I've over the years attempted lists of this nature a number of times and wanted to post the latest result of that on here, for any commentary or response that it might receive. I tend to be a big fan of lists, and here I wanted to make a bid at encapsulating tennis history dating back to the advent of the Grand Slams (1877) to present, and be able by some means to put the likes of Anthony Wilding and Henri Cochet in balance with Roger Federer and Gustavo Kuerten. Naturally that entails some difficulties owing to the enormous alterations the sport has witnessed over the years - changes in technology, changes in tours, changes in court surfaces; the Amateur years versus the professional tours; interruptions from World Wars and beyond. Never the less, I'm reasonably satisfied that this present list does a somewhat adequate job at streamlining these arguments into the equation.
In general I subscribe to a few arguments that assist in this process. One of these I term the 'Lineal Champion' concept - borrowed from boxing, and tweaked to an extent as well. From this I divine that the various eras, all other considerations being equal, since at least the end of World War I have been marked by a Lineal Champion - that is, a dominant champion within the context of the time and over a sufficient number of years to be sufficiently acknowledged as such. It isn't sufficient to purely detail this along the arbitrary lines of decades - as this is far to limiting a capacity. Without going into too much detail, I acknowledge that from 1919 to the present day: Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic to be the Lineal Champions over the past 100 years or so. A secondary tier of Preeminent Contenders would exist just below this top bracket, to include, but perhaps not exclusively: Cochet, Lacoste, Johnston, Perry, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Nusslein, Connors, Newcombe, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Nadal. That said my ordering of the top 100 does not strictly follow that the individuals cited as Lineal Champions all occupy the top 10, or top 12 et al, posts. Owing to the vagaries of the eras often a player not strictly held as a lineal champion would nevertheless be listed higher on the below list, as will be noted.
A few additional points:
Djokovic) I do cite Djokovic as #1. I do so despite a penchant toward resisting recency bias. And while i attempt to ressurect some legacies that have been all but forgotten in the past few decades, the Djokovic case remains, at the moment, hard to argue against. Most of his foremost achievements are of course well known. The 24 Grand Slam Titles, the 4 years winning 3 majors, the Nole-slam of 2015-16, the (presently) highest career winning percentage (of the O.E.), his prevailing in every rivalry that he has played at least 10 matches against, his triple-career Grand Slam, his nearly 400 weeks at #1, and his (by my count) nine years as the effectively #1/best player. Taken together these achievements are more than enough to compare with Gonzales, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Tilden or any other champion of yesteryear with the facet of longevity taken into account. That is to say, that Novak's years that I cite him as #1, 2011,2012,2014,2015,2016,2018,2020,2021,2023 - puts him above anyone else across the entire span of the game - Tilden being at 7 (1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1931) Laver at 6 (1965,1966,1967,1968,1969,1970), Gonzales at 8 (1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960) and Federer at 6 (2004,2005,2006,2007,2009,2017). (Again that is based on my criteria which I recognize differs from the ATP in some instances - such as 2016 and 2017).
The more pressing point, and what leaves Novak as having the overall strongest case isn't so much any of these acknowledged positives from above - it is rather the absence of a counter-argument of compelling stature. With many of the greats, there is a caveat of some description. To this point though, Novak doesn't have much of a counter. Even now at 36, he is #1 and hasn't ever been (or more correctly since becoming #1 in 2011) really 'bested'. Nadal has certainly been a great antagonist, but Novak can in no way be said to be 'losing' in his rivalry with Nadal, no matter how close it is. The effective absence of this aspect (the way that McEnroe came around to best Borg; in turn Lendl came around to best McEnroe, etc) is what leaves Novak at #1. Perhaps Alcaraz will ultimately prove to deliver this blow to Novak, but even then, muich will depend on the context - does he wrestle the #1 ranking from Novak, and deliver his blows when Novak is the 'best in the world' still, or does he gain ground only after a fall in the consistent performance of Djokovic - such as when Sampras' rivals finally began to gain ground on him, this really only occured post Sampras' prime.
In general I subscribe to a few arguments that assist in this process. One of these I term the 'Lineal Champion' concept - borrowed from boxing, and tweaked to an extent as well. From this I divine that the various eras, all other considerations being equal, since at least the end of World War I have been marked by a Lineal Champion - that is, a dominant champion within the context of the time and over a sufficient number of years to be sufficiently acknowledged as such. It isn't sufficient to purely detail this along the arbitrary lines of decades - as this is far to limiting a capacity. Without going into too much detail, I acknowledge that from 1919 to the present day: Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic to be the Lineal Champions over the past 100 years or so. A secondary tier of Preeminent Contenders would exist just below this top bracket, to include, but perhaps not exclusively: Cochet, Lacoste, Johnston, Perry, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Nusslein, Connors, Newcombe, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Nadal. That said my ordering of the top 100 does not strictly follow that the individuals cited as Lineal Champions all occupy the top 10, or top 12 et al, posts. Owing to the vagaries of the eras often a player not strictly held as a lineal champion would nevertheless be listed higher on the below list, as will be noted.
A few additional points:
Djokovic) I do cite Djokovic as #1. I do so despite a penchant toward resisting recency bias. And while i attempt to ressurect some legacies that have been all but forgotten in the past few decades, the Djokovic case remains, at the moment, hard to argue against. Most of his foremost achievements are of course well known. The 24 Grand Slam Titles, the 4 years winning 3 majors, the Nole-slam of 2015-16, the (presently) highest career winning percentage (of the O.E.), his prevailing in every rivalry that he has played at least 10 matches against, his triple-career Grand Slam, his nearly 400 weeks at #1, and his (by my count) nine years as the effectively #1/best player. Taken together these achievements are more than enough to compare with Gonzales, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Tilden or any other champion of yesteryear with the facet of longevity taken into account. That is to say, that Novak's years that I cite him as #1, 2011,2012,2014,2015,2016,2018,2020,2021,2023 - puts him above anyone else across the entire span of the game - Tilden being at 7 (1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1931) Laver at 6 (1965,1966,1967,1968,1969,1970), Gonzales at 8 (1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960) and Federer at 6 (2004,2005,2006,2007,2009,2017). (Again that is based on my criteria which I recognize differs from the ATP in some instances - such as 2016 and 2017).
The more pressing point, and what leaves Novak as having the overall strongest case isn't so much any of these acknowledged positives from above - it is rather the absence of a counter-argument of compelling stature. With many of the greats, there is a caveat of some description. To this point though, Novak doesn't have much of a counter. Even now at 36, he is #1 and hasn't ever been (or more correctly since becoming #1 in 2011) really 'bested'. Nadal has certainly been a great antagonist, but Novak can in no way be said to be 'losing' in his rivalry with Nadal, no matter how close it is. The effective absence of this aspect (the way that McEnroe came around to best Borg; in turn Lendl came around to best McEnroe, etc) is what leaves Novak at #1. Perhaps Alcaraz will ultimately prove to deliver this blow to Novak, but even then, muich will depend on the context - does he wrestle the #1 ranking from Novak, and deliver his blows when Novak is the 'best in the world' still, or does he gain ground only after a fall in the consistent performance of Djokovic - such as when Sampras' rivals finally began to gain ground on him, this really only occured post Sampras' prime.
Also good to see Kramer receive some credit, he is easily the most underrated great.
