Top 100 Male Tennis Players of All Time

SamSpade

New User
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.
 

SamSpade

New User
1 Novak Djokovic (1987; Serbia) Lineal champion and statistically most accomplished

2 Jack Kramer (1921; USA) Unbeaten world-champion of post-WWII years

3 Roger Federer (1981; Switzerland) Transcendent talent who raptured fans with style, grace

4 Ricardo Gonzales (1928; USA) Resilient lineal champion of the touring-professional era

5 Bill Tilden (1893; USA) Towering lineal champion, dominated for a decade

6 Pete Sampras (1971; USA) Lineal champion, won with highest degree of difficulty

7 Rod Laver (1938; Australia) Lineal champion who won Open-era Grand Slam in 1969

8 Rafael Nadal (1986; Spain) Greatest ever clay-court champion

9 Bjorn Borg (1956; Sweden) Prodigy winning 11 majors by 26

10 Don Budge (1915; USA) Won fabled Grand Slam in 1938; 1940s Lineal Champion

11 Ellsworth Vines (1911; USA) Lineal champion in 1930s

12 Ken Rosewall (1934; Australia) Tireless baseliner and Lineal champion in 1960s

13 Frank Sedgman (1927; Australia) Exceedingly triumphant champion in all 1950s scenes

14 John McEnroe (1959; USA) Genius who excelled at doubles even more than singles

15 Ivan Lendl (1960; Czechia) 3-Time Year-End #1 with exceptionally dominant reign

16 Pancho Segura (1921; Ecuador) Indefatigable champion in the Barnstorming era

17 Henri Cochet (1901; France) Greatest of the Musketeers

18 Jimmy Connors (1952; USA) Records for career wins, titles, and tempestuousness

19 Lew Hoad (1934; Australia) Unparalleled talent held back by persistent injuries

20 Andre Agassi (1970; USA) Brash talent to wise sage who won career Grand Slam

21 Bobby Riggs (1918; USA) Lineal champion of the WWII years

22 Rene Lacoste (1904; France) Musketeer who propelled France to Davis Cup glory

23 Hans Nusslein (1910; Germany) Engaging professional champion of the 1930s

24 Mats Wilander (1964; Sweden) Won 3 majors and achieved Yea-End #1 in 1988

25 Fred Perry (1909; UK) Won 14 majors across all disciplines in the 1930s

26 John Newcombe (1944; Australia) Early Open-era champion and Year-End #1

27 Norman Brookes (1877; Australia) Pioneering Australian champion

28 Roy Emerson (1936; Australia) Won 28 majors in singles and doubles in 1960s

29 Stefan Edberg (1966; Sweden) Achieved #1 in singles and doubles

30 Boris Becker (1967; Germany) Dynamic player who won Wimbledon at 17 and 18

31 Anthony Wilding (1883; New Zealand) Pre-WWI Wimbledon champion who was KIA in the war

32 Arthur Ashe (1943; USA) Iconic champion who won shocking Wimbledon final

33 Jim Courier (1970; USA) Won four majors, all in emphatic fashion

34 William Renshaw (1861; UK) 7-Time Wimbledon champion in 1880s

35 Tony Trabert (1930; USA) Omnipresent champion of Amateur tennis

36 Ashley Cooper (1936; Australia) Amateur era champion winning 3 Majors in 1958

37 Andy Murray (1987; UK) 2-Time Wimbledon champion amidst Big-3 era

38 Laurence Doherty (1875; UK) Dominant Wimbledon champion at turn-of-the-century

39 Neale Fraser (1933; Australia) Exceptional Amateur era champion across all disciplines

40 Lleyton Hewitt (1981; Australia) 2-Time Year-End #1

41 Jack Crawford (1908; Australia) Only the US Nat’l final stopped the Grand Slam in 1933

42 Guillermo Vilas (1952; Argentina) All-time great clay-court champion

43 Reginald Doherty (1872; UK) Dominant Wimbledon champion at turn-of-the-century

44 Bill Johnston (1894, USA) Overshadowed post-WWI talent

45 Ilie Nastase (1946; Romania) Controversial instigator and prolific champion

46 Gustavo Kuerten (1976; Brazil) 3-Time French Open champion in sterling fashion

47 Manuel Santana (1938; Spain) Clay-court specialist who triumphed at Wimbledon

48 Carlos Alcaraz (2003; Spain) Youngest Year-End #1 to date

49 Jaroslav Drobny (1921; Czechia) Prolific Amateur era multi-surface champion

50 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1974; Russia) Last champion of both singles/doubles at single Major

51 Thomas Muster (1967; Austria) Dominant stretch on clay in mid-90s (111-5)

52 Gerald Patterson (1895; Australia) 2-Time Wimbledon champion in Post-WWI era

53 Edward Patty (1924; USA) Won French-Wimbledon combo in 1950

54 Jean Borotra (1898; France) French Musketeer; won 18 Majors across disciplines

55 Andy Roddick (1982; USA) Nine consecutive years ranked top 10; Year-End #1

56 Max Decugis (1882; France) Dominant champion at French Nationals in club era

57 Joshua Pim (1869; Ireland) 2-Time Wimbledon champion who elevated the game

58 Marat Safin (1980; Russia) 2-Time Major champion in dominant performances

59 Andres Gimeno (1937; Spain) Consistent Amateur era contender

60 Michael Chang (1972; USA) Youngest ever Major champion, eight years top 10

61 Goran Ivanisevic (1971; Croatia) Enigmatic sufferer of cruel fates; Won Wimbledon

62 Frank Parker (1916; USA) 4-Time Major champion across WWII years

63 Patrick Rafter (1972; Australia) 2-Time US Open champion and Year-End #1

64 Vic Seixas (1923; USA) Won 15 Majors across disciplines in the 1950s

65 Richard Sears (1861; USA) Won inaugural 7 US Nationals

66 Stan Smith (1946; USA) Perennial early Open era contender

67 Daniil Medvedev (1996; Russia) Former #1 and US Open champion

68 William Larned (1872; USA) 7-Time US Nationals champion

69 Manuel Orantes (1949; Spain) Prolific clay-court specialist

70 Michael Stich (1968; Germany) Brief career punctuated by winning Wimbledon

71 Karel Kozeluh (1895; Czechia) Pioneer of the professional tours

72 Dominic Thiem (1993; Austria) Former US Open champion

73 Fred Stolle (1938; Australia) Won 19 Majors across disciplines in the 1960s

74 Jan Kodes (1946; Czechia) Won consecutive French Open titles

75 Gottfried von Cramm (1909; Germany) 2-Time French National champion

76 John Bromwich (1918; Australia) Won 19 Majors across disciplines in the 1940s

77 Alexander Zverev (1997; Germany) 2-Time ATP Finals champion and Olympic Gold Medalist

78 Alex Olmedo (1936; Peru) Won 2 majors in 1959

79 Marcelo Rios (1975; Chile) Former #1 and won 5 Masters titles

80 Malcolm Whitman (1877; USA) 3-Time US National champion at turn-of-the-century

81 Carlos Moya (1976; Spain) Former #1 and French Open champion

82 Vitas Gerulaitis (1954; USA) Perennial contender, top 10 six consecutive years

83 Sergei Bruguera (1971; Spain) 2-Time consecutive French Open champion

84 David Ferrer (1982; Spain) Consistent baseliner, seven years finished top 10

85 Tom Okker (1944; Netherlands) Perennial contender, top 10 seven consecutive years

86 Juan Martin Del Potro (1988; Argentina) Won epic US Open in 2009

87 Miloslav Mecir (1964; Czechia) Olympic Gold Medalist in 1988

88 Adrian Quist (1913; Australia) Won 17 majors in single/doubles across the WWII years

89 Juan Carlos Ferrero (1980; Spain) Former #1 and French Open champion

90 Nicola Pietrangeli (1933; Italy) Won consecutive French National titles

91 Yannick Noah (1960; France) Won spirited French Open in 1983 and 6 years top 10

92 Vincent Richards (1903; USA) Early Professional era champion

93 Alex Corretja (1974; Spain) Pugnacious baseliner who won ATP Finals (1998)

94 Marin Cilic (1988; Croatia) Former US Open champion (2014)

95 Robert Wrenn (1873; USA) 4-Time US National champion at turn-of-the-century

96 David Nalbandian (1982; Argentina) Perennial contender and ATP Finals champion (2005)

97 Thomas Enqvist (1974; Sweden) Assisted in Sweden winning 2 Davis Cup titles

98 Tony Roche (1945; Australia) Won 16 majors across all disciplines in the 1960s

99 Ted Schroeder (1921; USA) Won Wimbledon in post-WWII era

100 Oliver Campbell (1871; USA) 3-Time US National champion
 
Last edited:

jhick

Hall of Fame
Interesting that you rank Nadal all the way down to #8. Time to get the popcorn ready.

Bill-Hader-Eating-Popcorn-Smiling-SNL.gif
 

SamSpade

New User
Additional Points continued:

Kramer) Kramer is certainly a pre-Open Era player that I a making the biggest stake on, and for many will appear unjustly positioned. This position of #2 is largely attained with similar reasoning as that extended to Djokovic. That being, that in his day, Kramer was effectively unbeaten. Certainly his career didn't have the longevity of Djokovic's, and they played in wildly different circumstances, in terms of the barnstorming era versus today's modern ATP Circuit. It is unsurprisingly some of these considerations that lead Djokovic to be ranked ahead of Kramer. That being said, Kramer did contest between 1947 and 1953 the title of 'best in the world' with Riggs, Schroeder, Sedgman, Segura, Budge (unquestionably past his prime) and of course Gonzales. I read somewhere at some point that Gonzales himself beat most every contender in his lengthy era and of course Kramer beat him (Gonzales). Now, some of that may be that Kramer caught Gonzales on the latter's way up, and essentially the Gonzales of 1957 might be a greater challenge to the Kramer of 1950. I can't speak too well to that. But statistically, considering the challengers that Kramer took on, and the sheer dominance he exhibited in the hight of his run, I have him rated over Gonzales, who I do in turn have rated over every other great from the 'Proffesional era' to include Laver, Rosewall and a bevy of Australians, Other commentators on this site that are better equipped to do so have at times weighed in on the respective 'games' of Kramer, Gonzales and others, and attempted to merit out whom was 'greater' than whom, akin to how those of us who watch Federer, Nadal and Djokovic can more confidently commentate on the relative advantages of Nadal's left-handed forehead forehand or Federer's deuce-side serve in various matchups with one another. I will leave that level of analysis toward those pre-O.E. greats to those individuals.
 

SamSpade

New User
Additional points:

Federer) Federer, almost unquestionably the most beloved player. Federer means a great deal to me - and an even greater amount to my brother, for whom the Federer example served as the inspiration to picking up the sport rather later in life than one would typically do so. And he and I have had the privilege of watching the entirety of his career, from the fabled Wimbledon encounter with Sampras, to the heights of the 237 week run at the top, to the 'lion in winter' era battles with younger champions. Many, my brother chief amongst them, object to his standing here as #3. Utilizing the same reasoning the propelled Djokovic and Kramer to #1 and #2 however I cannot justify a place higher. It isn't however Federer's standing vis-a-vis Novak that costs him here. I have Djokovic ranked higher, and so if the only issue Federer had was a relative imbalance with a player I have already ranked ahead of him, that wouldn't hold him so back. The issue is Nadal, whom I rank of course lower than Federer, whose career I see as being not on Federer's level...and yet who it has to be said largely dominated the rivarly with Federer even in the latter's prime (2004-2008). It is this issue more than any other that bedebils Federer's placement.

All that aisde Federer was a tremendous champion whose effects beyond the game are considerable, just also somewhat outside my focus with this list. Between the lines though he still leaves a daunting legacy. The 20 majors, including 12 in just 5 years - five straight titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open, as well as 40 match winning streaks at each. Winning two majors without dropping a set - 10 years apart. The incredible streaks of consecutive semifinals and quarterfinals at majors. If not for COVID he likely breaks the mark for match win in the O.P. A consumate champion, gentleman, ambassador.
 

SamSpade

New User
Additional points:

Tilden) Tilden is an individual with a justifiably controversial past. Beyond that acknowledgement I won't fixate on any of those details as it again isn't in sync with the intent of my list. In terms of tennis however he is amongst the foremost champions of all time. The relative gap between his general-level ands that of even his most accomplished opponents may be greater than for any other lineal champion of any other era. Similar to Federer, Tilden had almost two or three different careers. He was effectively already quite 'old' by the time he became a singles champion - nearly 30. Prior to that he was primarily a doubles player where he attained some success even prior to WWI. He was in his 40s and still the top draw, and often the top player in the earliest years of the professional era in the 1930s. And in that time able to compete gamely with Vines, then Perry and finally Budge. He is perhaps the most difficult lineal champion to rate against the others. I find him often comparable to Sampras - both Americans, both with big serves, both exceedingly dominant (though Tilden more so). It ultimately comes down to prowess on clay - where Tilden was more effective than was Sampras.
 

SamSpade

New User
Nadal) Nadal being at #8 will be seen as perhaps the point most objected to. I jave previously cited my reliance on the Lineal Champion argument as in part supplying me a baseline in which to weigh the relative careers of various all-time-greats. To that end, I don't confer on Nadal being a lineal champion - even as he is without question a great champion - the greatest ever on clay by several country miles. The absence of the Lineal Champion title is solely due to a matter of timing in a sense - not neccesarily achievement. Nadal is simply left with no 'era' of his own - though he plays primary foil to Federer and then Djokovic - astonishingly across a 15+ year period of time in which one of the other of them is largely dominant. Even that being the case, Nadal achieves 14 French Open titles, his perfect 14/14 in finals at the French, 81 match winning streak on clay, the fact he has still never lost a fifth set on clay - and only ever played a handful. He four times won the French without dropping a set. Again, Nadal on clay is without question the most dominant player on any given surface of all time.

Off clay however, a different story emerges. True enough he does have another 8 majors, he 4 times has been #1 (by my count - though no two years consecutively). He has admirably attained a tremendous number of career match wins, titles and currently possesses the second highest career win percentage (behind Djokovic). The fact remains however that when the composite picture is drawn, both Federer and Djokovic have more accomplished careers. And within career dominance, he doesn't possess the numbers either of them havem nor Laver, Sampras or Gonzales. Nest ever on clay - yes by leaps and bounds. And he will forever be remembered for his fighting spirit, and for his epics with Djokovic, Federer and others. But I don't presently see him as higher than #8.
 

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
So, two questions re: Nadal, though I won't quibble with placing him lowest of the Three. First, with your interesting carryover of the "lineal champion" concept from boxing: how was he not lineal champion - if briefly - from Wimbledon 2008 -> Djokovic's dominant breakout in 2011? You've already pointed out his upper hand on Federer; well, in 2008 he beat the man to be The Man, and Djokovic had a while yet to surpass him. Who else in that period could be "the champion" but Nadal?

Re: Sampras - you must not rate the career Slam/surface versatility so highly to drop Rafa below. Majors count aside, the primary knock on Pete is the lack of an RG. Meanwhile, Rafa was able to round his game to capture both the AO and Wimby not once but twice. I think this the question most people are going to be asking.
 

SamSpade

New User
So, two questions re: Nadal, though I won't quibble with placing him lowest of the Three. First, with your interesting carryover of the "lineal champion" concept from boxing: how was he not lineal champion - if briefly - from Wimbledon 2008 -> Djokovic's dominant breakout in 2011? You've already pointed out his upper hand on Federer; well, in 2008 he beat the man to be The Man, and Djokovic had a while yet to surpass him. Who else in that period could be "the champion" but Nadal?

Re: Sampras - you must not rate the career Slam/surface versatility so highly to drop Rafa below. Majors count aside, the primary knock on Pete is the lack of an RG. Meanwhile, Rafa was able to round his game to capture both the AO and Wimby not once but twice. I think this the question most people are going to be asking.
bigbadboaz,

Appreciate the inquiries. The Lineal Champion concept does require some tweaking from how it works in boxing. For me this takes effect by detailing dominance first by year, then by 5-year period, and then by 10 year period. I do this in a rolling format, so as not to dictate preference to any nominal time frame (i.e., the decade of the 90s etc.). Thus that looks as follows for the big-3 era:

YE #1 -Player of the Year

2000 - Kuerten
2001 - Hewitt
2002 - Hewitt
2003 - Roddick
2004 - Federer
2005 - Federer
2006 - Federer
2007 - Federer
2008 - Nadal
2009 - Federer
2010 - Nadal
2011 - Djokovic
2012 - Djokovic
2013 - Nadal
2014 - Djokovic
2015 - Djokovic
2016 - Djokovic
2017 - Federer
2018 - Djokovic
2019 - Nadal
2020 - Djokovic
2021 - Djokovic
2022 - Alcaraz
2023 - Djokovic


#1 Player over 5 year spread

2000-2004 - Federer
2001-2005 - Federer
2002-2006 - Federer
2003-2007 - Federer
2004-2008 - Federer
2005-2009 - Federer
2006-2010 - Federer
2007-2011 - Nadal
2008-2012 - Nadal
2009-2013 - Nadal
2010-2014 - Djokovic
2011-2015 - Djokovic
2012-2016 - Djokovic
2013-2017 - Djokovic
2014-2018 - Djokovic
2015-2019 - Djokovic
2016-2020 - Djokovic
2017-2021 - Djokovic
2018-2022 - Djokovic
2019-2023 - Djokovic


#1 Player over 10 year Spread

2000-2009 - Federer
2001-2010 - Federer
2002-2011 - Federer
2003-2012 - Federer
2004-2013 - Federer
2005-2014 - Federer
2006-2015 - Federer
2007-2016 - Nadal
2008-2017 - Nadal
2009-2018 - Djokovic
2010-2019 - Djokovic
2011-2020 - Djokovic
2012-2021 - Djokovic
2013-2022 - Djokovic
2014-2023 - Djokovic


So, these charts provide a bit of an overview of how I see the dominance variable playing out across their careers to this point. You are correct, Nadal certainly is the man from 2008-2010. Ultimately it is just too short of a period for me to define it as his era, and thus he as a lineal champion. Lleyton Hewitt is in a similar circumstance in 2001-2002, and someone like Stefan Edberg in 1990-1992. The reason I look to the five and ten year time frames is that it helps to broaden out the effect of an isolated spectacular year - though not to take anything away from that particular accomplishment. Mats Wilander did have a particularly extraordinary 1988, and some other very fine seasons aside, such as 1983, 1985. However he at no point is the best player across a single five or ten year span - which naturally effects the extent to which he could ever be held to be the Lineal Champion (by my calculation) even as he certainly did become the ATP #1, and even by my count is the best player in the world in 1988. In rough terms I generally am looking for something like a count of 5 under the 5-year spread; and something like a count 3 within the 10-years spread. Nadal is at 3 and 2. Federer is at 7 and 7 and Djokovic is at 10 and 6. Hope that clarifies. I also have a more detailed post coming on Sampras that in some ways will defend my placement of him as well.
 

pirhaksar

Professional
1 Novak Djokovic (1987; Serbia) Lineal champion and statistically most accomplished

2 Jack Kramer (1921; USA) Unbeaten world-champion of post-WWII years

3 Roger Federer (1981; Switzerland) Transcendent talent who raptured fans with style, grace

4 Ricardo Gonzales (1928; USA) Resilient lineal champion of the touring-professional era

5 Bill Tilden (1893; USA) Towering lineal champion, dominated for a decade

6 Pete Sampras (1971; USA) Lineal champion, won with highest degree of difficulty

7 Rod Laver (1938; Australia) Lineal champion who won Open-era Grand Slam in 1969

8 Rafael Nadal (1986; Spain) Greatest ever clay-court champion

9 Bjorn Borg (1956; Sweden) Prodigy winning 11 majors by 26

10 Don Budge (1915; USA) Won fabled Grand Slam in 1938; 1940s Lineal Champion

11 Ellsworth Vines (1911; USA) Lineal champion in 1930s

12 Ken Rosewall (1934; Australia) Tireless baseliner and Lineal champion in 1960s

13 Frank Sedgman (1927; Australia) Exceedingly triumphant champion in all 1950s scenes

14 John McEnroe (1959; USA) Genius who excelled at doubles even more than singles

15 Ivan Lendl (1960; Czechia) 3-Time Year-End #1 with exceptionally dominant reign

16 Pancho Segura (1921; Ecuador) Indefatigable champion in the Barnstorming era

17 Henri Cochet (1901; France) Greatest of the Musketeers

18 Jimmy Connors (1952; USA) Records for career wins, titles, and tempestuousness

19 Lew Hoad (1934; Australia) Unparalleled talent held back by persistent injuries

20 Andre Agassi (1970; USA) Brash talent to wise sage who won career Grand Slam

21 Bobby Riggs (1918; USA) Lineal champion of the WWII years

22 Rene Lacoste (1904; France) Musketeer who propelled France to Davis Cup glory

23 Hans Nusslein (1910; Germany) Engaging professional champion of the 1930s

24 Mats Wilander (1964; Sweden) Won 3 majors and achieved Yea-End #1 in 1988

25 Fred Perry (1909; UK) Won 14 majors across all disciplines in the 1930s

26 John Newcombe (1944; Australia) Early Open-era champion and Year-End #1

27 Norman Brookes (1877; Australia) Pioneering Australian champion

28 Roy Emerson (1936; Australia) Won 28 majors in singles and doubles in 1960s

29 Stefan Edberg (1966; Sweden) Achieved #1 in singles and doubles

30 Boris Becker (1967; Germany) Dynamic player who won Wimbledon at 17 and 18

31 Anthony Wilding (1883; New Zealand) Pre-WWI Wimbledon champion who was KIA in the war

32 Arthur Ashe (1943; USA) Iconic champion who won shocking Wimbledon final

33 Jim Courier (1970; USA) Won four majors, all in emphatic fashion

34 William Renshaw (1861; UK) 7-Time Wimbledon champion in 1880s

35 Tony Trabert (1930; USA) Omnipresent champion of Amateur tennis

36 Ashley Cooper (1936; Australia) Amateur era champion winning 3 Majors in 1958

37 Andy Murray (1987; UK) 2-Time Wimbledon champion amidst Big-3 era

38 Laurence Doherty (1875; UK) Dominant Wimbledon champion at turn-of-the-century

39 Neale Fraser (1933; Australia) Exceptional Amateur era champion across all disciplines

40 Lleyton Hewitt (1981; Australia) 2-Time Year-End #1

41 Jack Crawford (1908; Australia) Only the US Nat’l final stopped the Grand Slam in 1933

42 Guillermo Vilas (1952; Argentina) All-time great clay-court champion

43 Reginald Doherty (1872; UK) Dominant Wimbledon champion at turn-of-the-century

44 Bill Johnston (1894, USA) Overshadowed post-WWI talent

45 Ilie Nastase (1946; Romania) Controversial instigator and prolific champion

46 Gustavo Kuerten (1976; Brazil) 3-Time French Open champion in sterling fashion

47 Manuel Santana (1938; Spain) Clay-court specialist who triumphed at Wimbledon

48 Carlos Alcaraz (2003; Spain) Youngest Year-End #1 to date

49 Jaroslav Drobny (1921; Czechia) Prolific Amateur era multi-surface champion

50 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (1974; Russia) Last champion of both singles/doubles at single Major

51 Thomas Muster (1967; Austria) Dominant stretch on clay in mid-90s (111-5)

52 Gerald Patterson (1895; Australia) 2-Time Wimbledon champion in Post-WWI era

53 Edward Patty (1924; USA) Won French-Wimbledon combo in 1950

54 Jean Borotra (1898; France) French Musketeer; won 18 Majors across disciplines

55 Andy Roddick (1982; USA) Nine consecutive years ranked top 10; Year-End #1

56 Max Decugis (1882; France) Dominant champion at French Nationals in club era

57 Joshua Pim (1869; Ireland) 2-Time Wimbledon champion who elevated the game

58 Marat Safin (1980; Russia) 2-Time Major champion in dominant performances

59 Andres Gimeno (1937; Spain) Consistent Amateur era contender

60 Michael Chang (1972; USA) Youngest ever Major champion, eight years top 10

61 Goran Ivanisevic (1971; Croatia) Enigmatic sufferer of cruel fates; Won Wimbledon

62 Frank Parker (1916; USA) 4-Time Major champion across WWII years

63 Patrick Rafter (1972; Australia) 2-Time US Open champion and Year-End #1

64 Vic Seixas (1923; USA) Won 15 Majors across disciplines in the 1950s

65 Richard Sears (1861; USA) Won inaugural 7 US Nationals

66 Stan Smith (1946; USA) Perennial early Open era contender

67 Daniil Medvedev (1996; Russia) Former #1 and US Open champion

68 William Larned (1872; USA) 7-Time US Nationals champion

69 Manuel Orantes (1949; Spain) Prolific clay-court specialist

70 Michael Stich (1968; Germany) Brief career punctuated by winning Wimbledon

71 Karel Kozeluh (1895; Czechia) Pioneer of the professional tours

72 Dominic Thiem (1993; Austria) Former US Open champion

73 Fred Stolle (1938; Australia) Won 19 Majors across disciplines in the 1960s

74 Jan Kodes (1946; Czechia) Won consecutive French Open titles

75 Gottfried von Cramm (1909; Germany) 2-Time French National champion

76 John Bromwich (1918; Australia) Won 19 Majors across disciplines in the 1940s

77 Alexander Zverev (1997; Germany) 2-Time ATP Finals champion and Olympic Gold Medalist

78 Alex Olmedo (1936; Peru) Won 2 majors in 1959

79 Marcelo Rios (1975; Chile) Former #1 and won 5 Masters titles

80 Malcolm Whitman (1877; USA) 3-Time US National champion at turn-of-the-century

81 Carlos Moya (1976; Spain) Former #1 and French Open champion

82 Vitas Gerulaitis (1954; USA) Perennial contender, top 10 six consecutive years

83 Sergei Bruguera (1971; Spain) 2-Time consecutive French Open champion

84 David Ferrer (1982; Spain) Consistent baseliner, seven years finished top 10

85 Tom Okker (1944; Netherlands) Perennial contender, top 10 seven consecutive years

86 Juan Martin Del Potro (1988; Argentina) Won epic US Open in 2009

87 Miloslav Mecir (1964; Czechia) Olympic Gold Medalist in 1988

88 Adrian Quist (1913; Australia) Won 17 majors in single/doubles across the WWII years

89 Juan Carlos Ferrero (1980; Spain) Former #1 and French Open champion

90 Nicola Pietrangeli (1933; Italy) Won consecutive French National titles

91 Yannick Noah (1960; France) Won spirited French Open in 1983 and 6 years top 10

92 Vincent Richards (1903; USA) Early Professional era champion

93 Alex Corretja (1974; Spain) Pugnacious baseliner who won ATP Finals (1998)

94 Marin Cilic (1988; Croatia) Former US Open champion (2014)

95 Robert Wrenn (1873; USA) 4-Time US National champion at turn-of-the-century

96 David Nalbandian (1982; Argentina) Perennial contender and ATP Finals champion (2005)

97 Thomas Enqvist (1974; Sweden) Assisted in Sweden winning 2 Davis Cup titles

98 Tony Roche (1945; Australia) Won 16 majors across all disciplines in the 1960s

99 Ted Schroeder (1921; USA) Won Wimbledon in post-WWII era

100 Oliver Campbell (1871; USA) 3-Time US National champion
Interesting perspective..I of course have no clue about most of your top 10. Did I miss Stan the man here!? Who bested your #1 a few times?
 

pirhaksar

Professional
bigbadboaz,

Appreciate the inquiries. The Lineal Champion concept does require some tweaking from how it works in boxing. For me this takes effect by detailing dominance first by year, then by 5-year period, and then by 10 year period. I do this in a rolling format, so as not to dictate preference to any nominal time frame (i.e., the decade of the 90s etc.). Thus that looks as follows for the big-3 era:

YE #1 -Player of the Year

2000 - Kuerten
2001 - Hewitt
2002 - Hewitt
2003 - Roddick
2004 - Federer
2005 - Federer
2006 - Federer
2007 - Federer
2008 - Nadal
2009 - Federer
2010 - Nadal
2011 - Djokovic
2012 - Djokovic
2013 - Nadal
2014 - Djokovic
2015 - Djokovic
2016 - Djokovic
2017 - Federer
2018 - Djokovic
2019 - Nadal
2020 - Djokovic
2021 - Djokovic
2022 - Alcaraz
2023 - Djokovic


#1 Player over 5 year spread

2000-2004 - Federer
2001-2005 - Federer
2002-2006 - Federer
2003-2007 - Federer
2004-2008 - Federer
2005-2009 - Federer
2006-2010 - Federer
2007-2011 - Nadal
2008-2012 - Nadal
2009-2013 - Nadal
2010-2014 - Djokovic
2011-2015 - Djokovic
2012-2016 - Djokovic
2013-2017 - Djokovic
2014-2018 - Djokovic
2015-2019 - Djokovic
2016-2020 - Djokovic
2017-2021 - Djokovic
2018-2022 - Djokovic
2019-2023 - Djokovic


#1 Player over 10 year Spread

2000-2009 - Federer
2001-2010 - Federer
2002-2011 - Federer
2003-2012 - Federer
2004-2013 - Federer
2005-2014 - Federer
2006-2015 - Federer
2007-2016 - Nadal
2008-2017 - Nadal
2009-2018 - Djokovic
2010-2019 - Djokovic
2011-2020 - Djokovic
2012-2021 - Djokovic
2013-2022 - Djokovic
2014-2023 - Djokovic


So, these charts provide a bit of an overview of how I see the dominance variable playing out across their careers to this point. You are correct, Nadal certainly is the man from 2008-2010. Ultimately it is just too short of a period for me to define it as his era, and thus he as a lineal champion. Lleyton Hewitt is in a similar circumstance in 2001-2002, and someone like Stefan Edberg in 1990-1992. The reason I look to the five and ten year time frames is that it helps to broaden out the effect of an isolated spectacular year - though not to take anything away from that particular accomplishment. Mats Wilander did have a particularly extraordinary 1988, and some other very fine seasons aside, such as 1983, 1985. However he at no point is the best player across a single five or ten year span - which naturally effects the extent to which he could ever be held to be the Lineal Champion (by my calculation) even as he certainly did become the ATP #1, and even by my count is the best player in the world in 1988. In rough terms I generally am looking for something like a count of 5 under the 5-year spread; and something like a count 3 within the 10-years spread. Nadal is at 3 and 2. Federer is at 7 and 7 and Djokovic is at 10 and 6. Hope that clarifies. I also have a more detailed post coming on Sampras that in some ways will defend my placement of him as well.
This is a brilliant write up. Unfortunately I don’t have the knowledge going back pre Sampras to truly appreciate the analysis but reading and processing it makes a lot of sense. My guy is Pete and I love he is high up. I agree with Djokovic at 1 and certainly agree Fed is the MJ of Tennis a colossal impact personality on and off the court. Also agree with the relative ranking of the Big 3 although I am not sure of the other greats in between them.
On Sampras: is not winning one of the 4 majors a glaring hole in his resume, like he effectively couldn’t compete on clay, shouldn’t that put him below Nadal?
 

SamSpade

New User
Sampras) I am quite high on the Sampras case - including even against Nadal. The reasons for this are not entirely tied to the lineal champion argument. Sampras to me in many respects is 'the' modern tennis champion. I say that on the basis that all the greats who have followed are essentially playing the game on the Sampras model. They have played with a disproportionate focus on 1) grand slam titles and 2) the #1 ranking. These were priorities that Sampras first articulated. Not prize money, not Davis Cup, not total titles or winning percentage. Sampras judged for himself his success based primarily on grand slam titles and the #1 ranking, and to a lesser extent perhaps head-to-head records against primary rivals. Federer dutifully (being in some sense a Sampras-acolyte) followed this path. Thereafter Djokovic did likewise. So the Sampras imprint remains the most considerable to the modern game. Certainly Federer and Djokovic can staistically be argued to have bettered these achievements 0 and I believe both have some so with more dominance, hence their higher ranking. However, I give Sampras additional credit for the following - I believe Sampras likely won, and dominated, utilizing the most difficult style. That is to say, his essentially small-percentage game (hitting very exact powerful serves; histting very precise, margin volleys; baiting players into his bullet-strike running forehands) - all weapons that Sampras utilized as the ediface of his dominant reign at #1. Playing this style of play and dominating with it is considerably more difficult to maintain, day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out, as opposed to someone such as Nadal playing a much lower risk style of play. After Sampras retired, and as Nadal began to enter the game, several well known alterations began to occur with the courts, the balls, etc. - ultimately creating a more homogenous game (which Nadal, along with Federer and Djokovic have all benefited from). These alterations even drove Federer to have to move away from the Sampras-style of play in order to contend with the slower, more-homogenized conditions. So essentially Sampras earns 'style-points' from me (for lack of a better word) for winning, and indeed dominating 1993-1997, while playing the smallest percentage style game, in the era of most dichotomized court surfaces. In contrast Nadal played largest percentage style game in an era of surface homogeny - and for all that didn't dominate to the extent Sampras did.
 

SamSpade

New User
This is a brilliant write up. Unfortunately I don’t have the knowledge going back pre Sampras to truly appreciate the analysis but reading and processing it makes a lot of sense. My guy is Pete and I love he is high up. I agree with Djokovic at 1 and certainly agree Fed is the MJ of Tennis a colossal impact personality on and off the court. Also agree with the relative ranking of the Big 3 although I am not sure of the other greats in between them.
On Sampras: is not winning one of the 4 majors a glaring hole in his resume, like he effectively couldn’t compete on clay, shouldn’t that put him below Nadal?
Thank you, I appreciate your comments and for checking out the list and breakdown. I too am a Sampras-fan. As relates to Sampras and his lack of success on clay - no question that is true. Nadal does have some argument to surface variability. However, in Sampras' era indoor carpet was a quite signigicant part of the tour. By Nadal's era it had been eliminated. Sampras would be, I believe objectively cited as a top 5 grass court player of the O.E. (I would have him #1); a top 5 carpet player of the O.E. (I have him #3); and a top five outdoor hard court player of the O.E. (I have him #3); and of course he isn't high on clay. Conversely, I would have Nadal #1 on clay - he might be top ten on grass - he would probably be around #8 or so on hard courts - and while he never had the option to play considerably on carpet his indoor-hard court results don't suggest he would rate highly in that category. So, across surfaces I would have it something like: Sampras #1; #3; #3; and #40 or so versus Nadal #1; #8; #12 and #NA (but realistically #25 or so probably). So 3 top 5's versus 1; 3 top 10's versus 2. It obviously can be argued both ways - I have them fairly close together on my top 100. They also to me constitute the ultimate extremes of the game - Nadal being the preeminent defensive player ever, and Sampras the preeminent offensive player. So I have often thought their match ups, probably mostly on hard courts like at Cincinnati or Miami or Shanghai would have been amazing to watch. I've also always been curious about the slight disregard they seem to hold one another - which I say is slight, both are never less than gentlemen - but I think they don't quite understand one another from a stylistic sense. Nadal has at times referenced Sampras' style and era as 'boring', while Sampras has appeared on occasion as unfazed by the threat Nadal might have posed to him hypothetically - especially as compared to Federer.
 

Debraj

New User
McEnroe>Lendl>connors?in this ranking, do you value doubles result as well?also do you value peak more than consistency?also you wrote Sampras won slams with highest difficulty,do you have any sort of your personal rating?(sorry,this is not to undermine your rankings and please pardon me for any grammatical mistake)
 

SamSpade

New User
McEnroe>Lendl>connors?in this ranking, do you value doubles result as well?also do you value peak more than consistency?also you wrote Sampras won slams with highest difficulty,do you have any sort of your personal rating?(sorry,this is not to undermine your rankings and please pardon me for any grammatical mistake)
Just a quick clarification - I don't mean to say that the slams won by Sampras were of the highest degree of difficulty. I mean to say that Sampras won by playing a style (dependent upon his serve, and precision volleys on very fast grass or carpet courts often times) that is the most 'difficult' in which to dominate with. The inherent low-percentages of that style play - may work wonderfully one day, but be absent the next. That then makes it hard to marshal through a tournament without ever having a dip in form, let alone an entire season, let alone an entire year, let alone multiple years in a row.

As to the McEnroe-Lendl-Connors piece - I actually many times alter their order. The thing they always have in common is that I rank all three ahead of Agassi - and this is primarily because I most value dominance - of which each of them have three years I assign the #1 ranking to (McEnroe- 81,83,84; Lendl- 85,86,87; and Connors- 74,76,82) whereas Agassi only 1 (99). Yes I do include doubles in this list - but it isn't 50% to singles and 50% to doubles. The percentage of inclusion might be something like 8-9% of my overall calculation, so it isn't nothing. In general it isn't enough to take McEnroe above Sampras for instance (some one with relatively no doubles success). But where McEnroe, Lendl and Connors are concerned - where isolated to singles the careers are really quite even, I do take doubles, along with Davis Cup success, as a bit of a separator. Many times I do rank Lendl over McEnroe, but just as often I take McEnroe's overall 'peak' and prime era (81-85) and decide to favor toward it. Close call though.
 

SamSpade

New User
What is your source for the annual No. 1 players?
Good afternoon,
My sources are a range that ultimately factor my own assessment into the consideration. For the 1973 years to present I typically align with the ATP, or at times the ITF. But on some occasions I may deviate from both. In the pre-1973 years I rely on several books and internet sites with results. Obviously the further back in time one goes the less material there is to review. In general since 1973 my YE #1 ranking only differs from the ATP in the following occasions - I believe most of which are contested in one sense of another aside from perhaps 1998.


1975 - Ashe
1977 - Vilas
1978 - Borg
1982 - Connors
1989 - Becker
1998 - Rafter
2016 - Djokovic
2017 - Federer
2023 - Djokovic (and for me I can already assert Djokovic as #1 for me regardless of how the final tournaments finish out.


I can post the tallies I make for the years prior to 1973 as well, should you like.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
McEnroe>Lendl>connors?in this ranking, do you value doubles result as well?also do you value peak more than consistency?also you wrote Sampras won slams with highest difficulty,do you have any sort of your personal rating?(sorry,this is not to undermine your rankings and please pardon me for any grammatical mistake)

I personally think there are valid cases to rank McEnroe over Connors or Lendl or both, even without putting a heavy (or any) focus on doubles.

Regarding Mac vs. Lendl, if we were to rewind back 30 years ago to 1993, when McEnroe had given up tournament tennis (though he made a return in Rotterdam in 1994), and Lendl was a year away from retirement, a lot more people would have ranked Mac ahead due to their respective Wimbledon records, Mac’s peak level of play and style, Mac’s Davis Cup record etc. As time has moved on, the tide has turned since then with more and more people ranking Lendl as greater, due to an increased emphasis on slam counting, pure numbers and stats etc. In additional to that though, several impressive Lendl feats became more well known when more and more people had internet access.

And I while there are clearly strong arguments to rank Connors over Mac, I also think there are also pretty strong arguments rank to Mac ahead. 8 majors vs. 7 in singles is not really a big deal IMO, as they both won 7 Wimbledon / US Open titles with the difference essentially Connors’ pretty lightweight 1974 Australian Open title. Both players were dominant at the US Open, but Mac unlike Connors was also dominant at Wimbledon and so therefore at the biggest tournament and at both of the 2 most important majors at the time (and certainly to both players). Indoor tennis was hugely important during the 70s and 80s, and while Connors’ record there was outstanding, I’d rank Mac as the best player I’ve properly seen under a roof (with 3-5 title wins at the Masters, WCT Finals, Philadelphia, Wembley, Stockholm, Antwerp and Sydney). Davis Cup tennis was also hugely important then, with Davis Cup finals often just as big as major finals; Mac is a Davis Cup legend while Connors is the only one of the 13 greatest players to spend all of their careers or at least the majority of their best years in the open era (so including Newcombe), not to properly win the competition. Many people would rank Mac’s 1984 ahead of any individual season that Connors ever had including his 1974 one etc.
 

buscemi

Legend
A bit surprising to me to see Stan Smith so low, below one Major winners like Ivanisevic, Gimeno, Rafter, Chang, Roddick, and Muster and some two Major winners like Safin and Kafelnikov.

-Obviously, Smith has 2 Majors vs. the one Major winners.​
-Smith won both WTF and the WCT Finals while none of the above players won non-Majors of the same caliber.​
-Smith is generally recognized as year-end #1 for 1971, a feat only accomplished by Roddick (2003) on the above list.​
-Smith helped the U.S. win 7 Davis Cup titles, which was a huge deal in his day.​
-Smith has more titles than any of the players on the list above.​
-Smith had more surface versatility than the players on the list above, even winning the Swedish Open on clay, beating Borg/Orantes in the SF/F.​
-You mentioned doubles for players like Kafelnikov (noted above), and Smith was easily better at doubles than anyone above, winning 5 Majors and the WCT Finals.​

Curious why you have him so low.
 

SamSpade

New User
A bit surprising to me to see Stan Smith so low, below one Major winners like Ivanisevic, Gimeno, Rafter, Chang, Roddick, and Muster and some two Major winners like Safin and Kafelnikov.

-Obviously, Smith has 2 Majors vs. the one Major winners.​
-Smith won both WTF and the WCT Finals while none of the above players won non-Majors of the same caliber.​
-Smith is generally recognized as year-end #1 for 1971, a feat only accomplished by Roddick (2003) on the above list.​
-Smith helped the U.S. win 7 Davis Cup titles, which was a huge deal in his day.​
-Smith has more titles than any of the players on the list above.​
-Smith had more surface versatility than the players on the list above, even winning the Swedish Open on clay, beating Borg/Orantes in the SF/F.​
-You mentioned doubles for players like Kafelnikov (noted above), and Smith was easily better at doubles than anyone above, winning 5 Majors and the WCT Finals.​

Curious why you have him so low.
buscemi,
A lot of good points. I think I don't really have a good justification for a lot of that. Smith did have considerable Davis Cup success, which I think I overlooked. I did look back at his years in the top 10 - and it was only looking lik 5, which was a little less than the likes of Chang and Roddick - but more than Rafter or Muster. I do consider him #1 for 1972 actually, and close behind Newcombe in 1971. His titles are a bit difficult to assess as they come in that 1968-1972 window where the Super Series/Grand Prix wasn't yet setup, nevertheless he won a lot of them. And yes, the five majors in doubles is something more notable than the likes of Connors, Wilander, Edberg etc.

The only point I'll otherwise offer up is that Gimeno is even more overlooked for his really-stellar professional career in the 1960s, that is chiefly what propels him so high, and would remain so above Smith - but your points are well-taken with regards to everyone else, and I believe too that I have Smith lower than he should be. Much appreciated.
 

SamSpade

New User
I personally think there are valid cases to rank McEnroe over Connors or Lendl or both, even without putting a heavy (or any) focus on doubles.

Regarding Mac vs. Lendl, if we were to rewind back 30 years ago to 1993, when McEnroe had given up tournament tennis (though he made a return in Rotterdam in 1994), and Lendl was a year away from retirement, a lot more people would have ranked Mac ahead due to their respective Wimbledon records, Mac’s peak level of play and style, Mac’s Davis Cup record etc. As time has moved on, the tide has turned since then with more and more people ranking Lendl as greater, due to an increased emphasis on slam counting, pure numbers and stats etc. In additional to that though, several impressive Lendl feats became more well known when more and more people had internet access.

And I while there are clearly strong arguments to rank Connors over Mac, I also think there are also pretty strong arguments rank to Mac ahead. 8 majors vs. 7 in singles is not really a big deal IMO, as they both won 7 Wimbledon / US Open titles with the difference essentially Connors’ pretty lightweight 1974 Australian Open title. Both players were dominant at the US Open, but Mac unlike Connors was also dominant at Wimbledon and so therefore at the biggest tournament and at both of the 2 most important majors at the time (and certainly to both players). Indoor tennis was hugely important during the 70s and 80s, and while Connors’ record there was outstanding, I’d rank Mac as the best player I’ve properly seen under a roof (with 3-5 title wins at the Masters, WCT Finals, Philadelphia, Wembley, Stockholm, Antwerp and Sydney). Davis Cup tennis was also hugely important then, with Davis Cup finals often just as big as major finals; Mac is a Davis Cup legend while Connors is the only one of the 13 greatest players to spend all of their careers or at least the majority of their best years in the open era (so including Newcombe), not to properly win the competition. Many people would rank Mac’s 1984 ahead of any individual season that Connors ever had including his 1974 one etc.
Gizo,
We are very much on the same page with most all of these thoughts. And I agree, even doubles aside McEnroe could be ranked ahead. I've even seen people make arguments for McEnroe over Borg owing to the 3 wins over Borg in major finals, the strength of the 1984 season, Davis Cup etc - on top of doubles. I don't go that far though. I think you are correct that even through Lendl's prime reign, McEnroe would probably be held as 'greater'. I think to an extent there is a sense that Lendl only ushered in his era when McEnroe and Connors kind of started to drop off. Now, personally I don't think that narrative holds much water - as people forget that Lendl really had McEnroe's number in 1981-1982, right in the midst of McEnroe's own dominant prime. I think too that the way you cast how the opinion on Lendl began to shift when people started to take stock of the 19 GS finals, 8 straight US Open finals, the 44 match winning streak back in 1981-82, maybe most especially the 5 years with a 90% winning percentage. Lendl also seemed to have perhaps the toughest run of opponents - McEnroe, Connors, Borg, then Wilander, Becker, Edberg, ultimately Agassi, Stich and Sampras too.

Across surfaces I think I would have it:

McEnroe - grass (#5); carpet (#1); hard (#9); clay (30s)

Connors - grass (#9); carpet (#7); hard (#8); clay (#17)

Lendl - grass (40s); carpet (#4); hard (#5); clay (#3)
 

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
Points re: Sampras:

When you began to describe how later players followed his "template", I expected you to go into the actual style of play vs. his framing of career goals. I think more fans would look to playstyles as evidence of influence; after all, that's the actual action on the court, and career expectations/evaluation are influenced just as much by the media/peanut gallery as by the players themselves. When we do look at their actual games, yes Fed came out of the gate looking very much like Sampras, but Djoker has always been anything but. And the changing court conditions we all recognize and you cite led the game as a whole, including Fed, to move AWAY from the Sampras-type template.

And about "level of risk": I'm not sure many would agree that when you have perhaps the ultimate weapon in the history of the game - the legendary serve that could wipe out moments of pressure with a singular stroke - that basing your game around it is anything risky. Sampras himself described how he felt he only needed to redline one opposing game to get the break, then basically cruise through each set on serve because he was always confident in his ability to hold. That actually sounds like the ultimate percentage play, doesn't it?
 

SamSpade

New User
Points re: Sampras:

When you began to describe how later players followed his "template", I expected you to go into the actual style of play vs. his framing of career goals. I think more fans would look to playstyles as evidence of influence; after all, that's the actual action on the court, and career expectations/evaluation are influenced just as much by the media/peanut gallery as by the players themselves. When we do look at their actual games, yes Fed came out of the gate looking very much like Sampras, but Djoker has always been anything but. And the changing court conditions we all recognize and you cite led the game as a whole, including Fed, to move AWAY from the Sampras-type template.

And about "level of risk": I'm not sure many would agree that when you have perhaps the ultimate weapon in the history of the game - the legendary serve that could wipe out moments of pressure with a singular stroke - that basing your game around it is anything risky. Sampras himself described how he felt he only needed to redline one opposing game to get the break, then basically cruise through each set on serve because he was always confident in his ability to hold. That actually sounds like the ultimate percentage play, doesn't it?
bigbadboaz,
-Yes, indeed I was just tossing in how I feel Sampras had kind of defined the template of the prioritization of the modern game as an aside of sorts. You would be correct that the mere fact that he perhaps did redefine the focus of players in terms of their goals wouldn't greatly effect his placement on a list such as this. In terms of his game style, I also agree with you. Sampras has not had any great effect on the successive generations of players game-styles - at least not the most successful players. If anything Sampras represented the last of a tradition, dating back to perhaps Kramer.

The 'level of risk' element that I was referring to, I will try to layout in a somewhat different fashion. I would also say that a comment made by a poster on here, Travlerajm, in part effected my thinking in this area. Sampras in my estimation, is perhaps the ultimate example of a player playing on 'his terms' (at least among the first order of great champions). This runs in line with my contention that he is the preeminent offensive player. From this I make the deduction, and as you cited, and as Sampras himself knows, that when on, his service game should always put him 'in' a match, and the vast majority of the time provided him sufficient opportunity to win said matches - which he proceeded to do. What his game provided for him, was the ability to impose his will and direct that very targeted toward a given result. Ergo, I am going to serve brilliantly, volley emphatically, and hit aggressive forehands when the opportunity presents itself - and that is essentially a Plan A. Sampras, being Sampras, seldom needed a Plan B. He could impose his will on that strategy, AND execute it the vast majority of the time. What he didn't so much have...was a plan B. Seldom necessary to call upon as he was the best of his time and so on and so forth. But essentially, if that Plan A strategy wasn't there, or went amiss...he could be up a creek without a paddle. In the debate that I frequently have with my brother, and others, as relates to the matchup of Federer and Sampras (in their primes) I do more often take Sampras as the slightly more likely winner - and I do so with the expectation that Sampras would drive the issue of the match from an offensive standpoint (like in boxing, he would be the one pressing the action). So long as he is 'on', probably a good course of action. But those that favor Federer in that matchup can retort, that if Sampras isn't on, and Federer, using his varied, flexible game, begins to test Sampras out in other facets of the game, what then is the Sampras counter? Not to lean to heavily into my boxing metaphors but essentially, Sampras could win an early round KO, or else Federer could extend the fight into later rounds, and potentially expose Sampras relative (to Federer) lack of versatility.

One thing I say about Nadal, which is I think a great feather in his cap - is that while I think Federer, Djokovic and Sampras all have higher ceilings than he does - he (Nadal) does have the highest 'floor'. Meaning his 'off-days' are effectively better than the others 'off-days'. I believe this is a facet largely unacknowledged about Nadal's game - it was difficult to ever put him totally out in a given match. His fighting spirit is part of that too.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Impressive effort! May as well get this out of the way(since I'm sure it's coming) - reasons for Sampras over Laver? Is it mainly due to possibly longer time as lineal champion etc?

Also, I see a number of non slam winners on the list over several one slam winners that didn't make the list. I guess I can understand why Zverev, Mecir, Gerulaitis(don't really count his AO as a major), Nalbandian, Corretja, Rios and Okker can be on the list over some of the one slam winners who didn't make the list but I don't see how Enqvist can be on the list over Korda, Krajicek, Panatta, Gomez. Of course this is nitpicking since you only have him at #97. But I feel Davis Cup can be a bit unfair criteria for lifting him over say Gomez. Sweden was a stacked team the years he won it(he didn't even play in the 97 or 98 finals) while Ecuador had virtually no other players of note. And it's not like Enqvist basically carried the team either of those years (like say Ljubicic in 2005). he didn't play doubles either of those years. he went 3-2 in live singles in 97. and he only played 1 DC singles match in '98! Doesn't sound like he was really much of a factor in Sweden winning the DC that year. Enqvist won 19 titles, had four year end top 10 finishes. Gomez won 21 titles and had three year end top 10's(but has more top 20 finishes - 8 to 4). Gomez also played way more DC than Enqvist, had a 31-12 record.

Also, it's weird to see Enqvist(and Corretja - but not gonna do a deep dive on him) over Krajicek since they were contemporaries and of course Krajicek beat prime Sampras to win Wimbledon. Won almost as many titles as Enqvist (17), almost as many masters(2) and did better in majors(also made SF at RG and AO), while Enqvist only made it past the QFs once at a major. Heck Enqvist only has 3 total QF's, while Krajcek has 9. And he played less majors than Enqvist(40 to 46). He also won titles on all surfaces(Enqvist never won on grass). Krajicek has same amount of year end top 10, but has more top 20(8 to 4)

I also gather you rate the Olympics highly(with Zverev and Mecir so high).
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

New User
Impressive effort! May as well get this out of the way(since I'm sure it's coming) - reasons for Sampras over Laver? Is it mainly due to possibly longer time as lineal champion etc?

Also, I see a number of non slam winners on the list over several one slam winners that didn't make the list. I guess I can understand why Zverev, Mecir, Gerulaitis(don't really count his AO as a major), Nalbandian, Corretja, Rios and Okker can be on the list over some of the one slam winners who didn't make the list but I don't see how Enqvist can be on the list over Korda, Krajicek, Panatta, Gomez. Of course this is nitpicking since you only have him at #97. But I feel Davis Cup can be a bit unfair criteria for lifting him over say Gomez. Sweden was a stacked team the years he won it(he didn't even play in the 97 or 98 finals) while Ecuador had virtually no other players of note. And it's not like Enqvist basically carried the team either of those years (like say Ljubicic in 2005). he didn't play doubles either of those years. he went 3-2 in live singles in 97. and he only played 1 DC singles match in '98! Doesn't sound like he was really much of a factor in Sweden winning the DC that year. Enqvist won 19 titles, had four year end top 10 finishes. Gomez won 21 titles and had three year end top 10's(but has more top 20 finishes - 8 to 4). Gomez also played way more DC than Enqvist, had a 31-12 record.

Also, it's weird to see Enqvist(and Corretja - but not gonna do a deep dive on him) over Krajicek since they were contemporaries and of course Krajicek beat prime Sampras to win Wimbledon. Won almost as many titles as Enqvist (17), almost as many masters(2) and did better in majors(also made SF at RG and AO), while Enqvist only made it past the QFs once at a major. Heck Enqvist only has 3 total QF's, while Krajcek has 9. And he played less majors than Enqvist(40 to 46). He also won titles on all surfaces(Enqvist never won on grass). Krajicek has same amount of year end top 10, but has more top 20(8 to 4)

I also gather you rate the Olympics highly(with Zverev and Mecir so high).
Moose Malloy,
Thank you for the comments! I enjoy not only making and comprising lists such as this - but engaging and at times debating them as well. Of course, just as often one gains new insights into aspects of different players or eras in the course of these conversations. Earlier someone pointed out to me some very good points that likely indicate I have shortchanged Stan Smith with respect to where he stands on this list - and I think he is right!

Perceptively you have found a few other potential weak-links. In general I think lists likely take some degree of personal bias into account, probably unavoidable. I'm sure that is to some extent reflected especially further down the list. I somewhat intentionally wanted to deviate from a pure breakdown of major winners in descending order. Thus, if I could balance out the perspective on a players career by looking beyond the numbers of majors won - whether that lay in career longevity, or davis cup, doubles play, strength of singular seasons, etc. - then I would attempt to do so. Honestly, in a list 100 names long, toward the end the separations prove somewhat arbitrary. I cannot find any specific reason for not including Krajicek or Gomez - both were under consideration, and both have resumes that likely could see them make a list such as this, perhaps as high as the upper 80s in my book. You have done a great job in mentioning many details of both of their careers. I actually have a separate list - the top 100 Matches of the First 50 Years of the Open Era (1968-2018) that I worked on (off-an-on) for a decade it seemed - and I can well recall several amazing matches that featured both of these players. Enqvist and Corretja being on the list perhaps also reflects a bias I have toward the 90s era - though this would apply to an extent to Gomez and Krajicek as well. Ultimately I like when lists create some interesting points of discussion - and I really appreciate someone going that deep into it to decipher the reasonings behind given players.

You may have read some of my additional posts in which I attempt to 'get ahead' of some possible commentary about some of my top 10 or so players - and I have one written out for Laver as well that I will post soon, perhaps it will provide some context into a ranking I'm sure many find to be too low.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Would be interested seeing your top 100 matches list!

Also, since you waded into the perennial Wilander, Edberg, Becker debate - Gizo recently posted comments from Wilander about his 83 AO win and DC. Becker > Wilander in my book :)

From Wilander's perspective, Sweden were also playing in the Davis Cup final in the same Kooyong venue just after Christmas. It was clearly a huge goal for him to win that competition for the first time in his career (though he'd have to wait another year until 1984 to do that), with it still clearly a bigger deal than the Australian Open in its own right. Some quotes from Wilander in the same article about the Davis Cup vs. Australian Open:

If I had been given the choice between winning the Davis Cup or the Australian Open and the jackpot I would have chosen the Davis Cup for sure. Without the slightest hesitation. For the prestige first of all, which was so much better than that of the Australian Open.

Losing that (Davis Cup) final was a disaster. I was devastated. It completely eclipsed my joy at having won the Australian Open. “
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Good afternoon,
My sources are a range that ultimately factor my own assessment into the consideration. For the 1973 years to present I typically align with the ATP, or at times the ITF. But on some occasions I may deviate from both. In the pre-1973 years I rely on several books and internet sites with results. Obviously the further back in time one goes the less material there is to review. In general since 1973 my YE #1 ranking only differs from the ATP in the following occasions - I believe most of which are contested in one sense of another aside from perhaps 1998.


1975 - Ashe
1977 - Vilas
1978 - Borg
1982 - Connors
1989 - Becker
1998 - Rafter
2016 - Djokovic
2017 - Federer
2023 - Djokovic (and for me I can already assert Djokovic as #1 for me regardless of how the final tournaments finish out.


I can post the tallies I make for the years prior to 1973 as well, should you like.
Yes, for the pre-1973 you get into subjective rankings with only a few points rankings. So you have to pick your own ranking list among the choices.
How did you do that?
 

SamSpade

New User
Yes, for the pre-1973 you get into subjective rankings with only a few points rankings. So you have to pick your own ranking list among the choices.
How did you do that?
Dan,
Well it is mostly drawn from my own judgment - which is itself derived from the results of the 4 majors, or three professional slams - and perhaps a few other events that are well documented, such as Davis Cup. Corroborating I use sources like Tingay and Collins. As for the #1 by year my list from post-WWI is as follows:


1919 Johnston
1920 Tilden
1921 Tilden (2)
1922 Tilden (3)
1923 Tilden (4)
1924 Tilden (5)
1925 Tilden (6)
1926 Lacoste
1927 Lacoste (2)
1928 Cochet
1929 Cochet (2)
1930 Cochet (3)
1931 Tilden (7)
1932 Vines
1933 Crawford
1934 Vines (2)
1935 Vines (3)
1936 Vines (4)
1937 Vines (5)
1938 Vines (6)
1939 Budge
1940 Budge (2)
1941 Perry
1942 Budge (3)
1943 Budge (4)
1944 Budge (5)
1945 Riggs
1946 Riggs (2)
1947 Kramer
1948 Kramer (2)
1949 Kramer (3)
1950 Kramer (4)
1951 Kramer (5)
1952 Kramer (6)
1953 Sedgman
1954 Gonzales
1955 Gonzales (2)
1956 Gonzales (3)
1957 Gonzales (4)
1958 Gonzales (5)
1959 Gonzales (6)
1960 Gonzales (7)
1961 Rosewall
1962 Rosewall (2)
1963 Rosewall (3)
1964 Rosewall (4)
1965 Laver
1966 Laver (2)
1967 Laver (3)
1968 Laver (4)
1969 Laver (5)
1970 Laver (6)
1971 Newcombe
1972 Smith
1973 Nastase
1974 Connors
1975 Ashe
1976 Connors (2)
1977 Vilas
1978 Borg
1979 Borg (2)
1980 Borg (3)
1981 McEnroe
1982 Connors (3)
1983 McEnroe (2)
1984 McEnroe (3)
1985 Lendl
1986 Lendl (2)
1987 Lendl (3)
1988 Wilander
1989 Becker
1990 Edberg
1991 Edberg (2)
1992 Courier
1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras (2)
1995 Sampras (3)
1996 Sampras (4)
1997 Sampras (5)
1998 Rafter
1999 Agassi
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt (2)
2003 Roddick
2004 Federer
2005 Federer (2)
2006 Federer (3)
2007 Federer (4)
2008 Nadal
2009 Federer (5)
2010 Nadal (2)
2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic (2)
2013 Nadal (3)
2014 Djokovic (3)
2015 Djokovic (4)
2016 Djokovic (5)
2017 Federer (6)
2018 Djokovic (6)
2019 Nadal (4)
2020 Djokovic (7)
2021 Djokovic (8)
2022 Alcaraz
2023 Djokovic (9)




Djokovic 11 12 14 15 16 18 20 21 23

Gonzales 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Tilden 20 21 22 23 24 25 31

Federer 04 05 06 07 09 17
Kramer 47 48 49 50 51 52
Laver 65 66 67 68 69 70
Vines 32 34 35 36 37 38

Budge 39 40 42 43 44
Sampras 93 94 95 96 97

Nadal 08 10 13 19
Rosewall 61 62 63 64

Borg 78 79 80
Cochet 28 29 30
Connors 74 76 82
Lendl 85 86 87
McEnroe 81 83 84
 

Debraj

New User
Just a quick clarification - I don't mean to say that the slams won by Sampras were of the highest degree of difficulty. I mean to say that Sampras won by playing a style (dependent upon his serve, and precision volleys on very fast grass or carpet courts often times) that is the most 'difficult' in which to dominate with. The inherent low-percentages of that style play - may work wonderfully one day, but be absent the next. That then makes it hard to marshal through a tournament without ever having a dip in form, let alone an entire season, let alone an entire year, let alone multiple years in a row.

As to the McEnroe-Lendl-Connors piece - I actually many times alter their order. The thing they always have in common is that I rank all three ahead of Agassi - and this is primarily because I most value dominance - of which each of them have three years I assign the #1 ranking to (McEnroe- 81,83,84; Lendl- 85,86,87; and Connors- 74,76,82) whereas Agassi only 1 (99). Yes I do include doubles in this list - but it isn't 50% to singles and 50% to doubles. The percentage of inclusion might be something like 8-9% of my overall calculation, so it isn't nothing. In general it isn't enough to take McEnroe above Sampras for instance (some one with relatively no doubles success). But where McEnroe, Lendl and Connors are concerned - where isolated to singles the careers are really quite even, I do take doubles, along with Davis Cup success, as a bit of a separator. Many times I do rank Lendl over McEnroe, but just as often I take McEnroe's overall 'peak' and prime era (81-85) and decide to favor toward it. Close call though.
Ok,ok,i don't agree with you,but i can see your point,one more question,why wilander>Edberg>becker in your ranking?i mean,sure, Edberg and wilander both have 1 #ye1 undisputed, whereas Becker was never undisputed #ye1.But becker also won 3 year end championships,also his davis cup record is one of the best in open era,vs top 10 his record is also very good (better than fed,iirc),he also played perhaps the most memorable match of the 1990s with Sampras.Sure ,Wilander won slams in grass,clay,hard,but he was never close to channel slam.No disrespect to him,but as far as i know, australian conditions made the grass court slow, which was more suitable for his game.Anyway ultimately at the end of the day,boris was a “great”player in grass court and a “great”player in carpet court, whereas Edberg was a “great”player in grass and wilander was a “great”player in clay.
 
They also to me constitute the ultimate extremes of the game - Nadal being the preeminent defensive player ever, and Sampras the preeminent offensive player.
One thing I say about Nadal, which is I think a great feather in his cap - is that while I think Federer, Djokovic and Sampras all have higher ceilings than he does - he (Nadal) does have the highest 'floor'. Meaning his 'off-days' are effectively better than the others 'off-days'. I believe this is a facet largely unacknowledged about Nadal's game - it was difficult to ever put him totally out in a given match. His fighting spirit is part of that too.
this sort of thinking is a big part of why i think Nadal and Borg are the greatest baseliners ever and Edberg is the greatest volleyer ever. i think surface breakdowns or technical analysis or achievement counting don't really respect the logic of and fundamental challenges presented by the playstyles in question - in the first, one is a nightmarish, endless source of balls put back in play that would otherwise have been unforced or forced errors; in the second, one is a nightmarish, endless source of balls being put away for winners and induced errors. and the ultimate proof of their unmatched level is that their playstyles truly could be imposed upon any opponent in any condition.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Dan,
Well it is mostly drawn from my own judgment - which is itself derived from the results of the 4 majors, or three professional slams - and perhaps a few other events that are well documented, such as Davis Cup. Corroborating I use sources like Tingay and Collins. As for the #1 by year my list from post-WWI is as follows:


1919 Johnston
1920 Tilden
1921 Tilden (2)
1922 Tilden (3)
1923 Tilden (4)
1924 Tilden (5)
1925 Tilden (6)
1926 Lacoste
1927 Lacoste (2)
1928 Cochet
1929 Cochet (2)
1930 Cochet (3)
1931 Tilden (7)
1932 Vines
1933 Crawford
1934 Vines (2)
1935 Vines (3)
1936 Vines (4)
1937 Vines (5)
1938 Vines (6)
1939 Budge
1940 Budge (2)
1941 Perry
1942 Budge (3)
1943 Budge (4)
1944 Budge (5)
1945 Riggs
1946 Riggs (2)
1947 Kramer
1948 Kramer (2)
1949 Kramer (3)
1950 Kramer (4)
1951 Kramer (5)
1952 Kramer (6)
1953 Sedgman
1954 Gonzales
1955 Gonzales (2)
1956 Gonzales (3)
1957 Gonzales (4)
1958 Gonzales (5)
1959 Gonzales (6)
1960 Gonzales (7)
1961 Rosewall
1962 Rosewall (2)
1963 Rosewall (3)
1964 Rosewall (4)
1965 Laver
1966 Laver (2)
1967 Laver (3)
1968 Laver (4)
1969 Laver (5)
1970 Laver (6)
1971 Newcombe
1972 Smith
1973 Nastase
1974 Connors
1975 Ashe
1976 Connors (2)
1977 Vilas
1978 Borg
1979 Borg (2)
1980 Borg (3)
1981 McEnroe
1982 Connors (3)
1983 McEnroe (2)
1984 McEnroe (3)
1985 Lendl
1986 Lendl (2)
1987 Lendl (3)
1988 Wilander
1989 Becker
1990 Edberg
1991 Edberg (2)
1992 Courier
1993 Sampras
1994 Sampras (2)
1995 Sampras (3)
1996 Sampras (4)
1997 Sampras (5)
1998 Rafter
1999 Agassi
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt (2)
2003 Roddick
2004 Federer
2005 Federer (2)
2006 Federer (3)
2007 Federer (4)
2008 Nadal
2009 Federer (5)
2010 Nadal (2)
2011 Djokovic
2012 Djokovic (2)
2013 Nadal (3)
2014 Djokovic (3)
2015 Djokovic (4)
2016 Djokovic (5)
2017 Federer (6)
2018 Djokovic (6)
2019 Nadal (4)
2020 Djokovic (7)
2021 Djokovic (8)
2022 Alcaraz
2023 Djokovic (9)




Djokovic 11 12 14 15 16 18 20 21 23

Gonzales 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Tilden 20 21 22 23 24 25 31

Federer 04 05 06 07 09 17
Kramer 47 48 49 50 51 52
Laver 65 66 67 68 69 70
Vines 32 34 35 36 37 38

Budge 39 40 42 43 44
Sampras 93 94 95 96 97

Nadal 08 10 13 19
Rosewall 61 62 63 64

Borg 78 79 80
Cochet 28 29 30
Connors 74 76 82
Lendl 85 86 87
McEnroe 81 83 84
I like Fed as number one for 2017 (y)
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Gizo,
We are very much on the same page with most all of these thoughts. And I agree, even doubles aside McEnroe could be ranked ahead. I've even seen people make arguments for McEnroe over Borg owing to the 3 wins over Borg in major finals, the strength of the 1984 season, Davis Cup etc - on top of doubles. I don't go that far though. I think you are correct that even through Lendl's prime reign, McEnroe would probably be held as 'greater'. I think to an extent there is a sense that Lendl only ushered in his era when McEnroe and Connors kind of started to drop off. Now, personally I don't think that narrative holds much water - as people forget that Lendl really had McEnroe's number in 1981-1982, right in the midst of McEnroe's own dominant prime. I think too that the way you cast how the opinion on Lendl began to shift when people started to take stock of the 19 GS finals, 8 straight US Open finals, the 44 match winning streak back in 1981-82, maybe most especially the 5 years with a 90% winning percentage. Lendl also seemed to have perhaps the toughest run of opponents - McEnroe, Connors, Borg, then Wilander, Becker, Edberg, ultimately Agassi, Stich and Sampras too.

Across surfaces I think I would have it:

McEnroe - grass (#5); carpet (#1); hard (#9); clay (30s)

Connors - grass (#9); carpet (#7); hard (#8); clay (#17)

Lendl - grass (40s); carpet (#4); hard (#5); clay (#3)

Very interesting comments, and I completely agree with much of this.

Yes I also would never argue that Mac (or Connors or Lendl for that matter) are greater than Borg.

For perspective, Mac in 1981 becoming the first man since Tilden to win 3 consecutive US National Championship / Open titles was a very big deal and he felt a lot of pressure through that quest (IMO my favourite player Gerulaitis should have beaten him in their semi-final). But Borg becoming the first man since Perry to win 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles (if you don’t count Laver through his 1967 Wimbledon pro title) was even on another level compared to that and was absolutely enormous. Borg’s streak of 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles and simultaneous dominance of RG and Wimbledon while adopting radically different playing styles, and dominant peak run from 1978-1980 are hurdles that are just too big for those other 3 legends to overcome. Plus Borg is one of the greatest Davis Cup players of the professional era in his own right; he IMO definitely had the weakest supporting cast out of any great player during that period, which was the only reason why he didn’t win it more than once. Players’ individual match records in the Davis Cup has always been a much more important factor to me, than how many times they have been part of winning teams.

But I’ve never understand comments I’ve read over the years, that Connors and Lendl are way, way ahead of Mac, and that there can be no serious case to rank Mac ahead of either of them. Clearly I strongly disagree there, and provided numerous big factors in Mac’s favour in my previous post ! Sometimes even people that are old enough to have followed tennis during those years, still fall into the trap of mistakenly judging them through a 90s or 21st century lens, and not based on the conditions and circumstances of when they were actually active / spent the bulk of their careers etc.

Regarding Lendl, among players in the open era, and pre-big 3 (who all won astronomically numbers of mandatory masters series events and had a hugely different set-up), I do think that his body of work outside majors and the Davis Cup (which was essentially as a big as a major for long period), is second to none, and clearly beats that of Connors and Mac (though I it was hugely impressive how he led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup glory in 1980). I’d say that he was basically almost as good as McEnroe indoors (and there is a valid argument for him to be ranked as the greatest indoor player of the Open Era even though I’d personally argue that Mac was), with him racking up a huge number of hugely important title wins under a roof in Europe, the US, Sydney and Tokyo. Plus he also had absolutely stellar records in Northern American hard court, European clay court and US har-tru events, and still won multiple Queen’s titles on grass as well. So during debates between him and either Connors or Mac, I guess it largely comes down to how high much of a ‘weighting’ is given to tournaments outside the majors, how heavy a weighting is placed on Wimbledon and the US Open etc.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
But I’ve never understand comments I’ve read over the years, that Connors and Lendl are way, way ahead of Mac, and that there can be no serious case to rank Mac ahead of either of them.

At risk of being broken record, IT IS DAVIS CUP. McEnroe is one of top half-dozen Cuppers in history easily. To me, that is HUGE and what gives The Brat the barest edge over - or near-exact equality with - the Terminator.
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Regarding Mac vs. Lendl, if we were to rewind back 30 years ago to 1993, when McEnroe had given up tournament tennis (though he made a return in Rotterdam in 1994), and Lendl was a year away from retirement, a lot more people would have ranked Mac ahead due to their respective Wimbledon records, Mac’s peak level of play and style, Mac’s Davis Cup record etc. As time has moved on, the tide has turned since then with more and more people ranking Lendl as greater, due to an increased emphasis on slam counting, pure numbers and stats etc. In additional to that though, several impressive Lendl feats became more well known when more and more people had internet access.
Find it really tough to argue Mac > Lendl. Ivan has one more slam, way more slam finals, more tournament wins, more M1000 equivalents, 100 more weeks at No.1, leads the H2H 21-15, similar record indoors.
You can argue that Mac of course has the way better Wimbledon record which did count for something back then but Lendl was still better on grass than Mac was on clay so surface versatility goes to him. Mac of course dwarfs him in DC performances (not so much for the title difference as such but also regarding their records in singles and doubles) and has the higher peak year.

In the end though if we value what is more important we have:

Slams, total titles, weeks at No.1, H2H vs Peak Level, DC, better Wimbledon record, doubles. I can’t see how the latter can outweigh the former.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
1930 Cochet (3)
1931 Tilden (7)

1930. If you are giving 1977 to Vilas over Borg on Quantity then 1930 to Tilden over Cochet on same basis.

1931 good choice. A weird year - Vinesy, Cochet and Tilden each have some claim.


1934 Vines (2)
1935 Vines (3)
1936 Vines (4)
1937 Vines (5)
1938 Vines (6)


Have to disagree, respectfully. I'll give him a couple. We can discuss.


1952 Kramer (6)

When Jake played in 1952 he got beaten by Gorgo.


1953 Sedgman

I'll be fascinated to hear your argument for this one. There might be an argument for 1952 Sedgman.



1990 Edberg
1991 Edberg (2)

I love Edberg. He is a great, great Champion. But a poor No. 1. I guess 1990 is fine - no worse than Newcombe, Smith or Nastase in early 70s, but '91? Maybe 1991 is one of those years where there should be no No. 1 - I can think of a few. In any event, Becker, Courier and Edberg basically equal.

1998 Rafter

I like this a lot. But, really, if points had been fairly given, Rios would be No. 1. Another year when maybe no one is No. 1.
2017 Federer (6)

Yes.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Now, some of that may be that Kramer caught Gonzales on the latter's way up, and essentially the Gonzales of 1957 might be a greater challenge to the Kramer of 1950. I can't speak too well to that. But statistically, considering the challengers that Kramer took on, and the sheer dominance he exhibited in the hight of his run, I have him rated over Gonzales,
Gonzales was not prime but still already had won two USO and 96-27 is a demolition. Not sure how good that comparison is, but if someone had beaten 2003 Fed (not yet prime for the most part but already quite good) 96-27 that sure as hell would have counted for something.
On top of that, even after that series, Gonzales was “only” 11-5 against Kramer with the latter being past his prime for most of the matches (still winning their match at Wembley 1957 at age 35 and after his comeback). It is tough to assess how pure peak vs peak matches between those two would have resulted, but at the very least we can say that the indication we have does not really point into a direction unfavourable for Kramer.

He also won match series against Sedgman, Segura and Riggs (in his first series as a professional). Not 100% sure whether I would put him as high as No.2, but he should mentioned in the same breath as Pancho, whereas he typically is left out completely in such discussions.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Find it really tough to argue Mac > Lendl. Ivan has one more slam, way more slam finals, more tournament wins, more M1000 equivalents, 100 more weeks at No.1, leads the H2H 21-15, similar record indoors.
You can argue that Mac of course has the way better Wimbledon record which did count for something back then but Lendl was still better on grass than Mac was on clay so surface versatility goes to him. Mac of course dwarfs him in DC performances (not so much for the title difference as such but also regarding their records in singles and doubles) and has the higher peak year.

In the end though if we value what is more important we have:

Slams, total titles, weeks at No.1, H2H vs Peak Level, DC, better Wimbledon record, doubles. I can’t see how the latter can outweigh the former.

When it comes to this comparison, I don’t think 8 > 7 is a particularly big factor here, especially considering that slam counting wasn’t such of a huge deal before Sampras closed in on Emerson’s record that was previously considered to be largely meaningless, and which Borg had no interest in going after.

The fact that the slams were less equal to each other when they were both active, and that there was more of clear hierarchy, is important IMO.

It’s safe to say that both players would have much preferred to have ended up with Mac’s slam collection over Lendl’s, with 7 Wimbledon / US Open titles vs. 3, with Mac still ending up with more than US Open titles than Lendl, and Lendl’s failure to win Wimbledon. The US Open was the tournament that Lendl cared about the most (he said it many times), and he also said that he’d trade in all 3 of his RG titles for a Wimbledon title. Now often you have to treat what players say with a pinch of salt, but clearly players are less likely to want to exaggerate the importance of tournaments that they are unable to win, vs. that of ones that they have a great record at. Wilander also said that he felt that the US Open was still a bigger deal than RG in the 80s, and values his US Open title a lot more than any of his RG titles.

The idea of McEnroe wanting to trade in any of his Wimbledon titles for a RG title, was laughed at by commentators in the 80s as an absurdity, as there was just a clear gulf in importance between the 2 tournaments.

And en-route to his 7 major wins, Mac had 3 wins over Borg, 4 wins over Connors and 3 over Lendl, while Lendl en-route to his 8 major wins, had 4 wins over Mac, 3 over Wilander, 2 over Edberg and 2 over Connors. I’m certainly not going to downgrade Lendl’s post-1985 wins over Mac. But it’s reasonable to say that he didn’t beat a prime Connors there (and Connors played the 1985 US Open semi-final with an ankle injury). And he did get very lucky with Edberg’s stomach injury at the 1990 Australian Open (on the the back of his flawless demolition of Wilander in the semis), with him still serving for a 2 sets to love lead in the final anyway before eventually retiring. So there is an argument that Mac had more stand out wins over legends to win his majors than Lendl did. And while I agree that Lendl clearly had a better record on grass than Mac on clay, Mac was 5 points away from winning RG, while Lendl never won a set in the final of a grass court major.

In terms of the weeks as world no. 1, given that 1) they both had 3 seasons in which they had the best records, Mac in 1981, 1983 and 1984, Lendl in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and 2) things pre 1990 were a mess with certain important tournaments not counting for any points, while not meaningless, I’m not sure how big a deal Lendl’s lead there is. And there’s an argument that 1986 was the ‘least strong’ year (that’s a better way of putting it than ‘weakest’) of a very rich 80s decade, and of course Mac’s 1984 stands out more than any of Lendl’s seasons.

And Mac being one of the greatest Davis Cuppers ever, with the Davis Cup clearly as important as the majors during both of their primes, is a big deal.

So there are clear reasons for Lendl to rank ahead of Mac and I fully understand them (Lendl’s pretty unparalleled and insane body of work away from the majors is one of them), but I’ve never believed it has been a shut case, and that Mac can’t be ranked ahead. IMO it would only be a shut case if they both had their primes in the 90s or later, but of course they didn’t.
 
Last edited:

Gizo

Hall of Fame
In terms of the year by year list, Rafter over Sampras in 1998 is interesting but I’m inclined to agree.

Clearly Sampras deserves the accolade every year from 1993-1997 - if Agassi hadn’t gotten injured during the fall in 1995, he could have finished as the year end no. 1 on the ranking computer. But of course injuries are part and parcel of the sport, and Sampras’s Wimbledon-US Open double would have carried a lot of weight anyway (it would have been very different to say Graf vs. Navratilova in 1987 on the women’s side, when Graf had such a huge lead away from the majors).

But I’ve always struggled to give Sampras the nod as the best in 1998, as I didn’t think that his results or level of play were quite strong enough - IIRC his best tennis of the year came in Vienna, especially in the quarter-finals against Henman, where he got in after Becker donated his wildcard to him.

In terms of Becker vs. Wilander, I also would rank Becker ahead, considering that he has a strong case to be ranked as the single greatest Davis Cupper of the professional era, and Wilander’s failure to reach any semi-finals at Wimbledon (and he only won 1 set during his 3 quarter-finals there). Becker only had 1 ‘significant’ singles defeat in Davis Cup play, against Casal in a decisive 5th rubber in Barcelona in 1987, and that was after he had already won his opening singles match against the top 20 ranked Sanchez, and then had teamed up with Jelen to beat Sanchez / Casal in doubles. And he had a 9-0 record in live singles matches in finals and semi-finals in competition, and a 5-2 record in doubles matches in finals and semi-finals. It was clear to me that Becker’s matches vs. Edberg and Wilander in Davis Cup finals, were just as big as major finals.
 

buscemi

Legend
What's your reasoning on Wilander over Newcombe? Both have 7 Majors, but Newk also has the WCT Finals, a huge number of doubles Majors, amazing Davis Cup success, and much more longevity.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Great list. Especially pleasantly surprised that you gave Kramer his due. The most underrated ATG not only in this forum but also in general.
Yes, Kramer did rather poorly in terms of No. 1 rankings in his time.
Kramer got some No. 1 rankings for 1946, 1947, 1948 and that was it.
Gonzales received nine No. 1 rankings, which is the most of any player.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1930. If you are giving 1977 to Vilas over Borg on Quantity then 1930 to Tilden over Cochet on same basis.

1931 good choice. A weird year - Vinesy, Cochet and Tilden each have some claim.





Have to disagree, respectfully. I'll give him a couple. We can discuss.




When Jake played in 1952 he got beaten by Gorgo.




I'll be fascinated to hear your argument for this one. There might be an argument for 1952 Sedgman.





I love Edberg. He is a great, great Champion. But a poor No. 1. I guess 1990 is fine - no worse than Newcombe, Smith or Nastase in early 70s, but '91? Maybe 1991 is one of those years where there should be no No. 1 - I can think of a few. In any event, Becker, Courier and Edberg basically equal.



I like this a lot. But, really, if points had been fairly given, Rios would be No. 1. Another year when maybe no one is No. 1.


Yes.
Sedgman was ranked No. 1 pro by the only comprehensive ranking for 1953, the Tennis de France ranking. That ranking was well accepted for the year, see for example the comments in World Tennis.
 

SamSpade

New User
Would be interested seeing your top 100 matches list!

Also, since you waded into the perennial Wilander, Edberg, Becker debate - Gizo recently posted comments from Wilander about his 83 AO win and DC. Becker > Wilander in my book :)

From Wilander's perspective, Sweden were also playing in the Davis Cup final in the same Kooyong venue just after Christmas. It was clearly a huge goal for him to win that competition for the first time in his career (though he'd have to wait another year until 1984 to do that), with it still clearly a bigger deal than the Australian Open in its own right. Some quotes from Wilander in the same article about the Davis Cup vs. Australian Open:

If I had been given the choice between winning the Davis Cup or the Australian Open and the jackpot I would have chosen the Davis Cup for sure. Without the slightest hesitation. For the prestige first of all, which was so much better than that of the Australian Open.

Losing that (Davis Cup) final was a disaster. I was devastated. It completely eclipsed my joy at having won the Australian Open. “
Moose Malloy -
I will look at creating a post with the match list.

Interesting notes on Wilander's thoughts in 1983. I love those incidental little details from players careers!

As it relates to the Wilander v Edberg v Becker debate - I suppose I have almost always seen it as Wilander > Edberg = Becker.

I may partly kind of penalize Becker for being clearly the most talented of the three, and the most underperforming. He fairly clearly should have 5 Wimbledon titles or so, around Borg's number, rather than the 3 he does have. No question he was great on grass, and likewise on carpet ( I would rate him #4 on grass in the O.E. and #2 on carpet in the O.E.). He also does have extreme Davis Cup success. On the other hand he never won a title on clay. And while I do rank him #1 for 1989, according to the ATP he only managed I believe around 12 weeks at #1, compared to 33 (I believe) for Wilander and perhaps 70 or so for Edberg. By the 1988-1993 era those rankings had largely resolved the inaccuracies they had earlier in the decade. If not for that late-career and surprising Australian title in 1996 he would have fewer majors than Edberg; albeit I suppose you could quibble on the weight of Edberg's two Australians. Regardless between the two of them I think it is razor close. Becker leads the H2H 25-10, which is monstrously huge, but then Edberg wins 3 out of 4 in the majors - and how surprising they only met those 4 times, all within 2 years. I give Wilander a bit of an edge mostly owing to the strength of 1988 - he actually won 4 128-man field tournaments that year as Miami was also structured that way at the time. When I was coming up in the junior ranks in the late 90s, that '88 year loomed pretty large as, along with Connors in '74, these were the only years where a player won 3/4 majors since Laver's grand slam. Since then that achievement has probably fallen back some as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all achieved this multiple times.
 

SamSpade

New User
Very interesting comments, and I completely agree with much of this.

Yes I also would never argue that Mac (or Connors or Lendl for that matter) are greater than Borg.

For perspective, Mac in 1981 becoming the first man since Tilden to win 3 consecutive US National Championship / Open titles was a very big deal and he felt a lot of pressure through that quest (IMO my favourite player Gerulaitis should have beaten him in their semi-final). But Borg becoming the first man since Perry to win 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles (if you don’t count Laver through his 1967 Wimbledon pro title) was even on another level compared to that and was absolutely enormous. Borg’s streak of 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles and simultaneous dominance of RG and Wimbledon while adopting radically different playing styles, and dominant peak run from 1978-1980 are hurdles that are just too big for those other 3 legends to overcome. Plus Borg is one of the greatest Davis Cup players of the professional era in his own right; he IMO definitely had the weakest supporting cast out of any great player during that period, which was the only reason why he didn’t win it more than once. Players’ individual match records in the Davis Cup has always been a much more important factor to me, than how many times they have been part of winning teams.

But I’ve never understand comments I’ve read over the years, that Connors and Lendl are way, way ahead of Mac, and that there can be no serious case to rank Mac ahead of either of them. Clearly I strongly disagree there, and provided numerous big factors in Mac’s favour in my previous post ! Sometimes even people that are old enough to have followed tennis during those years, still fall into the trap of mistakenly judging them through a 90s or 21st century lens, and not based on the conditions and circumstances of when they were actually active / spent the bulk of their careers etc.

Regarding Lendl, among players in the open era, and pre-big 3 (who all won astronomically numbers of mandatory masters series events and had a hugely different set-up), I do think that his body of work outside majors and the Davis Cup (which was essentially as a big as a major for long period), is second to none, and clearly beats that of Connors and Mac (though I it was hugely impressive how he led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup glory in 1980). I’d say that he was basically almost as good as McEnroe indoors (and there is a valid argument for him to be ranked as the greatest indoor player of the Open Era even though I’d personally argue that Mac was), with him racking up a huge number of hugely important title wins under a roof in Europe, the US, Sydney and Tokyo. Plus he also had absolutely stellar records in Northern American hard court, European clay court and US har-tru events, and still won multiple Queen’s titles on grass as well. So during debates between him and either Connors or Mac, I guess it largely comes down to how high much of a ‘weighting’ is given to tournaments outside the majors, how heavy a weighting is placed on Wimbledon and the US Open etc.
And I agree with most all of these comments. I like how you structured that outside of the majors and Davis Cup, Lendl's career is particularly impressive, but he falls back into the pack of McEnroe and Connors once the majors are included. Ultimately, these two triumvirates - McEnroe-Lendl-Connors and Wilander-Becker-Edberg are somehow just quite statistically close, or in some cases difficult to weigh because the achievements are just so divergent. In any case, I think my ranking them as 14,15 and 18 and 24, 29 and 30 respectively reflect the closeness of the debate, and I can't seriously disagree with others that may rank them differently - so long as they have the first triumvirate ahead of the second, which I imagine most everyone has. I see Agassi (the only other near contemporary of these players) as landing right in the middle, and have him ranked accordingly.
 

SamSpade

New User
1930. If you are giving 1977 to Vilas over Borg on Quantity then 1930 to Tilden over Cochet on same basis.

1931 good choice. A weird year - Vinesy, Cochet and Tilden each have some claim.





Have to disagree, respectfully. I'll give him a couple. We can discuss.




When Jake played in 1952 he got beaten by Gorgo.




I'll be fascinated to hear your argument for this one. There might be an argument for 1952 Sedgman.





I love Edberg. He is a great, great Champion. But a poor No. 1. I guess 1990 is fine - no worse than Newcombe, Smith or Nastase in early 70s, but '91? Maybe 1991 is one of those years where there should be no No. 1 - I can think of a few. In any event, Becker, Courier and Edberg basically equal.



I like this a lot. But, really, if points had been fairly given, Rios would be No. 1. Another year when maybe no one is No. 1.


Yes.
I appreciate the specific feedback - and yes I look forward to discussing any of those years or players as well. Rafter always made sense to me as #1 for 1998. He won the summer hard court swing (which has only been duplicated twice since - and not by whom you would presume). And beat Sampras both times they played during that swing.
 

SamSpade

New User
Gonzales was not prime but still already had won two USO and 96-27 is a demolition. Not sure how good that comparison is, but if someone had beaten 2003 Fed (not yet prime for the most part but already quite good) 96-27 that sure as hell would have counted for something.
On top of that, even after that series, Gonzales was “only” 11-5 against Kramer with the latter being past his prime for most of the matches (still winning their match at Wembley 1957 at age 35 and after his comeback). It is tough to assess how pure peak vs peak matches between those two would have resulted, but at the very least we can say that the indication we have does not really point into a direction unfavourable for Kramer.

He also won match series against Sedgman, Segura and Riggs (in his first series as a professional). Not 100% sure whether I would put him as high as No.2, but he should mentioned in the same breath as Pancho, whereas he typically is left out completely in such discussions.
BorgtheGoat - Thanks for the commentary! Indeed the post-WWII era, with everything split between the amateur and professional divisions, makes a lot of that era unknown. Kramer's emergence on my list is a relatively recent development - largely generated by my consideration of relative dominance and the fact that he appears to never have really been eclipsed, as most every great is eventually.
 
Top