Top 20 all time in no particular order

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beerus
  • Start date Start date
B

Beerus

Guest
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Lacoste, Cochet, Becker

Honorable mention: Edberg, Wilander, Hoad, Riggs, Johnston, Newcombe
 
Beerus said:
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Tilden, Budge, McEnroe, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Kramer, Vines, Perry, Lacoste, Cochet, Becker

Honorable mention: Edberg, Wilander, Hoad, Riggs, Johnston, Newcombe
Click to expand...
Not a bad list. I largely agree. In honourable mention not sure about Johnson - only 4 majors and relatively briefly at number 1 or co-number 1. Though Davis cup was large in people’s minds then
 
Just so you jokers know this is how Vines rated post-Tilden greats (excluding himself, obviously) in his '78 book:

NonP said:
Budge - 6' 2", 178 lb
Kramer - 6' 1", 170 lb
Gonzales - 6' 3", 190 lb
Laver - 5' 9", 154 lb
Segura - 5' 7", 147 lb
Riggs - 5' 8¼, 155 lb
Rosewall - 5' 7", 145 lb
Hoad - 5' 10½", 176 lb
Sedgman - 5' 11", 168 lb
Trabert - 6' 1", 190 lb
Click to expand...
And he was much more concerned with the technical side of the game than you Wikiheads and wannabe historians. So was Riggs, for that matter, per his convos with Vines quoted in the chapter on him. Obviously no one's word is infallible except mine, but suffice it to say Elly knew what he was talking about and Bobby wasn't simply making an idle boast when he said he was better than Kenny.

One more thing (or two):

TheNachoMan said:
I see Pancho but not his fiercest rivals Reginald and Bartholomew?
Click to expand...
Reginald Doherty was ranked at least co-#1 for 5 years:

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

FYI I do tend to think anyone before Tilden lacked truly international competition, but that's just an educated guess cuz Japan for one was making a splash before Bill's dominance. At the very least we can say that the British stranglehold on lawn tennis had been broken by the 1910s.

timnz said:
Not a bad list. I largely agree. In honourable mention not sure about Johnson - only 4 majors and relatively briefly at number 1 or co-number 1. Though Davis cup was large in people’s minds then
Click to expand...
I know this is a typo from you but it's Johnston with a "t." And yes, I'd definitely put Segura several notches above. Courier and Murray are more debatable.
 
timnz said:
Not a bad list. I largely agree. In honourable mention not sure about Johnson - only 4 majors and relatively briefly at number 1 or co-number 1. Though Davis cup was large in people’s minds then
Click to expand...

Becker's the only one I'm having a problem with! He made his mark early, but really didn't do much after he was a teenager! :rolleyes: :oops::giggle:
 
Fiero425 said:
Becker's the only one I'm having a problem with! He made his mark early, but really didn't do much after he was a teenager! :rolleyes: :oops::giggle:
Click to expand...
Boris won 4 of his 6 majors in his 20s, LOL. Not to mention he's the Indoor Kaiser of the OE.

a10best said:
Becker won 6 and Edberg won 6. Edberg won three of their four meetings in Grand Slams.
The committee agrees it is acceptable to remove Becker.
Click to expand...
Becker also won all of their three meeting in the Davis Cup which used to be a BFD. Oh and he leads their H2H a whopping 25-10.
The committee agrees you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
NonP said:
Boris won 4 of his 6 majors in his 20s, LOL. Not to mention he's the Indoor Kaiser of the OE.


Becker also won all of their three meeting in the Davis Cup which used to be a BFD. Oh and he leads their H2H a whopping 25-10.
The committee agrees you have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I knew the H2H was lopsided in non-slam events. I'm going by all-time greatest players not because of H2H career against one another, winning Davis cup matches, or trivial smaller tournaments.
Edberg outplayed Becker in slams where it counts the most.
Tennis greatness is determined by the number of slams you win. Each won 6. Then it's who you beat in the slams H2H. In 3 of Edberg's six slams he defeated Becker.
Becker was definitely a force but his slam final loss to Stich was inexcusable as was Edberg's loss to Chang in the FO final.
Becker was 6-5 in slam finals, Edberg was 6 and 4. Very close so it's probably a pick em'.
 
Last edited:
not necessarily in order

Open era:

top 12

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Sampras
Borg
Mac
Lendl
Agassi
Connors
Becker
Edberg
Wilander

pre-open era top 12

Laver
Gonzales
Tilden
Rosewall
Kramer
Budge
Vines
Hoad
Perry
Lacoste
Cochet
Johnston

Newcombe who sits in the (approx) middle of pre-open and open-era makes it 25.

Mentions for Riggs and Segura.
 
Fiero425 said:
Becker's the only one I'm having a problem with! He made his mark early, but really didn't do much after he was a teenager! :rolleyes: :oops::giggle:
Click to expand...
He actually said in 1996 that that was his top level that year. He was unlucky to injure his wrist at Wimbledon. Won the Australian open , beat Sampras more times than Sampras beat him, in the indoor season. And won the grand slam cup too. All at 28/29 years old
 
Tennfan123 said:
Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Budge, Tilden, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Emerson, Perry, Ashe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Lacoste, Cochet.

I hope I didn’t miss anyone.
:giggle:
Click to expand...

Emerson gets a bad rap due to his 12 slam wins coming in the Amateur era. However, he defeated many open era GS champs to win those titles as Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, etc. In addition, he won 15 or 16 slams in Doubles. Furthermore, he was great at Davis Cup 21-2 (part of 8 winning teams) which included defeating several GS champions. The guy had the DCGS, won over 100 titles, and also well over 1000 matches. Does the Amateur career mitigate some of his achievements? Yes, but you can make a case for Top 20 (not Top 10 or 15).

Top 20 cases can also be made for Anthony Wilding, Jaroslav Drobny, Laurence Doherty and Jean Borotra. Very difficult to compare players from different eras due to different technology, surfaces, and disparate competition. However, some pre-Open Era players dominance, influence, and achievements should still merit consideration.
 
Last edited:
Fiero425 said:
Becker's the only one I'm having a problem with! He made his mark early, but really didn't do much after he was a teenager! :rolleyes: :oops::giggle:
Click to expand...
What?? He won 4 slams, reached four additional Wimbledon finals, won two Davis Cups, and was one of the greatest indoors player winning a total of 5 YECs and equivalents. All of this after being a teenager.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
His consistency is indeed impressive but Becker is way too far ahead in achievements. Also, on 90s polarised courts Murray wouldn’t have reached the same consistency.
Click to expand...
Yes, Murray surely would lose in 3R, 4R, QF type situations in 90s.
Boris Becker at least a bonafide all time great on grass and indoors and he was famous worldwide for wimbledon, Murray was not a bonafide all time great anywhere on any surface and neither is he famous outside UK.
 
In Best of 5 Sets, Murray is 5th best in his own era and we are comparing him to Becker ?

OpponentBest RankMatchesWonLostWin %Last MatchStatsH2H
rs.png
Novak Djokovic
active.png
1102820.0%L [ 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 ] at 2016 Roland Garros Clay F StatsH2H
es.png
Rafael Nadal
active.png
192722.2%L [ 6-3 6-2 6-1 ] at 2014 Roland Garros Clay SF StatsH2H
ch.png
Stan Wawrinka
active.png
383537.5%L [ 6-1 6-3 6-2 ] at 2020 Roland Garros Clay R128 StatsH2H
ch.png
Roger Federer		172528.6%L [ 7-5 7-5 6-4 ] at 2015 Wimbledon Grass SF
 
rick kerr said:
Replacing an alpha with a beta? Why ?

Becker was a bonafide boss of his era, a bit inconsistent but he was extremely great and respected worldwide, even in asia... he is not some mug to be replaced by Murray.
Click to expand...

Becker would have been a "beta" as well if Sampras and Agassi had been born the same year, not to mention if Borg had been just five years older and still playing productively. That's the situation Murray found himself in and still beat the most accomplished player of all time 2x in Slam Finals during that player's peak stretch.
 
Rosstour said:
Becker would have been a "beta" as well if Sampras and Agassi had been born the same year, not to mention if Borg had been just five years older and still playing productively. That's the situation Murray found himself in and still beat the most accomplished player of all time 2x in Slam Finals during that player's peak stretch.
Click to expand...

He won wimbledon at 17, 18, so if those fellows are his age then they get pwned by Teenage Becker
He was beating Sampras Indoors sometimes even in mid 90s, he has a winning h2h indoors over Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, so what difference would it make if they were born with them?

Becker has his own fast court skillsets where he is alpha in any era, but Murray doesnt not have 1 surface where he stood out. Roger at 34 straight setted Murray on his best surface, that says everything that we need to know.
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
Becker was definitely a force but his slam final loss to Stich was inexcusable as was Edberg's loss to Chang in the FO final.
Click to expand...

Becker failing to win 1 clay title was the stat that stands out the most in his career. He was 0-6 in Clay finals including blowing championship points to Muster (MC) and suffering bo5 straight set losses to both Sampras (Rome) and Aguilera (in Hamburg which included a Bagel).

He does have some other notable achievements as his 38-3 DC record which included going 8-0 against GS champions. He also is the only player to win the WCT Finals, Grand Slam Cup, and ATP Finals while also getting an Olympics Doubles Gold Medal. All things considered with a 26-18 Bo5 finals record I think his name can be considered.
 
rick kerr said:
He won wimbledon at 17, 18, so if those fellows are his age then they get pwned by Teenage Becker
He was beating Sampras Indoors even in mid 90s, he has a winning h2h indoors over Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, so what difference would it make if they were born with them?

Becker has his own fast court skillsets where he is alpha in any era, but Murray doesnt not have 1 surface where he stood out. Roger at 34 straight setted Murray on his best surface, that says everything that we need to know.
Click to expand...

Forget Roger dude, obviously he is regarded here as the third wheel of the 2003-2020 era. Focus more on what Murray did vs Djokovic.

I don't see any Slam F wins over PETE or DRE on BB's resume, do you?
 
AgassiSuperSlam11 said:
Emerson gets a bad rap due to his 12 slam wins coming in the Amateur era. However, he defeated many open era GS champs to win those titles as Laver, Ashe, Newcombe, etc. In addition, he won 15 or 16 slams in Doubles. Furthermore, he was great at Davis Cup 21-2 (part of 8 winning teams) which included defeating several GS champions. The guy had the DCGS, won over 100 titles, and also well over 1000 matches. Does the Amateur career mitigate some of his achievements? Yes, but you can make a case for Top 20 (not Top 10 or 15).

Top 20 cases can also be made for Anthony Wilding, Jaroslav Drobny, Laurence Doherty and Jean Borotra. Very difficult to compare players from different eras due to different technology, surfaces, and disparate competition. However, some pre-Open Era players dominance, influence, and achievements should still merit consideration.
Click to expand...
Great to see Wilding mentioned. Hardly ever lost a clay match for the last 5 years of his career.
 
Interesting that for a forum that always talks about dominance in multiple surfaces as something that holds high esteem it appears there isn't much flattery for Wilander here. Wilander is only one of three ATP players to win 2 or more Grand slams on three surfaces (3 Clay, 2 Grass, and 2 HC). Yet, few here think he is top 10 Open Era let alone Top 20 ATG. BTW, I tend to agree I don't think winning slams in multiple surfaces by default makes you better than another player. Wilander has the multiple surface edge over Becker and he was #1 for more weeks and yet Becker still has a decent argument over Wilander.
 
AgassiSuperSlam11 said:
Interesting that for a forum that always talks about dominance in multiple surfaces as something that holds high esteem it appears there isn't much flattery for Wilander here. Wilander is only one of three ATP players to win 2 or more Grand slams on three surfaces (3 Clay, 2 Grass, and 2 HC). Yet, few here think he is top 10 Open Era let alone Top 20 ATG. BTW, I tend to agree I don't think winning slams in multiple surfaces by default makes you better than another player. Wilander has the multiple surface edge over Becker and he was #1 for more weeks and yet Becker still has a decent argument over Wilander.
Click to expand...

Because Wilander's 2 AOs on grass were in weak fields (83 and 84 - especially 84). He didn't make it past QF at Wimbledon - which was the most important slam and THE grass slam.
Also Wilander's record indoors is weak for an ATG and that mattered quite a bit.

Becker is better than Wilander on grass, indoors, HC. Wilander is better on clay.
 
timnz said:
Great to see Wilding mentioned. Hardly ever lost a clay match for the last 5 years of his career.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't die in combat during WW1 who knows what other records and achievements he has? He still has the highest winning pct at 92% ( including pre-open era) while winning over 600 matches. He won 22 clay titles in a row and I think he is tied with Laver with most Outdoor titles at 114.
 
abmk said:
Because Wilander's 2 AOs on grass were in weak fields (83 and 84 - especially 84). He didn't make it past QF at Wimbledon - which was the most important slam and THE grass slam.
Also Wilander's record indoors is weak for an ATG and that mattered quite a bit.

Becker is better than Wilander on grass, indoors, HC. Wilander is better on clay.
Click to expand...
You should read this part BTW, I tend to agree I don't think winning slams in multiple surfaces by default makes you better than another player. Wilander has the multiple surface edge over Becker and weeks at #1 and yet Becker still has a decent argument over Wilander.

Nonetheless, what Wilander did was a major accomplishment as Ivan Lendl did compete in those "weak AO fields" and failed to win 1 Grass slam in either AO or Wimbledon. In fact, Wilander did beat Lendl in straight sets in the AO final in 1983.
 
Rosstour said:
Forget Roger dude, obviously he is regarded here as the third wheel of the 2003-2020 era. Focus more on what Murray did vs Djokovic.

I don't see any Slam F wins over PETE or DRE on BB's resume, do you?
Click to expand...

Well, Murray's success against Novak is not against peak Novak on Grass, so lets not read a lot into that win. Murray would not beat 2015 Novak, I am sure of it.

Becker vs Agassi his tongue was his predictability which Agassi exploited, Pete obviously was a bit better, despite that I would say even if all are aged same Becker still gets his 3 early wimbledons nd he would be ruthless force indoors that he always was. Plus it was Agassi who benefitted from Becker being 3 years older, do you see 1992 Agassi beat 1989 Becker at wimbledon? So it is Agassi who benefitted there and Becker still beat Agassi in 1995 at Wimbledon when Agassi was at his super peak ... right? 29 year old becker beat peaky agassi.... So your theory of Becker becoming a beta in presence of Pete and Agassi is not sellable, he would still get his 3 wimbledons and some slams + epic indoor wins outside it even in their direct same aged scenario.

However, if you send Sir Andy Murray to Roddick's Birthyear then Peak Federer ensures that Murray retires with Davydenko at 0 slams.
 
AgassiSuperSlam11 said:
You should read this part BTW, I tend to agree I don't think winning slams in multiple surfaces by default makes you better than another player. Wilander has the multiple surface edge over Becker and weeks at #1 and yet Becker still has a decent argument over Wilander.

Nonetheless, what Wilander did was a major accomplishment as Ivan Lendl did compete in those "weak AO fields" and failed to win 1 Grass slam in either AO or Wimbledon. In fact, Wilander did beat Lendl in straight sets in the AO final in 1983.
Click to expand...

yes, I did read that, but I explained why the multiple surfaces argument doesn't hold as much weight in this case.
Wilander winning those 2 AOs is good, but not a major accomplishment - that'd be post-hoc revision.
 
AgassiSuperSlam11 said:
Mcenroe, Edberg, Curren, and Lendl were some of the players he defeated to win those slams. Two of those four won 3 or more slams in Grass.
Click to expand...

Edberg was just 18 at the time of AO 84 and ended 1984 ranked 20. You can leave him out.
Curren was hovering in the 11-20th rank range that time.
Hence why I said 84 in particular was weak.

83 AO - Wilander did beat Mac and Lendl. But the field in itself had very few top 20 players participating in that AO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Top 15 all time in no particular order
2 3
Replies
108
Views
5K
smoledman
smoledman
T
The big 4 for every decade?
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
Marco7594
Tournament between the 16 all-time great
2 3
Replies
127
Views
7K
Fiero425
Fiero425
L
Tiers
5 6 7
Replies
319
Views
20K
kiki
kiki
mcenroefan
A GOAT webpage
Replies
6
Views
1K
Bud
Bud
Back
Top