Top 101 Grand Slam Tennis Players of the Open Era--Update

[Henry Kaspar]

Nadal at #7 now, he was # 13 at the beginning of the year.

Note: pre-open ear results count towards a player's ranking.

1 Rod Laver
2 Roger Federer
3 Ken Rosewall
4 Pete Sampras
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Ivan Lendl
7 Rafael Nadal
8 Jimmy Connors
9 Andre Agassi
10 John McEnroe

11 Mats Wilander
12 Boris Becker
13 Stefan Edberg
14 John Newcombe
15 Jim Courier
16 Guillermo Vilas
17 Arthur Ashe
18 Ilie Nastase
19 Lleyton Hewitt
20 Marat Safin

21 Pat Rafter
22 Stan Smith
23 Jan Kodes
24 Gustavo Kuerten
25 Yevgeni Kafelnikov
26 Andy Roddick
27 Michael Chang
28 Goran Ivanisevic
29 Tony Roche
30 Andres Gimeno

31 Novak Djokovic
32 Michael Stich
33 Pat Cash
34 Vitas Gerulaitis
35 Roscoe Tanner
36 Sergi Bruguera
37 Juan Carlos Ferrero
38 Johann Kriek
39 Carlos Moya
40 Richard Krajicek

41 Manuel Orantes
42 Thomas Muster
43 Petr Korda
44 Yannick Noah
45 Adriano Panatta
46 Miroslav Mecir
47 Todd Martin
48 Cedric Pioline
49 Thomas Johansson
50 Andy Murray

51 Alex Corretja
52 Albert Costa
53 Kevin Curren
54 Juan M. Del Potro
55 Andres Gomez
56 Mark Philippoussis
57 Robin Soderling
58 Tom Okker
59 David Nalbandian
60 Henri Leconte

61 Alex Metreveli
62 Harold Solomon
63 Mark Edmondson
64 Tim Henman
65 Brian Teacher
66 Sebastian Grosjean
67 Nikolay Davydenko
68 Fernando Gonzalez
69 Raul Ramirez
70 Gaston Gaudio

71 Tommy Haas
72 Brian Gottfried
73 Phil Dent
74 Andrei Medvedev
75 Marcelo Rios
76 Guillermo Coria
77 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
78 Dick Crealy
79 Tim Mayotte
80 Magnus Norman

81 Tomas Berdych
82 Zeljko Franulovic
83 Marcos Bagdhatis
84 Patrick Proisy
85 Onny Parun
86 Steve Denton
87 Jonas Bjorkman
88 Eddie Dibbs
89 Victor Pecci
90 Rainer Schuettler

91 Thomas Enqvist
92 Arnaud Clement
93 Kim Warwick
94 John Alexander
95 Roger Taylor
96 Cliff Richey
97 Clark Graebner
98 Wayne Ferreira
99 Tom Gorman
100 Greg Rusedski
101 Niki Pilic

 

[Henry Kaspar]

The ladies' list:

1 Margaret Court
2 Steffi Graf
3 Martina Navratilova
4 Chris Evert
5 Serena Williams
6 Billie Jean King
7 Monica Seles
8 Evonne Goolagong
9 Venus Williams
10 Justine Henin

11 Martina Hingis
12 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
13 Hana Mandlikova
14 Lindsay Davenport
15 Kim Clijsters
16 Jennifer Capriati
17 Ann Haydon-Jones
18 Maria Sharapova
19 Virginia Wade
20 Gabriela Sabatini

21 Mary Pierce
22 Amelie Mauresmo
23 Svetlana Kuznetsova
24 Nancy Richey Gunter
25 Jana Novotna
26 Conchita Martinez
27 Tracy Austin
28 Mima Jausovec
29 Ana Ivanovic
30 Francoise Durr

31 Virginia Ruzici
32 Helena Sukova
33 Kerry Melville Reid
34 Mary Joe Fernandez
35 Wendy Turnbull
36 Sue Barker
37 Elena Dementieva
38 Rosie Casals
39 Andrea Jaeger
40 Dinara Safina

41 Pam Shriver
42 Anastasia Myskina
43 Iva Majoli
44 Zina Garrison
45 Francesca Schiavone
46 Helen Gourlay
47 Olga Morozova
48 Renata Tomanova
49 Jelena Jankovic
50 Vera Zvonareva

51 Helga Masthoff
52 Dianne Fromholtz
53 Claudia Kohde
54 Judy Tegart
55 Anke Huber
56 Natalia Zvereva
57 Manuela Maleeva
58 Karen Krantzcke
59 July Heldman
60 Amanda Coetzer

61 Kimiko Date
62 Regina Marsikova
63 Nathalie Tauziat
64 Sylvia Hanika
65 Kathy Jordan
66 Natalia Petrova
67 Caroline Wozniacki
68 Samantha Stosur
69 Betty Stove
70 Chris O'Neil

71 Barbara Jordan
72 Florenta Mihai
73 Lesley Hunt
74 Marion Bartoli
75 Patty Schnyder
76 Caterina Lindqvist
77 Nicole Vaidisova
78 Katerina Maleeva
79 Jo Durie
80 Wendy Shaw

81 Lori McNeil
82 Janet Newberry
83 Barbara Potter
84 Naoko Sawamatsu
85 Jie Zheng
86 Na Li
87 Paola Suarez
88 Carling Bassett
89 Chandra Rubin
90 Daniela Hantuchova

91 Jelena Dokic
92 Katja Ebbinghaus
93 Sharon Walsh
94 Betsy Nagelsen
95 Gigi Fernandez
96 Elena Likhotseva
97 Kathy Rinaldi
98 Ana Chakvetadze
99 Claudia Porvik
100 Raquel Giscafre
101 Bettina Bunge

 

[forzamilan90]

why is navratilova at 3, and court at 1? both very similar careers, although just about anyone will tell you navratilova is the better than court.
neiher the men's nor the women's list seem to follow a logical pattern (again agassi overhyping)

 

[Fearhanded]

Nadal should be higher than Lendl. Borg and Sampras should be higher than Ken Rosewall.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

why is navratilova at 3, and court at 1?

24>18.

neiher the men's nor the women's list seem to follow a logical pattern

This may relate to your inability to decipher logical patterns.

(again agassi overhyping)

?

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Nadal should be higher than Lendl.

9 wins 2 lost finals vs. 8 wins 11 lost finals. I have little doubt that Nadal WILL pass Lendl eventually, but at this stage I still have Lendl ahead.

Borg and Sampras should be higher than Ken Rosewall.

Not if one considers Rosewall's long career from the 1950s to the 70s. 1960-63 he was more dominant than Borg or Sampras were at their respective peaks.

But the top 5 are all unique in their own way. Hard to rank, many orderings could be defended (same with the ladies' top 4).

 

[SteveO]

Federer should be higher than a shrimp who won a caledar slam on 2 surfaces.

 

[pc1]

why is navratilova at 3, and court at 1? both very similar careers, although just about anyone will tell you navratilova is the better than court.
neiher the men's nor the women's list seem to follow a logical pattern (again agassi overhyping)

Let's see, Court won over 190 tournaments, 24 majors, 93% lifetime winning percentage plus a Grand Slam in 1970.

Every one of those numbers are better than Navratilova. I'm not saying Court is better than Navratilova but that's her numbers and that's pretty awesome. Of course there are some flaws with Court's record. Many of her majors were in the Australian Open with weaker fields but she did beat many tough opponents in the Australian anyway like Billie Jean King and Evonne Goolagong among others.

Now since Court played a good amount of her career before the Open Era than I think it's possible to rank Martina Navratilova over Court.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Federer should be higher than a shrimp who won a caledar slam on 2 surfaces.

.... and dominated the game 1964-69.

 

[SteveO]

.... and dominated the game 1964-69.

As did Federer from 2003 to 2008. In a much more diverse and larger field across many more surfaces.

 

[AM95]

wah..how is laver #1?

how many major titles did he win after he became a professional

 

[Henry Kaspar]

As did Federer from 2003 to 2008. In a much more diverse and larger field across many more surfaces.

.... except that he never dominated on clay
(and, ahem, many more surfaces? Laver won titles on red clay, green clay, grass, hard, carpet, wood)

 

[SteveO]

.... except that he never dominated on clay
(and, ahem, many more surfaces? Laver won titles on red clay, green clay, grass, hard, carpet, wood)

Oh sure, 4 consecutive FO final and one win is hardly dominating playing at the same time as the clay GOAT.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Oh sure, 4 consecutive FO final and one win is hardly dominating playing at the same time as the clay GOAT.

You seem to think the French Pro were played on clay in the late 60s.

You may want to check again.

 

[TMF]

Nadal at #7 now, he was # 13 at the beginning of the year.

Note: pre-open ear results count towards a player's ranking.

That’s not a fair comparison...tennis today is compete all around the world while the pre-open era had such a small pool, and was divided into two tours: amateur & pro.

Winning a slam today has a lot more weigh than over 40 years ago. Ask Laver, he’ll tell you.

 

[SteveO]

You seem to think the French Pro were played on clay in the late 60s.

You may want to check again.

Didn't the men wear skirts on court in the late 60s?

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Didn't the men wear skirts on court in the late 60s?

I see where your confusion comes from.

 

[TMF]

wah..how is laver #1?

how many major titles did he win after he became a professional

B/c they use his 2 Calendar slams as a be all and end all debate. But ignoring that he won one CS in an amateur league, and only on two surfaces. Today’s there’s 4 surfaces to conquer(AO hc is not the same as the USO) in a year.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

That’s not a fair comparison...tennis today is compete all around the world while the pre-open era had such a small pool, and was divided into two tours: amateur & pro.

Winning a slam today has a lot more weigh than over 40 years ago. Ask Laver, he’ll tell you.

Maybe. The implication is that the comparison period should be shorter (10 years? 20?).

 

[Henry Kaspar]

B/c they use his 2 Calendar slams as a be all and end all debate. But ignoring that he won one CS in an amateur league, and only on two surfaces. Today’s there’s 4 surfaces to conquer(AO hc is not the same as the USO) in a year.

That's not how I "end" the debate. What makes me Laver rank first is his dominance 1964-69.

I agree though that comparing achievements from the 60s with those of today is problematic.

 

[jackson vile]

You left out Pancho Gonzales with 27 slams total

 

[SteveO]

I see where your confusion comes from.

It's actually a much more accurate metaphor than you will ever care to acknowledge or realize.

 

[jackson vile]

That's not how I "end" the debate. What makes me Laver rank first is his dominance 1964-69.

I agree though that comparing achievements from the 60s with those of today is problematic.

If you want to seperate pre/open era then you also need to seperate the latest era with large rackets and co-poly strings. That has changed the game to such a large degree, not to mention all of the court and ball changes they have made. Including covered courts.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

You left out Pancho Gonzales with 27 slams total

... but all before the open era. Hence I did not rank him.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

If you want to seperate pre/open era then you also need to seperate the latest era with large rackets and co-poly strings. That has changed the game to such a large degree, not to mention all of the court and ball changes they have made. Including covered courts.

Agreed. One needs to draw the line somewhere, I drew it in 1968 (i.e., ranked players who had significant successes thereafter).

 

[jackson vile]

... but all before the open era. Hence I did not rank him.

Note: pre-open ear results count towards a player's ranking.

Could you clarify what you meant with this?

 

[jackson vile]

Agreed. One needs to draw the line somewhere, I drew it in 1968 (i.e., ranked players who had significant successes thereafter).

What I am saying is that if you don't count tennis as a whole then you need to break it up more than once.

ie 1)wood racket era, 2)new surfaces carbon rackets, 3)high tech rackets, hich tech strings, new surfaces new balls

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Could you clarify what you meant with this?

As said in the previous post: this list contains all players that had major successes in the open era. In ranking a player though, his or her entire career is taking into account.

As for breaking several times: yes if one is after "who played best". Not if the objective is "who had the best career". Careers become (roughly) comparable with the open era.

 

[aceX]

If Nadal wins WTF and AO, could he be up for GOAT?

It's virtually a calendar year GS + WTF under 5 different court conditions:
RG - Clay
WC - Grass
USO - HC
WTF - Indoor HC
AO - Rubber (or are people not calling it rubber now that Nadal has won USO?)

 

[Henry Kaspar]

If Nadal wins WTF and AO, could he be up for GOAT?

It's virtually a calendar year GS + WTF under 5 different court conditions:
RG - Clay
WC - Grass
USO - HC
WTF - Indoor HC
AO - Rubber (or are people not calling it rubber now that Nadal has won USO?)

For me, to rank Nadal (or Federer) ahead of Laver I guess he would need

(i) a calendar slam and about 15 GS titles, or
(ii) close to 20 titles.

 

[jackson vile]

For me, to rank Nadal (or Federer) ahead of Laver I guess he would need

(i) a calendar slam and about 15 GS titles, or
(ii) close to 20 titles.

I think if you win all the slams in a row is = to calendar slam really

But really it makes no sense you are counting pre-open titles but not he player that were not in the open era LOL

 

[Henry Kaspar]

I think if you win all the slams in a row is = to calendar slam really

But really it makes no sense you are counting pre-open titles but not he player that were not in the open era LOL

You may wish to elborate.

 

[Nadalfan89]

LENDL OVER NADAL????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

LENDL OVER NADAL????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

HAHAHAHAHA

(we talk again when Nadal reached 19 GS finals)

 

[Nadalfan89]

HAHAHAHAHA

(we talk again when Nadal reached 19 GS finals)

Let's talk when Lendl gets a gold medal, 9 slams, 18 master's and a career grand slam.

Oh wait, he can't because he retired.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Let's talk when Lendl gets a gold medal, 9 slams, 18 master's and a career grand slam.

Oh wait, he can't because he retired.

... or , maybe more to the point, because there were no gold medals and or masters to win in Lendl's prime.

(your statement is like "Real Madrid can't be the world's greatest football club because it never won the Premier League").

Then and now, however, one could win end-year masters, of which Lendl won 5 (to Nadal's 0), and ATP tournaments, of which he won 94 (to Nadal's 42).

 

[illuminati]

all of lendls titles were mickymouse 250 events.
and lendl was a massive choker in finals, great players dont choke in finals.
lendls 8-11 in slam finals is a stain in his career.

 

[Henry Kaspar]

all of lendls titles were mickymouse 250 events.

... a category introduced in 2009, if I'm not mistaken. Poor Ivan, folks constantly demand titles from him that didn't exist in the 80s.

What he did win were 8 slams, 5 end-year championships, and 67 super series and championship series events (the next highest category at the time).

and lendl was a massive choker in finals, great players dont choke in finals.lendls 8-11 in slam finals is a stain in his career.

It took him some time to win his first -- but then of course he had the likes of McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker to battle. A density of outstanding champions that was quite unique to the 1980s.

This said, I have little doubt that Nadal's career achievements will eventually surpass those of Lendl. I just don't think it has already happened.

 

[phoenicks]

Nadal at #7 now, he was # 13 at the beginning of the year.

Note: pre-open ear results count towards a player's ranking.

1 Rod Laver
2 Roger Federer
3 Ken Rosewall
4 Pete Sampras
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Ivan Lendl
7 Rafael Nadal
8 Jimmy Connors
9 Andre Agassi
10 John McEnroe

Who made the list? you made the list?

Nadal and Agassi below Lendl? Nadal already surpass him the moment he win USO this year. Both he and agassi got career golden slam, Lendl only got 3 different slam and losing in finals 11 times for his 8 GS titles.

I highly doubt this list is compiled by any authority sources.

You are in fact trying to stir up a debate here !!!!

 

[SteveO]

Lendl > Nadal at this point in time.

 

[phoenicks]

... or , maybe more to the point, because there were no gold medals and or masters to win in Lendl's prime.

(your statement is like "Real Madrid can't be the world's greatest football club because it never won the Premier League").

Then and now, however, one could win end-year masters, of which Lendl won 5 (to Nadal's 0), and ATP tournaments, of which he won 94 (to Nadal's 42).

If you're saying he's comparing apples and oranges, then so are you. Because before 90's, the tour had a lot of events with smaller pool of players, they played fewer match to win the tournament, compared to now, we have tournaments with bigger field of players, made mandatory by tennis professional bodies. This is why the player of yesteryears have a lot more titles than the player nowadays. That is why Federer dominated the field for so long, yet he ended up with fewer titles than yesteryears player have had a less dominant span.

 

[phoenicks]

Lendl > Nadal at this point in time.

9 slam + 1 olympic <<<<< 8 slam (with 11 final losses)

arithmethic rules rewritten

 

[Rippy]

9 slam + 1 olympic <<<<< 8 slam (with 11 final losses)

arithmethic rules rewritten

Well if you're going to include Olympics, you should probably include Lendl's 5 Tour Finals wins. Also, Lendl has far more weeks at number one.

I'd still put Nadal above him, due to the extra slam and career slam, but Lendl isn't too far behind.

 

[phoenicks]

Well if you're going to include Olympics, you should probably include Lendl's 5 Tour Finals wins. Also, Lendl has far more weeks at number one.

I'd still put Nadal above him, due to the extra slam and career slam, but Lendl isn't too far behind.

Fine then 9 slam <<<<<8 slam, new arithmetic rule

I think something like this is gonna come up in the future,


Lendltard offspring : Daddy, I learn how to count today in school, 1,2...8,9,10
Lendltard : what1?? did you pay attention in the class??? It's 7,9,8 then 10 !!!

 

[tacou]

how similar are guillermo coria and jo tsonga

 

[Henry Kaspar]

Who made the list? you made the list?

Nadal and Agassi below Lendl? Nadal already surpass him the moment he win USO this year. Both he and agassi got career golden slam, Lendl only got 3 different slam and losing in finals 11 times for his 8 GS titles.

I highly doubt this list is compiled by any authority sources.

You are in fact trying to stir up a debate here !!!!

The lists are indeed compiled by myself, a highly authoritative source if I may suggest.

 

[Grass_for_cows]

9 slam + 1 olympic <<<<< 8 slam (with 11 final losses)

arithmethic rules rewritten

Tons more tournament wins and 11 finalist appearances? Lendl by a mile.

 

[phoenicks]

The lists are indeed compiled by myself, a highly authoritative source if I may suggest.

Then you sir are a TROOOLLLLL !!!!!

 

[phoenicks]

The lists are indeed compiled by myself, a highly authoritative source if I may suggest.

What are your sports credentials? what qualifies you ?

 

[Henry Kaspar]

What are your sports credentials? what qualifies you ?

High IQ and mature judgement.