Newcombe/Edberg only positive over Vilas...

Connors was old (especially for that era of tennis) when he played and lost (most of) his matches to much younger Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc. (and the losing streak vs much younger Lendl started in 1984)

McEnroe had a higher peak level than Connors (but then his peak level was legit up there with the GOATs, shame about the early decline) but burnt out quickly while Connors had immense longevity AND Connors managed to snatch whoppin' 3 majors right in Mac's prime.

 

[Meles]

McEnroe>Lendl>Connors please

 

[fezer]

Connors was old (especially for that era of tennis) when he played and lost (most of) his matches to much younger Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc. (and the losing streak vs much younger Lendl started in 1984)

McEnroe had a higher peak level than Connors (but then his peak level was legit up there with the GOATs, shame about the early decline) but burnt out quickly while Connors had immense longevity AND Connors managed to snatch whoppin' 3 majors right in Mac's prime.

i dont get that age reason, when it is said before that Connors wins by a country mile! if he was that much better than all of the others he should have a better record. how can you say that you are a much better player when you lose against the other player 22 times (Lendl). and besides that, one could turn the age reason around and say, that the (so much more experienced) Connors couldnt handle teenagers... in the end he has ZERO wins over Wilander, Becker, Agassi and Courier!!! and that is a bit too much for me to put him a tier above the other atgs.
please get me right: i dont say that there is no reason for Connors to be ptu above even Lendl and Agassi! of course Jimbo has amassed achievements over his ultralong career that certainly can give him the edge. but it is pretty close.
generally speaking: the age reason is something that shouldnt be used here. all this postprime, premature etc thing. in the end there are two players and he/she who wins the last point moves ahead in the tournament. and if Connors steps on the court with younger players he wants to compete with them - taking the risk of losing...

 

[fezer]

Fedr has losing record against Nadalovic and used to against Murray for much of his career.

what should this analogy tell me? yes i dont put Federer a tier above Nadal and Djokovic! and analog tto that i cannot put Connors a country mile above Lendl or Agassi - it is a close race. there are of course reasons that could give Connors the edge. but on the contrary Lendl, McEnroe or Agassi also have their points. i just wanted to point out that Connors for me is not country miles ahead of the rest. how can you say that Connors is much better than Lendl when he lost to Lendl 22 times?

 

[Rafa's OCD]

what the hell is a mid-tier all time great

 

[Djokodalerer31]

what the hell is a mid-tier all time great

When one legend has something like 20 grand slams to his resume and another just 8, you have to come up with "tiers", because of the gap being so huge...no?...

 

[King No1e]

what should this analogy tell me? yes i dont put Federer a tier above Nadal and Djokovic! and analog tto that i cannot put Connors a country mile above Lendl or Agassi - it is a close race. there are of course reasons that could give Connors the edge. but on the contrary Lendl, McEnroe or Agassi also have their points. i just wanted to point out that Connors for me is not country miles ahead of the rest. how can you say that Connors is much better than Lendl when he lost to Lendl 22 times?

Connors is better because of the records he achieved (1256 matches, 109 titles). Lendl is the closest as he also has 1000+ match wins and 3rd all time in titles. He also dominated for 5 years and stayed at #1 for 160 weeks in a row. I have to amend my statement: Lendl was up there too, and he stayed at the top for 2 more weeks than Jimbo. Still, Connors ranks up there with Borg and maybe Sampras, and Lendl is just below them.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Connors is better because of the records he achieved (1256 matches, 109 titles). Lendl is the closest as he also has 1000+ match wins and 3rd all time in titles. He also dominated for 5 years and stayed at #1 for 160 weeks in a row. I have to amend my statement: Lendl was up there too, and he stayed at the top for 2 more weeks than Jimbo. Still, Connors ranks up there with Borg and maybe Sampras, and Lendl is just below them.

Mmm no...just no! I was agreeing with everything you were saying until i read this part - "Connors ranks up there with Borg and maybe Sampras, and Lendl is just below them. " LMAO...like what kind of meth are you taking to rank Connors alongside Borg, let alone freaking Sampras?? LOL

 

[Chanwan]

Close call between Lendl and Connors, I lean towards Lendl

 

[King No1e]

Mmm no...just no! I was agreeing with everything you were saying until i read this part - "Connors ranks up there with Borg and maybe Sampras, and Lendl is just below them. " LMAO...like what kind of meth are you taking to rank Connors alongside Borg, let alone freaking Sampras?? LOL

I rate consistency and longevity highly.
Career Titles:
Connors - 109
Sampras - 64
Borg - 64

Weeks at #1:
Sampras: 286
Connors: 268
Borg: 109

Matches Won:
Connors: 1256
Sampras: 762
Borg: 639

Quarterfinals or higher Reached:
Connors: 41
Sampras: 28
Borg: 21

 

[helterskelter]

Certainly Connors and Lendl at the top for achievements. Certainly Connors and probably Lendl at the bottom for highest peak level.