Tiers

[Logic]

Given all the Djokovic-related tier threads, I thought I would make a thread where you can post your own opinion on the different tiers of tennis greats.

Of course, comparing eras and careers is tricky, I just want to see various people's opinions.

I recommend making an Open-Era Tier list and an All-Time Tier List.

I'll start:

Open Era Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Federer
1b) Borg, Sampras, Nadal (for now)

2a) Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi
2b) Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Djokovic (for now)

3a) Newcombe, Vilas, Courier
3b) Ashe, Kuerten

Note: I am including in the Open Era Tiers only players who had the majority of their careers in the Open Era (so this excludes, for example, Laver and Rosewall, despite the fact that their Open Era achievements alone may outrank some of the players in Open Era Tier 3).

All Time Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer
1b) Vines, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal (for now)

2a) Cochet, Lacoste, Nusslein, Perry, Connors, Lendl
2b) Riggs, Crawford, Segura, Agassi, McEnroe

3a) Borotra, Hoad, Sedgman, Wilander, Djokovic (for now)
3b) Emerson, Trabert, Edberg, Becker

 

[Lips]

This is fantastic!!

 

[counterloop]

Lol...tiers, goat, weak era, could have won, should have won, head to head.....

 

[Mayonnaise]

Lol...tiers, goat, weak era, could have won, should have won, head to head.....

You're forgetting "doping" and "homogenization"

 

[r2473]

Tiers

 

[jm1980]

Open Era Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Federer
1b) Borg, Sampras, Nadal (for now)

2a) Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi
2b) Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Djokovic (for now)

3a) Newcombe, Vilas, Courier
3b) Ashe, Kuerten

That's more or less how I see them as well.

 

[BobbyOne]

Given all the Djokovic-related tier threads, I thought I would make a thread where you can post your own opinion on the different tiers of tennis greats.

Of course, comparing eras and careers is tricky, I just want to see various people's opinions.

I recommend making an Open-Era Tier list and an All-Time Tier List.

I'll start:

Open Era Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Federer
1b) Borg, Sampras, Nadal (for now)

2a) Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi
2b) Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Djokovic (for now)

3a) Newcombe, Vilas, Courier
3b) Ashe, Kuerten

All Time Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer
1b) Vines, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal (for now)

2a) Cochet, Lacoste, Nusslein, Perry, Connors, Lendl
2b) Crawford, Segura, Emerson, Agassi, McEnroe

3a) Borotra, Riggs, Hoad, Wilander, Djokovic (for now)
3b) Sedgeman, Trabert, Edberg, Becker

Logic, Interesting list but I will never understand how Emerson can be ranked above a Hoad or Sedgman or Wilander. Emerson did not win a single big major and was never No.1 or 2 or 3 in any year!!

 

[Djokovic2011]

Logic, Interesting list but I will never understand how Emerson can be ranked above a Hoad or Sedgman or Wilander. Emerson did not win a single big major and was never No.1 or 2 or 3 in any year!!

You must like where Rosewall is ranked though Bobby? :wink:

 

[Logic]

Logic, Interesting list but I will never understand how Emerson can be ranked above a Hoad or Sedgman or Wilander. Emerson did not win a single big major and was never No.1 or 2 or 3 in any year!!

Bear in mind that Emerson never had the chance to do any of those things (since he refused to turn pro). He does, however, have his twelve amateur majors and did beat Laver and Ashe (among others) to get some of them, so I think he would have fared reasonably had he turned professional. Also, Hoad was inconsistent - he won none of the standard three Pro Majors (although did win ToC once). Sedgman won a respectable 7 majors (5 amateur, 2 Pro), as did Wilander - which, for me, puts them at the very top of Tier 3.

You do have a fair point, however, though note that I have only just rated Emerson above the three you mention. An argument could be made for bumping Emerson down to 3a and/or bumping Hoad/Sedgman/Wilander up to 2b.

 

[Down_the_line]

Bear in mind that Emerson never had the chance to do any of those things (since he refused to turn pro). He does, have his twelve amateur majors and did beat Laver and Ashe (among others) to get some of them, so I think he would have fared reasonably had he turned professional. Also, Hoad was inconsistent - he won none of the standard three Pro Majors (although did win ToC once). Sedgman won a respectable 7 majors (5 amateur, 2 Pro), as did Wilander - which, for me, puts them at the very top of Tier 3.

You do have a fair point, however, though note that I have only just rated Emerson above the three you mention. An argument could be made for bumping Emerson down to 3a and/or bumping Hoad/Sedgman/Wilander up to 2b.

In bold is the big point! People talk like Emerson would have been some mug on the pro tour. His decision not to turn pro had nothing to do with not being as good as the pros. He probably would have been a great pro but decided to stay amateur, likely because, as Laver said himself, the pro tour was for money but not for glory.

 

[BobbyOne]

You must like where Rosewall is ranked though Bobby? :wink:

Djoker, Yes, I see some logic in his rankings. I'm always glad to see Muscles ranked among the top six (even though I find Budge a bit over-rated).

 

[Mayonnaise]

Djoker, Yes, I see some logic in his rankings. I'm always glad to see Muscles ranked among the top six (even though I find Budge a bit over-rated).

Rank Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver in terms of overall greatness.

 

[Chico]

Given all the Djokovic-related tier threads, I thought I would make a thread where you can post your own opinion on the different tiers of tennis greats.

Of course, comparing eras and careers is tricky, I just want to see various people's opinions.

I recommend making an Open-Era Tier list and an All-Time Tier List.

I'll start:

Open Era Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Federer
1b) Borg, Sampras, Nadal (for now)

2a) Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi
2b) Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Djokovic (for now)

3a) Newcombe, Vilas, Courier
3b) Ashe, Kuerten

All Time Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer
1b) Vines, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal (for now)

2a) Cochet, Lacoste, Nusslein, Perry, Connors, Lendl
2b) Crawford, Segura, Emerson, Agassi, McEnroe

3a) Borotra, Riggs, Hoad, Wilander, Djokovic (for now)
3b) Sedgeman, Trabert, Edberg, Becker

Undermining Djokovic as usual. So many people simply can't accept Djokovic is clear tier 2. Unbelievable.

 

[Chico]

Tier1: Federer, Laver, Borg, Sampras and The-One-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named
Tier2: Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Djokovic
Tier3: Becker, Edberg, Wilander

 

[Logic]

Ridiculous. Undermining Djokovic as usual. What is wrong with this board? So many people simply can't accept Djokovic is clear tier 2. Unbelievable.

I have rated him as a lower Tier 2 in the Open Era. I have no bias against Djokovic, but all of the players I have above him have better achievements than
he does (for now).

Tier1: Federer, Laver, Borg, Sampras and the-one-who-should-not-be-named
Tier2: Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Djokovic
Tier3: Becker, Edberg, Wilander

Is this Open-Era + Laver?

 

[Down_the_line]

Ridiculous. Undermining Djokovic as usual. What is wrong with this board? So many people simply can't accept Djokovic is clear tier 2. Unbelievable.

Does it really matter?? Djokovic undoubtedly has at least a few more Slams left in him, which means he'll end up at the very least at the top of Tier 2. Some Djokovic fans are just too impatient and want everyone to think of him as such now.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Is this Open-Era + Laver?

I think it's bias + ignorance

 

[AssaultJoker]

All Time Tiers (each sub-tier is ordered chronologically):

1a) Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Federer
1b) Vines, Kramer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal (for now)

2a) Cochet, Lacoste, Nusslein, Perry, Connors, Lendl
2b) Crawford, Segura, Emerson, Agassi, McEnroe

3a) Borotra, Riggs, Hoad, Wilander, Djokovic (for now)
3b) Sedgeman, Trabert, Edberg, Becker

Fair list. Djokovic has a great chance of achieving Tier1 status, 4 more Slams would put him there.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Fair list. Djokovic has a great chance of achieving Tier1 status, 4 more Slams would put him there.

According to Logic, the lowest-ranked tier 1 Open Era great is Borg. Borg has 11 Slams and 2 WTF titles, which you'd need to count as Majors because Borg didn't play the less important AO. That puts him at 13 Majors. Djokovic needs at least 13 Slams to be in the same category as Borg, and only if he reaches Borg will he be tier 1. So Djokovic needs 6 more Slams to be tier 1, as per that list.

 

[Chico]

I have rated him as a lower Tier 2 in the Open Era. I have no bias against Djokovic, but all of the players I have above him have better achievements than
he does (for now).



Is this Open-Era + Laver?

He won Calendar Year Grand Slam in the open era. The one and only. Enough for tier 1.

 

[Chico]

According to Logic, the lowest-ranked tier 1 Open Era great is Borg. Borg has 11 Slams and 2 WTF titles, which you'd need to count as Majors because Borg didn't play the less important AO. That puts him at 13 Majors. Djokovic needs at least 13 Slams to be in the same category as Borg, and only if he reaches Borg will he be tier 1. So Djokovic needs 6 more Slams to be tier 1, as per that list.

Where are those people coming from?

Counting Borg's 2 WTF titles but not counting Djokovic's 3 WTF titles. How that makes sense at all?

Both you and Logic have no logic I am sorry to say.

 

[Logic]

He won Calendar Year Grand Slam in the open era. The one and only. Enough for tier 1.

Oh, I see - since Laver's career is partially in the Open Era you are including him in the Open Era tiers ranking. Fair enough.

Personally, I consider Laver as Pre-Open Era, since the majority of his career (including most, if not all, of his prime) occurred Pre-Open Era.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Where are those people coming from???? Why so much hate?

Counting Borg's 2 WTF titles but not counting Djokovic's 3 WTF titles. How that makes sense at all?

Both you and Logic have no logic I am sorry to say.

In Borg's day, the WTF was a bigger title than the AO. Counting the 4 biggest titles of his day, Borg has 13 Majors. Counting the 4 biggest titles of today, Djokovic has 7 Majors.

These comparisons are tough for many reasons, particularly Connors vs. Djokovic, but this is relatively straightforward.

 

[Logic]

According to Logic, the lowest-ranked tier 1 Open Era great is Borg. Borg has 11 Slams and 2 WTF titles, which you'd need to count as Majors because Borg didn't play the less important AO. That puts him at 13 Majors. Djokovic needs at least 13 Slams to be in the same category as Borg, and only if he reaches Borg will he be tier 1. So Djokovic needs 6 more Slams to be tier 1, as per that list.

I disagree - as Chico notes below, bear in mind that Djokovic also has three WTF. I think 4 majors (including the FO for a Career Slam) or 5 majors (no FO) puts Djokovic in Tier 1b.

Where are those people coming from???? Why so much hate?

Counting Borg's 2 WTF titles but not counting Djokovic's 3 WTF titles. How that makes sense at all?

Both you and Logic have no logic I am sorry to say.

People's opinions don't constitute hate.

Care to explain where you think I have been illogical?

In Borg's day, the WTF was a bigger title than the AO. Counting the 4 biggest titles of his day, Borg has 13 Majors. Counting the 4 biggest titles of today, Djokovic has 7 Majors.

These comparisons are tough for many reasons, particularly Connors vs. Djokovic, but this is relatively straightforward.

It's not so straightforward, because WTF back then was still not on a par with the other three non-AO majors.

 

[AssaultJoker]

According to Logic, the lowest-ranked tier 1 Open Era great is Borg. Borg has 11 Slams and 2 WTF titles, which you'd need to count as Majors because Borg didn't play the less important AO. That puts him at 13 Majors. Djokovic needs at least 13 Slams to be in the same category as Borg, and only if he reaches Borg will he be tier 1. So Djokovic needs 6 more Slams to be tier 1, as per that list.

You still hasn't learned your lesson, tennis isn't only about Slams. Djokovic got lots of Masters and WTF's, winning 4 more Slams is enough to put him on par with Borg and invite in Tier1 family:wink:

 

[Chico]

In Borg's day, the WTF was a bigger title than the AO. Counting the 4 biggest titles of his day, Borg has 13 Majors. Counting the 4 biggest titles of today, Djokovic has 7 Majors.

These comparisons are tough for many reasons, particularly Connors vs. Djokovic, but this is relatively straightforward.

It simply does not work that way. AO is AO and WTF is WTF. It is only Borg's problem that he had fear of flying and refused to travel to AO.

So according to your logic, Djokovic has 7 slams and 3 WTFs = 10, so he only needs 3 more slams or WTFs to be equal to Borg's 13 slams + WTFs.
Sorry but you either count WTFs for both or don't count them.

 

[Chico]

Care to explain where you think I have been illogical?

Putting Djokovic below Connors, McEnroe, Agassi and Lendl and in the same tier as Becker and Edberg. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Djokovic2011]

In Borg's day, the WTF was a bigger title than the AO. Counting the 4 biggest titles of his day, Borg has 13 Majors. Counting the 4 biggest titles of today, Djokovic has 7 Majors.

These comparisons are tough for many reasons, particularly Connors vs. Djokovic, but this is relatively straightforward.

Why should Djokovic be penalized just because the AO wasn't as big in the 70s as it is now? It's ridiculous to say that he needs to win 6 more majors, he could overtake Borg if he wins no more than 10 Slams and another WTF in my opinion.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Only haters can count like that. It simply does not work that way. AO is AO and WTF is WTF. It is only Borg's problem that he had fear of flying and refused to travel to AO.

So according to your logic, Djokovic has 7 slams and 3 WTFs = 10, so he only needs 3 more slams or WTFs to be equal to Borg's 13 slams + WTFs.
Sorry but you either count WTFs for both or don't count them.

I am counting WTF instead of AO because Borg didn't play the AO. The WTF title was bigger than the AO back then. In order of prestige:

Borg:
1. Wimbledon - 5
2. US Open - 0
3. French Open - 6
4. WTF - 2
Overall = 13 Majors

Djokovic:
1. Wimbledon - 2
2. US Open - 1
3. French Open - 0
4. Australian Open - 4
Overall = 7 Majors

As you can see, I'm counting the 4 biggest titles of each of the player's time. If you don't want to count the WTF, which was the 4th biggest title of his day, for Borg, you shouldn't count the AO, which is the 4th biggest title today, for Djokovic, and then it becomes:
Borg = 11 Majors
Djokovic = 3 Majors

Your choice.

 

[Mayonnaise]

You still hasn't learned your lesson, tennis isn't only about Slams. Djokovic got lots of Masters and WTF's, winning 4 more Slams is enough to put him on par with Borg and invite in Tier1 family:wink:

You need to learn history

 

[Mayonnaise]

Why should Djokovic be penalized just because the AO wasn't as big in the 70s as it is now? It's ridiculous to say that he needs to win 6 more majors, he could overtake Borg if he wins no more than 10 Slams and another WTF in my opinion.

I'm not penalizing him. I'm counting the 4 biggest titles for both Borg and Djokovic. If you want to count the 5 biggest titles, that's fair enough. Then it'll be:

Borg: 14 Majors
Djokovic: 10 Majors.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I am counting WTF instead of AO because Borg didn't play the AO. The WTF titles was bigger than the AO back then. In order of prestige:

Borg:
1. Wimbledon - 5
2. US Open - 0
3. French Open - 6
4. WTF - 2
Overall = 13 Majors

Djokovic:
1. Wimbledon - 2
2. US Open - 1
3. French Open - 0
4. Australian Open - 4
Overall = 7 Majors

As you can see, I'm counting the 4 biggest titles of each of the player's time. If you don't want to count the WTF, which was the 4th biggest title of his day, for Borg, you shouldn't count the AO, which is the 4th biggest title today, for Djokovic, and then it becomes:
Borg = 11 Majors
Djokovic = 3 Majors

Your choice.

 

[Logic]

Putting Djokovic below Connors, McEnroe, Agassi and Lendl and in the same tier as Becker and Edberg. Makes no sense at all.

OK, I'll give you my reasoning:

Lendl: 8 majors + 5 YEC + 2 WCT finals
Connors: 8 majors (including 5 USO) + 1 YEC + 2 WCT finals
Agassi: 8 majors (including Career Slam) + 1 YEC + 1 Olympic Gold
McEnroe: 7 majors (including 3 Wimbledon) + 3 YEC + 5 WTT finals

Djokovic: 7 majors + 3 YEC

As shown above, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe have better achievements than Djokovic does (for now), despite often skipping/missing/being banned from majors. The only one which is possibly contestable is McEnroe.

 

[Chico]

I am counting WTF instead of AO because Borg didn't play the AO. The WTF titles was bigger than the AO back then. In order of prestige:

Borg:
1. Wimbledon - 5
2. US Open - 0
3. French Open - 6
4. WTF - 2
Overall = 13 Majors

Djokovic:
1. Wimbledon - 2
2. US Open - 1
3. French Open - 0
4. Australian Open - 4
Overall = 7 Majors

As you can see, I'm counting the 4 biggest titles of each of the player's time. If you don't want to count the WTF, which was the 4th biggest title of his day, for Borg, you shouldn't count the AO, which is the 4th biggest title today, for Djokovic, and then it becomes:
Borg = 11 Majors
Djokovic = 3 Majors

Your choice.

This is just ridiculous.

You can't pick and choose "4 biggest titles" as it suits you in order to make the gap between Djokovic and Borg bigger than it really is.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I disagree - as Chico notes below, bear in mind that Djokovic also has three WTF. I think 4 majors (including the FO for a Career Slam) or 5 majors (no FO) puts Djokovic in Tier 1b.

Read my response to Chico. It wouldn't be fair to compare Borg's performance at 3 Slams to Djokovic's at 4.

It's not so straightforward, because WTF back then was still not on a par with the other three non-AO majors.

The WTF back then was bigger than the AO. The WTF today is below the AO. So I'm counting the WTF for Borg instead of the AO, which few of the top players attended in his day. It's very straightforward.

 

[drm025]

This is just ridiculous.

You can't pick and choose "4 biggest titles" as it suits you in order to make the gap between Djokovic and Borg bigger than it really is.

Agreed, in Borg's time the Australian Open was a slam and the WTFs was not. Plain and simple.

 

[Chico]

I'm not penalizing him. I'm counting the 4 biggest titles for both Borg and Djokovic. If you want to count the 5 biggest titles, that's fair enough. Then it'll be:

Borg: 14 Majors
Djokovic: 10 Majors.

Now you have problem with the basic math. Everything just to try to convince us at something that is not true.

Since when is 11+2 = 14? LOL.

 

[AssaultJoker]

You need to learn history

Tells me a guy who thinks that hypejob Federer is the GOAT of tennis:lol:

 

[Mayonnaise]

This is just ridiculous.

You can't pick and choose "4 biggest titles" as it suits you in order to make the gap between Djokovic and Borg bigger than it really is.

Should we compare just the 3 Slams Borg participated in? You wouldn't like that either. Saying, "Borg should've won AO, it is a Slam!" is like some kid 30 years from now saying, "Djokovic should've won Cincinnati, it is a Slam now!"

Be fair. You can't compare Borg at 3 Slams to Djokovic at 4.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Should we compare just the 3 Slams Borg participated in? You wouldn't like that either. Saying, "Borg should've won AO, it is a Slam!" is like some kid 30 years from now saying, "Djokovic should've won Cincinnati, it is a Slam now!"

Be fair. You can't compare Borg at 3 Slams to Djokovic at 4.

Check out post #36. :wink:

 

[Mayonnaise]

Now you have problem with the basic math. Everything just to try to convince us at something that is not true.

Since when is 11+2 = 14? LOL.

Borg has:
5 Wimbledon
0 US Open
6 French Open
2 WTF
1 WCT

Add them up, you get 14.

Please, stop talking about things you don't understand.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Agreed, in Borg's time the Australian Open was a slam and the WTFs was not. Plain and simple.

Slams back then weren't what they are today. The WTF was the 4th biggest title in Tennis back then. Which is why the likes of Connors and Borg didn't play the AO but played the WTF. Can you imagine Djokovic and Nadal not playing the AO today? Times are different.

 

[Logic]

Read my response to Chico. It wouldn't be fair to compare Borg's performance at 3 Slams to Djokovic's at 4.

True, which is why I think Djokovic needs 11 majors (including Career Slam) or 12 majors (no Career Slam) to enter Tier 1b (though not necessarily surpass Borg).

However, it's not just about majors or choosing the "3/4/5 biggest tournaments". Djokovic does need to be given some credit for his all of his major and WTF wins (weighted appropriately).

The WTF back then was bigger than the AO. The WTF today is below the AO. So I'm counting the WTF for Borg instead of the AO, which few of the top players attended in his day. It's very straightforward.

I understand your method, but it is over-simplistic. You can't just sub WTF for AO, because WTF wasn't worth a major even back then. Rather, as I've explained above, you have to do some sort of weighting of (all of) Djokovic's achievements to compare to players of the past, like Borg.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Tells me a guy who thinks that hypejob Federer is the GOAT of tennis:lol:

17 Slams + 6 WTF, baby! Nobody in history matches that in a full field of professionals!

 

[Logic]

17 Slams + 6 WTF, baby! Nobody in history matches that in a full field of professionals!

Yes, but this only means that Federer is the greatest of the Open Era.

To compare All Time becomes a bit more complicated.

 

[Mayonnaise]

True, which is why I think Djokovic needs 11 majors (including Career Slam) or 12 majors (no Career Slam) to enter Tier 1b (though not necessarily surpass Borg).

However, it's not just about majors or choosing the "3/4/5 biggest tournaments". Djokovic does need to be given some credit for his all of his major and WTF wins (weighted appropriately).



I understand your method, but it is over-simplistic. You can't just sub WTF for AO, because WTF wasn't worth a major even back then. Rather, as I've explained above, you have to do some sort of weighting of (all of) Djokovic's achievements to compare to players of the past, like Borg.

Okay, you're right about that. I think it would be fairest to say:

Djokovic needs at least 11 Slams to match Borg's 11 Slams.

To match Borg's (2 WTF + 1 WCT), Djokovic needs 3 WTF titles, which he already has. So, ultimately, Djokovic needs 12 Slams to tie Borg for me. Or maybe 11 Slams and 1/2 WTFs.

 

[Chico]

Borg has:
5 Wimbledon
0 US Open
6 French Open
2 WTF
1 WCT

Add them up, you get 14.

Please, stop talking about things you don't understand.

Lol what else are you going to count for Borg :shock:.

Djokovic also has 19 Masters, so that is 29 altogether. Way more than Borg. See anyone can play that game.

 

[AssaultJoker]

17 Slams + 6 WTF, baby! Nobody in history matches that in a full field of professionals!

Djokovic and Nadal will dominate tennis for another 5 years which equals 20 Slams. Djokovic wins another 10, Nadal 5, other players 5. Fed's record will not live long :lol:

 

[Mayonnaise]

Yes, but this only means that Federer is the greatest of the Open Era.

To compare all time becomes a bit more complicated.

Not if you follow the simple principles. Ex:

Rod Laver:
Laver has 5 Slams, 9 Pro Slams, and 6 Amateur Slams.
14 of Federer's Slams more than match Laver's 5 Slams and 9 Pro Slams.
6 of Federer's WTF titles more than match Laver's 6 Amateur Slams.

So Federer still has 3 Open Era Slams over Laver, despite being generous to the value of Pro Slams and Amateur Slams. I could do the same for Rosewall and Gonzales.

Now, I admit this is more complicated than I make it out to be, but even with all the complications, you'll realize Federer's achievements are towering.

 

[Chico]

Some people would do anything and go beyond any logic and reason, only to undermine and devalue what Djokovic has achieved. Just sad.
Out of this silly thread.