Top 20 players (men and women) of the Open Era

#1
What would your top 20 in the Open Era for both men and women be in exact order. Here would be mine.

Men:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Edberg
11. Becker
12. Newcombe
13. Wilander
14. Courier
15. Murray
16. Ashe
17. Smith
18. Hewitt
19. Nastase
20. Wawrinka or Vilas

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Evert
5. Navratilova
6. Venus
7. Henin
8. Seles
9. Hingis
10. Davenport
11. Sharapova
12. Goolagong
13. Austin
14. Clijsters
15. Mandlikova
16. Capriati
17. Sanchez Vicario
18. Mauresmo
19. Wade
20. Kerber or Pierce

I struggle ranking the 10-15 group though for women. Those 6 could be put in almost any order.
 
Last edited:
#2
I don't follow the women's game enough to give an intelligent enough list. For men's:

1)Federer
2)Djokovic
3)Nadal
4)Sampras
5)Borg
6)Connors
7)Lendl
8)McEnroe
9)Agassi
10)Laver
11)Becker
12)Edberg
13)Wilander
14)Murray
15)Newcombe
16)Nastase
17)Rosewall
18)Vilas
19)Courier
20)Hewitt
 

skaj

Professional
#4
Hard to put them in the exact order, but something like this:

ATP
1)Rios
2)Mecir
3)Monfils
4)Nalbandian
5)Sampras
6)Federer
7)Okker
8)Rosewall
9)Gasquet
10)Edberg
11)Nastase
12)Pioline
13)Laver
14)Stepanek
15)Noah
16)Dolgopolov
17)Ashe
18)Santoro
19)McEnroe
20)Safin

WTA
1)Hingis
2)Date
3)Su-wei
4)Radwanska
5)Henin
6)Schiavone
7)Myskina
8)Graf
9)Mandlikova
10)Clijesters
11)Venus
12)Zheng
13)Goolagong
14)Navratilova
15)Jankovic
16)Mauresmo
17)Novotna
18)Mattek-Sands
19)Cibulkova
20)Davenport
 
#5
What would your top 20 in the Open Era for both men and women be in exact order. Here would be mine.

Men:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Sampras
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Edberg
11. Becker
12. Newcombe
13. Wilander
14. Courier
15. Murray
16. Ashe
17. Smith
18. Hewitt
19. Wawrinka
20. Vilas

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Evert
5. Navratilova
6. Venus
7. Henin
8. Seles
9. Hingis
10. Davenport
11. Sharapova
12. Goolagong
13. Austin
14. Clijsters
15. Mandlikova
16. Capriati
17. Sanchez Vicario
18. Mauresmo
19. Wade
20. Kerber or Pierce

I struggle ranking the 10-15 group though. Those 6 could be put in almost any order.
Vilas is better than Courier, Murray, Ashe, Smith, Hewitt and Wawrinka !!
 
#7
Vilas is better than Courier, Murray, Ashe, Smith, Hewitt and Wawrinka !!
Wawrinka, Hewitt, and Smith you could argue. Those others no freaking way.

Courier- Won 4 real slams to Vilas and his 2 fake slams (Australian Opens in joke years) and 2 other slams. Was the solid #1 of 92 vs Vilas who was never #1. Courier is clearly better than Vilas on every surface but clay, especialy hard courts he is light years better than Vilas, and you could even argue him possibly being better on clay. Courier is easily superior to Vilas.

Murray- 3 slams while Vilas only has 2 legit slams (and that is generous since even Roland Garros 77 was kind of a joke with almost nobody in the top 20 there), the YE#1 which Vilas could never manage, time at #1 which Vilas had none of, a ton of Masters, 12 slam finals, 2 Olympic Golds, YEC. Murray is way better than Vilas.

Ashe- Epic win at Wimbledon, beating Connors as the heavy underdog. Best player of 75 more firmly than Vilas who only has an iffy argument as top player of 77. 3 real slams which again is more than Vilas who only has 2 at most. Was a top player longer, better records vs the best guys, and better than Vilas on every surface but clay.

There is no way in hell Vilas is better than those 3. As for the others.


Hewitt- His 2 YE#1s are enough to put him over Vilas for me. Vilas was never the best player in the world while Hewitt was for 2 straight years. 2 YEC titles, Wimbledon and U.S Open wins, the sports 2 biggest events. And like I am saying for almost everyone, Hewitt is clearly better than Vilas on every surface except clay.

Smith- Won Wimbledon and the U.S Open, by far the two biggest events back then. This comparision is closer as Smith is much better on grass and faster courts and Vilas much better on clay.

Wawrinka- 3 real slams which I prefer to Vilas 2 fake slams and 2 other slams. Also beat peak Djokovic to win all 3 of his slams, something Vilas never would have managed. His career is lacking all other ways, only 1 Masters, no time at #1, but then again so is Vilas outside his slam and 250 touranment wins.
 
#8
I don't agree about the 2 AO of Vilas. First, those who are absent are always wrong. And for Vilas, winning on grass is a great performance. And he beated very good grass players in these AO, like Lewis (Wimbledon finalist), Roche, Dent ... For me, it's an urban legend to say that these two AO were little slams. That's incredible for Vilas to win these two slams, and the Masters on grass (beating Nastase and Borg). Vilas won more tournaments and more slams than Ashe, Hewitt, Smith, Murray or Wawrinka. And he won 3 of the 4 slams. He won a Masters too (not Courier). Vilas's results are better than all those players. Last point : Vilas was not officially number one, but everyone knows he was the real world champion in 1977 + he was really number one a few weeks in 1975-1976, even if ATP doesn't recognize that fact.
 
#9
Vilas was #1 regardless of ATPussies refusing to admit it, let's be fair.

The problem is that he had the consistency of a claycourt ATG but got absolutely pwned by prime Borg even worse than Federer by Nadal, and massively choked two huge non-Borg opportunities in 1975 USO and 1982 RG. The latter is an underrated fail, shattered mentally by a 17-year-old... speaks volumes of Wilander's mental strength as well, of course.
 
Last edited:
#10
Call it what you want but at the very least Couriers 2 Australian Opens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vilas 2 Australian Opens. The Australian was a full fledged slam which everyone in the world was playing by the 90s (ok Agassi only missed those but he was never beating Courier as Courier owned him back then) compared to about 3 of the top 30 like was the case in the late 70s. Compare not only the draws, since easy draws can happen, but the field who even showed up for the 2 Australian Opens of Vilas vs Courier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_Open_(December)_–_Men's_Singles Roscoe Tanner the #2 seed, a 45 year old or something Rosewall a top 4 seed, and Phil Dent as the #5 seed, looks like a decent 500 tournament at best, and that is generous. A Masters today would never have a field close to this week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Clerc as #2 seed, a nearly retired Ashe as 3rd seed, and Tim Gullikson as 4th seed. This isnt even a 500 tournament field today, maybe a 250 event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Courier 91 Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Ivanisevic as top 5 seeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Courier 92. Edberg, Courier, Stich, Becker, Lendl, Sampras as top 6 seeds.

Yeah no comparision at all. And we also all know by the Wimbledon record of Vilas which is pathetic, far worse than even the rather weak Wimbledon record of Jim Courier, that Vilas would never be capable of winning a real slam on grass.

Couriers 2 clay slams also easily beat the 2 of Vilas. The 92 French is arguably the most impressive in the Open Era other than probably Nadal in 2008 considering how he just ripped through an outstanding clay draw- Muster, Medvedeva, Mancilla, Agassi, just to make the final and destroyed everyone. The 93 French was defending a slam title which is always impressive. Vilas had one good win in his 2 clay slam wins, Connors on green clay in his home U.S in the 77 U.S Open final that is it, he beat Brian Gottfried in his French Open final triumph.

So it is covered Courier is above Vilas by a ton when it comes to their slam wins.

Lets look at other things. It doesnt matter if some think Vilas deserved #1 in 77, Courier was undisputably #1 of 92 and #1 on the computer, a sure and factual #1 >>> a possible case for #1 (not ranked there which was Connors, and not picked by all experts as the deserving many which picked Borg). Also though Courier has 58 weeks ranked #1. That is a lot, and Vilas would not have gotten to that high a number even if he had gotten the #1 ranking to end 77. #1 stats all favor Courier heavily too.

Vilas has nothing on Courier except 1 WTC, that is just one thing. And large number of tiny 250 titles which nobody cares about. Courier has way more prolific slam wins, a lot more time at #1 (technically nothing for Vilas, but even if he got what you want to argue he deserved it would probably be 20 weeks or so max), was a much more dominant player at his best. And again just compare them by surfaces. On clay they are close, many rank Courier higher even on clay. On grass Courier is probably ahead due to his Wimbledon final. Indoors they might be close since Vilas did win a few good indoor events including the WTC. On hard courts though Courier is WAY ahead. Pretty easy to see who wins overall, Courier is better by a ton on hard courts and Vilas isnt much (or any) better on any surface.

As for comparing Murray to Vilas, Murray easily has a more impressive career overall despite technicaly having 1 less slam. I think most would take his 3 slams his having 2 Wimbledon titles at the most prestigious slam and a U.S Open over Vilas and his 4 with 2 rogue Australian Open wins in the same time frame Chris O Neill, Barbara Jordan, and Johan Kreik were winning titles there anyway. Slam wins is the only place they are close though. Murray absolutely blows Vilas away in slam finals, time at #1 (he is an official YE#1 and has 41 weeks at #1, which easily beats some Vilas fans saying he should have ended 77 at #1 and gotten a bit 15 weeks or something ranked there which officialy is 0 in fact), Masters titles, he also has a YEC but 2 Olympic Golds with it, consistency, longevity, everything. Then comparing them by surface Vilas is much better on clay but Murray is better by a ton on every other surface- grass, any kind of hard court, indoors, I dare any Vilas fan to dispute that. So again easy to see who comes out ahead overall.

I find arguing Vilas as better than Courier or even Murray as so stupid it is downright offensive. Arguing a case for him against Wawrinka, Smith, or maybe Hewitt (although I strongly feel Hewitt is better, but atleast I can see that 4 slams vs 2 slams is an argument) I can see, but not Courier, Murray, or Ashe.
 
Last edited:
#11
This final is a black spot in Vilas's carrer, that's true. He was very unlucky because he had a second set point and his winning return was just out.
 
#12
Couriers 2 Australian Opens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vilas 2 Australian Opens. The Australian was a full fledged slam which everyone in the world was playing by the 90s (ok Agassi only missed those but he was never beating Courier as Courier owned him back then) compared to about 3 of the top 30 like was the case in the late 70s.

Couriers 2 clay slams also easily beat the 2 of Vilas. The 92 French is arguably the most impressive in the Open Era other than probably Nadal in 2008 considering how he just ripped through an outstanding clay draw- Muster, Medvedeva, Mancilla, Agassi, just to make the final and destroyed everyone. The 93 French was defending a slam title which is always impressive.

So it is covered Courier is above Vilas by a ton when it comes to their slam wins.

Lets look at other things. It doesnt matter if some think Vilas deserved #1 in 77, Courier was undisputably #1 of 92 and #1 on the computer, a sure and factual #1 >>> a possible case for #1 (not ranked there which was Connors, and not picked by all experts as the deserving many which picked Borg). Also though Courier has 58 weeks ranked #1. That is a lot, and Vilas would not have gotten to that high a number even if he had gotten the #1 ranking to end 77. #1 stats all favor Courier heavily too.

Vilas has nothing on Courier except 1 WTC, that is just one thing. And large number of tiny 250 titles which nobody cares about. Courier has way more prolific slam wins, a lot more time at #1 (technically nothing for Vilas, but even if he got what you want to argue he deserved it would probably be 20 weeks or so max), was a much more dominant player at his best. And again just compare them by surfaces. On clay they are close, many rank Courier higher even on clay. On grass Courier is probably ahead due to his Wimbledon final. Indoors they might be close since Vilas did win a few good indoor events including the WTC. On hard courts though Courier is WAY ahead. Pretty easy to see who wins overall, Courier is better by a ton on hard courts and Vilas isnt much (or any) better on any surface.

As for comparing Murray to Vilas, Murray easily has a more impressive career overall despite technicaly having 1 less slam. I think most would take his 3 slams his having 2 Wimbledon titles at the most prestigious slam and a U.S Open over Vilas and his 4 with 2 rogue Australian Open wins in the same time frame Chris O Neill, Barbara Jordan, and Johan Kreik were winning titles there anyway. Slam wins is the only place they are close though. Murray absolutely blows Vilas away in slam finals, time at #1 (he is an official YE#1 and has 41 weeks at #1, which easily beats some Vilas fans saying he should have ended 77 at #1 and gotten a bit 15 weeks or something ranked there which officialy is 0 in fact), Masters titles, he also has a YEC but 2 Olympic Golds with it, consistency, longevity, everything. Then comparing them by surface Vilas is much better on clay but Murray is better by a ton on every other surface- grass, any kind of hard court, indoors, I dare any Vilas fan to dispute that. So again easy to see who comes out ahead overall.

I find arguing Vilas as better than Courier or even Murray as so stupid it is downright offensive. Arguing a case for him against Wawrinka, Smith, or maybe Hewitt (although I strongly feel Hewitt is better, but atleast I can see that 4 slams vs 2 slams is an argument) I can see, but not Courier, Murray, or Ashe.
Sorry, I don't agree, Vilas's results are objectively better than Courier and Murrays's results + Vilas is much more important in tennis history ...
 
#13
Sorry, I don't agree, Vilas's results are objectively better than Courier and Murrays's results + Vilas is much more important in tennis history ...
You really laughable. Courier and Murray objectively had way better careers and much better results than Vilas. 4 Slams, back to back slam wins at 2 different slams, and 58 weeks at #1 >>>>> 2 late 70s Australian Opens and 2 other slams and 0 weeks at #1. 3 slam wins, 11 slam finals, 21 slam semis 14 Masters titles, YEC, 2 Olympic Golds, 8 years in the year end top 4 >>>>>>> Vilas and his career.

The only arguments you could make for Vilas are not objective ones which dont exist, but heavily subjective ones, and weak ones at that. As for important in tennis history to who, Argentines I guess, not to anyone else. And if your argument is who is more important to tennis history why on earth would you then say Vilas is over Ashe. Are you seriously now going to say Vilas is more important to tennis history than Arthur Ashe.
 
#14
The below considers only those who won all their major titles in the Open Era. (women from 11-20 is a bit hard, I might have missed someone obvious)

Men

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Courier
14. Murray
15. Ashe
16. Vilas
17. Nastase
18. Hewitt
19. Kuerten
20. Smith

Women

1. S Williams
2. Graf
3. Navratilova
4. Evert
5. Seles
6. Henin
7. V Williams
8. Hingis
9. Goolagong
10. Sharapova
11. Davenport
12. Sanchez-Vicario
13. Clijsters
14. Mandlikova
15. Wade
16. Capriati
17. Kerber
18. Azarenka
19. Kvitova
20. Pierce
 
#15
You think Kvitova is better than Pierce. A little interesting although I guess you could argue it since Kvitova has a YEC title and has gotten closer to being ranked #1. Pierce has a ton more slam finals and probably a more consistent career.
 
#16
You think Kvitova is better than Pierce. A little interesting although I guess you could argue it since Kvitova has a YEC title and has gotten closer to being ranked #1. Pierce has a ton more slam finals and probably a more consistent career.
Like I said, the bottom half of the women’s list was hard, and I see that I’ve missed out Austin.
 
#18
Do you think Laver's Open Era only career warrants an inclusion somewhere?

(It did involve five majors, 74 Open Era only titles, and several years as world no. 1.)
I was trying to include only players whose entire careers were Open Era, but then I just realized that would elimiinate Court. So yeah come to think of it Laver should be top 8 for just his Open Era career only. I felt strange putting him there though as it would look strange not having him at #1 or #2, and I didnt want to confuse that being his career ranking.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#19
You really laughable. Courier and Murray objectively had way better careers and much better results than Vilas. 4 Slams, back to back slam wins at 2 different slams, and 58 weeks at #1 >>>>> 2 late 70s Australian Opens and 2 other slams and 0 weeks at #1. 3 slam wins, 11 slam finals, 21 slam semis 14 Masters titles, YEC, 2 Olympic Golds, 8 years in the year end top 4 >>>>>>> Vilas and his career.

The only arguments you could make for Vilas are not objective ones which dont exist, but heavily subjective ones, and weak ones at that. As for important in tennis history to who, Argentines I guess, not to anyone else. And if your argument is who is more important to tennis history why on earth would you then say Vilas is over Ashe. Are you seriously now going to say Vilas is more important to tennis history than Arthur Ashe.
If we want to be really generous what's the highest we can put Hewitt? :laughing:
 
#20
If we want to be really generous what's the highest we can put Hewitt? :laughing:
Hard to say. I think it depends largely on how much you value time at #1 as one factor. For instance that he has 2 YE #1s, more than Agassi or Becker (Becker has 0) is super impressive. And highly unusual for a 2 slam winner. For some time at #1 isnt that important, for some it is.

If you are someone who really values time at #1 heavily he could even be top 15.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#21
Hard to say. I think it depends largely on how much you value time at #1 as one factor. For instance that he has 2 YE #1s, more than Agassi or Becker (Becker has 0) is super impressive. And highly unusual for a 2 slam winner. For some time at #1 isnt that important, for some it is.

If you are someone who really values time at #1 heavily he could even be top 15.
Yeah this seems fair. I do value #1 highly. That Vilas-Ashe-Nastase-Hewitt bracket is quite close for me, if he hadn't have been injured in the middle of his peak maybe there would be case for him sitting nearer to Murray/Courier.
 
#22
Yeah this seems fair. I do value #1 highly. That Vilas-Ashe-Nastase-Hewitt bracket is quite close for me, if he hadn't have been injured in the middle of his peak maybe there would be case for him sitting nearer to Murray/Courier.
Yeah I think you can definitely make a case for him being over any of those. You could also make a case for those others to be over him; I agree that bracket of players are all quite close.

I do think you could even make a case for him to be over Murray and/or Courier. I personally would not have him there, but if you value time at #1 and brief semi dominance of the game in general highly enough, I think you could make an outside case as back to back years at #1 show a certain level of dominance Murray atleast never reached for as extended a period (Courier comes close as he was the 2nd best in both 91 and 93, in addition to being the best in 92 IMO). His defense of the YEC is also big, and winning U.S Open and Wimbledon in less than a year of each even if technically it wasnt a title defense. I value title defenses highly which is one reason I probably still have Courier higher than Murray, despite that you could argue Murray having the more balanced career despite 1 fewer slam. Courier's back to back Australian Opens and French Opens, and spending a fairly significant chunk of time either #1 or close to #1, tips him over Murray for me.

I do think Hewitt definitely had potential to be up with or even have surpassed Courier and Murray, but I am not sure if the worst luck for him that would prevent that is the sad injuries that curtailed his prime. Yes he could probably could have lasted a few more years atleast as a major contender after 2005 without his injuries, but with Federer so dominant and being such an awful match up for him, I am not sure if he would have won anymore majors, which is really the only thing that would have significantly elevated his historic standing. And even if he were still a contender in 2008/2009 when Federer's dominance finally wanted, obviously beating on fire Nadal at Wim 2008 or AO 2009 would have been a tall order, and beating Nadal at RG would always be a no go. It is more Federer's emergence, and the change of the game to slower conditions and the change of the game to fewer attacking players which didnt allow him to show off some of his greatest strengths (amazing passing shots, great returns, great counterpunching play) as much. If you talk about the historic aspect of his career IMO that was unluckier for him than the injuries which cut his prime short just due to Federer probably blocking potential future slams by that point. His play as a precocious teenager at the turn of the century really show his potential even more had the playing conditions not been altered, grass not slowed, and the game almost become devoid of attacking players and net rushing all courters for whatever reason. I think he would have been more of a contender in the Sampras era that had these conditions and players than Murray, Wawrinka, and as crazy as it sounds possibly even Nadal (although Nadal would still win more overall just due to all his RG wins).
 
Last edited:
#23
I was trying to include only players whose entire careers were Open Era, but then I just realized that would elimiinate Court. So yeah come to think of it Laver should be top 8 for just his Open Era career only. I felt strange putting him there though as it would look strange not having him at #1 or #2, and I didnt want to confuse that being his career ranking.
I wondered as much. Sounds reasonable. Thanks.
 
#24
Yeah I think you can definitely make a case for him being over any of those. You could also make a case for those others to be over him; I agree that bracket of players are all quite close.

I do think you could even make a case for him to be over Murray and/or Courier. I personally would not have him there, but if you value time at #1 and brief semi dominance of the game in general highly enough, I think you could make an outside case as back to back years at #1 show a certain level of dominance Murray atleast never reached for as extended a period (Courier comes close as he was the 2nd best in both 91 and 93, in addition to being the best in 92 IMO). His defense of the YEC is also big, and winning U.S Open and Wimbledon in less than a year of each even if technically it wasnt a title defense. I value title defenses highly which is one reason I probably still have Courier higher than Murray, despite that you could argue Murray having the more balanced career despite 1 fewer slam. Courier's back to back Australian Opens and French Opens, and spending a fairly significant chunk of time either #1 or close to #1, tips him over Murray for me.

I do think Hewitt definitely had potential to be up with or even have surpassed Courier and Murray, but I am not sure if the worst luck for him that would prevent that is the sad injuries that curtailed his prime. Yes he could probably could have lasted a few more years atleast as a major contender after 2005 without his injuries, but with Federer so dominant and being such an awful match up for him, I am not sure if he would have won anymore majors, which is really the only thing that would have significantly elevated his historic standing. And even if he were still a contender in 2008/2009 when Federer's dominance finally wanted, obviously beating on fire Nadal at Wim 2008 or AO 2009 would have been a tall order, and beating Nadal at RG would always be a no go. It is more Federer's emergence, and the change of the game to slower conditions and the change of the game to fewer attacking players which didnt allow him to show off some of his greatest strengths (amazing passing shots, great returns, great counterpunching play) as much. If you talk about the historic aspect of his career IMO that was unluckier for him than the injuries which cut his prime short just due to Federer probably blocking potential future slams by that point. His play as a precocious teenager at the turn of the century really show his potential even more had the playing conditions not been altered, grass not slowed, and the game almost become devoid of attacking players and net rushing all courters for whatever reason. I think he would have been more of a contender in the Sampras era that had these conditions and players than Murray, Wawrinka, and as crazy as it sounds possibly even Nadal (although Nadal would still win more overall just due to all his RG wins).
Also what did Hewitt do in 2003? To my knowledge he was not injured but instead was brooding over conflict with the ATP no? 2003 is a year he should have done a lot better, maybe win an extra slam or two.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#25
Also what did Hewitt do in 2003? To my knowledge he was not injured but instead was brooding over conflict with the ATP no? 2003 is a year he should have done a lot better, maybe win an extra slam or two.
I think he considered quitting for Aussie rules football. He was basically burnt out and feuding with the ATP. He got up for Davis Cup though with big wins over Federer and Ferrero.
 
Last edited:
#28
Hard to put them in the exact order, but something like this:

ATP
1)Rios
2)Mecir
3)Monfils
4)Nalbandian
5)Sampras
6)Federer
7)Okker
8)Rosewall
9)Gasquet
10)Edberg
11)Nastase
12)Pioline
13)Laver
14)Stepanek
15)Noah
16)Dolgopolov
17)Ashe
18)Santoro
19)McEnroe
20)Safin

WTA
1)Hingis
2)Date
3)Su-wei
4)Radwanska
5)Henin
6)Schiavone
7)Myskina
8)Graf
9)Mandlikova
10)Clijesters
11)Venus
12)Zheng
13)Goolagong
14)Navratilova
15)Jankovic
16)Mauresmo
17)Novotna
18)Mattek-Sands
19)Cibulkova
20)Davenport
What a clown post.
 
#29
Oooooh, interesting to extend to 20. I'll include Laver and Rosewall in this then because I can't exactly ignore their achievements after 1968.

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Courier
14. Murray
15. Rosewall
16. Laver
17. Roddick
18. Newcombe
19. Vilas
20. Kodes
 
#31
Oooooh, interesting to extend to 20. I'll include Laver and Rosewall in this then because I can't exactly ignore their achievements after 1968.

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Wilander
11. Becker
12. Edberg
13. Courier
14. Murray
15. Rosewall
16. Laver
17. Roddick
18. Newcombe
19. Vilas
20. Kodes
Are you joking on Roddick's ranking? Higher than Newcombe, a 7 slam winner, most of those in the Open Era, LOL! Roddick could probably never even be over Hewitt, Wawrinka, or Kuerten. Especialy Hewitt who was his exact contemporary of almost identical age so you cant even use a serious era argument between them, and owns his career in everyway.

Also where is Hewitt. You seriously think even Kodes and Vilas are better than Hewitt.

Why is Rosewall over Laver in an Open Era ranking. Laver's 69 Grand Slam already eclipses anything Rosewall did in the Open Era. Both guys had nearly all their greatness in the pro game of the 60s anyway, but Rosewall never even had a 2 slam year in the Open Era and didnt win a lot of anything, I think a couple French Opens.
 
#32
It's not a clown post, the original post said " your top 20 ". That was my top 20, with my criteria(amusing style of play).
You find Date amusing? I thought she was about the most horrible player to watch ever. Her strokes look homemade and like an old lady learning to play tennis hitting them. I was amazed she was ever as effective as she was. To each their own.
 

skaj

Professional
#33
You find Date amusing? I thought she was about the most horrible player to watch ever. Her strokes look homemade and like an old lady learning to play tennis hitting them. I was amazed she was ever as effective as she was. To each their own.
Excellent counter-puncher, ambidextrous, uses the power of her opponents, super returns of serve, uses the whole court, great mover, fine touch at the net, fabulous reflexes, creative, smart...
 
#34
Excellent counter-puncher, ambidextrous, uses the power of her opponents, super returns of serve, uses the whole court, great mover, fine touch at the net, fabulous reflexes, creative, smart...
I guess but her game was funny to watch. Her technique was so strange, she hits with literally no spin at all which is unheard of in modern tennis, and she had the oddest way of hitting the ball, looking like a fragile old lady hitting it yet getting effective results.
 

skaj

Professional
#35
I guess but her game was funny to watch. Her technique was so strange, she hits with literally no spin at all which is unheard of in modern tennis, and she had the oddest way of hitting the ball, looking like a fragile old lady hitting it yet getting effective results.
Yes, definitely unorthodox style, but that doesn't mean not fun or not effective. I loved her matches against Graf or Venus, where her flat strokes use the power of the opponent and redirect the balls. She is also someone who mixes it up quite a bit, I always like to see that.
 
Top