Top 5 in Open Era by surface

Hitman said:
I think it depends on what people value in their personal views.

I personally go with the objective achievements metric, so for me I don't get caught up in biased subjective stuff. The trophy cabinet is what matters to me, as greatness will be remember by what they won IMO.

This is why Djokovic has the strongest claim to being the greatest of all time, if such a thing exists, and he is top three for me on all three surfaces....and without question, no one ranks ahead of him on HC.
Click to expand...
Federer in year 35 to 37, won 2 slams , 4 masters and many 500s on hc.
 
Hitman said:
Federer not even top 5 on HC? ,
Click to expand...
I guess I could maybe lowkey sneak him in, but such action would essentially break the criteria and could even mean I'm pushing guys like Roddick and Hewitt into Top 10, which is of course a dreadful thought, so naturally I choose not to.
 
Biotic said:
I guess I could maybe lowkey sneak him in, but such action would essentially break the criteria and could even mean I'm pushing guys like Roddick and Hewitt into Top 10, which is of course a dreadful thought, so naturally I choose not to.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
TMF said:
They are very close. I don't base on numbers alone to rank the players, but carefully observe the adept skills and the quality performance they pose on the court. I've followed their entire career and concluded that Federer who's more gifted has more all around game and higher ceiling than Djokovic.


Depth and level of competition plays a huge factor. Yes Court won a boat load of AO on grass but everyone in his/her right mind knows the AO in those days were much less challenging opponents, ~48 single draw, and most of the participants are from Aussie(lol)
Click to expand...
Thanks. Great explanations and a lot of good points.
 
Grass:
Federer
Pete
Borg
Djokovic
McEnroe

HC:
Federer
Djokovic
Agassi
Pete
Nadal

Clay:
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Djokovic
 
Men

Grass:
1 Federer
2 Borg
3 Sampras
4 Djokovic
5 Lever / McEnroe

Clay:
1 Nadal
2 Borg
3 Lendl
4 Guga
5 Djokovic / Wilander

Hard:
1 Djokovic
2 Federer
3 Connors
4 Agassi
5 Safin (yes, I am a little bias here :)) / Nadal
 
Last edited:
insideoutforehanders said:
Now men

Grass

1. Federer- On achievements has to be #1.

2. Sampras- I do think prime to prime he takes Federer most of the time but his achievements are clearly behind and it is not like either played in a strong grass era or significantly tougher than the other. So rankings wise kind of has to be behind. Even if born at same time would almost certainly be over Federer.

3. Borg- Only man with 5 straight and in super tough era.

4. Djokovic- #2 on achievements but crummy grass field, by far worst ever, lowers him. If he wins #8 which is super unlikely must rise to #3 or #2 on achievements alone though.

5. McEnroe- Close between him and Becker but went Mcenroe based on tougher era and challenging/overcoming peak Borg while Becker flopped hard vs prime Sampras.

Clay

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lend
4. Djokovic
5. Kuerten

That one so easy.


Hard Court

1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Sampras

4. Connors- He would have 7 US Opens on hard courts if they were on hard courts vs grass or clay in 74-77, plus who knows how many Australians if on hard and all playing 74-85. Based on thar must be atleast 4th, and even a case for higher.

5. Agassi, Nadal, Lendl, Mcenroe- No i

Henin over Seles on clay!?!?! Even with the stabbing and a way worse clay field she has only 1 more French Open. To each their own I guess. In fairness I do think Henin wins atleast 7 without her early retirement in 2008 but that was her choice.

Does Davenport have a case on hards of Top 5? Dissapointingly low number if slams but a horse load of other titles for modern times.
Click to expand...
Clay: Not so easy. Wilander is a contender too.
 
clay
-Nadal
-Borg
-Djokovic
-Lendl
-Vilas
-Muster
-Kuerten
-Wilander
-Federer
-Courier


grass
-Sampras
-Federer
-Borg
-McEnroe
-Becker
-Djokovic
-Connors
-Edberg
-Murray
-Ivanisevic


hard (outdoor)
-Djokovic
-Federer
-Sampras
-Agassi
-Lendl
-Courier
-McEnroe
-Edberg
-Connors
-Nadal


hard (indoor)
-Djokovic
-Federer
-Hewitt
-Safin
-Nalbandian


carpet (indoor)
-McEnroe
-Becker
-Sampras
-Lendl
-Borg
-Connors
-Edberg
-Ashe
-Nastase
-Stich


all hard (indoor/outdoor)
-Djokovic
-Federer
-Sampras
-Agassi
-Lendl
-Courier
-Hewitt
-McEnroe
-Connors
-Safin


all firm (carpet/hard :: indoor/outdoor)
-Djokovic
-Federer
-Sampras
-McEnroe
-Lendl
-Agassi
-Borg
-Becker
-Connors
-Edberg


all fast (grass/hard/carpet :: indoor/outdoor)
-Sampras
-Federer
-Djokovic
-McEnroe
-Borg
-Becker
-Connors
-Lendl
-Edberg
-Agassi
 
insideoutforehanders said:
Do you think any expert would rank Evert higher than Venus on grass, that Evert would win in a series of matches with both in their times on grass, or that Evert would win more than Venus on grass transported to Venus's era, or Venus less than Evert transported to hers? No to each, yeah that is what I thought. Not going to bother in a pointless discussion with a troll.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you believe Evert WOULDN'T win some matches against Venus on grass. There's some bunko belief that Evert couldn't handle a power game, which couldn't be further from the truth. that's not trolling. She has 6 grass slams after all. and too many runner ups to MN
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Lavs said:
Men

Grass:
1 Federer
2 Borg
3 Sampras
4 Djokovic
5 Lever / McEnroe

Clay:
1 Nadal
2 Borg
3 Lendl
4 Guga
5 Djokovic / Wilander

Hard:
1 Djokovic
2 Federer
3 Connors
4 Agassi
5 Safin (yes, I am a little bias here :)) / Nadal
Click to expand...
I struggle a bit w/the Fed vs. Djoko ranking on HC, only becuase so much of Djoko's success was at AO....same deal for Andre...Anyone have the win % by surface for the HC list above? I don't think Safin makes the cut, honestly. You''ve got to have Lendl in there somewhere. I think Mac might displace Agassi as well. Again AO wins shoot him ahead, so I kind of get it. But I do think Mac was more conistent than Andre on HC. He was pratcially untouchable for all of '84 and much of '85.

AMENDED....ok if this is correct from WIKI....I think it may just be GS events as the #s seem too low

88.7189–24Serbia Novak Djokovic
86.8191–29Switzerland Roger Federer
86.6116–18United States Pete Sampras
85.967–11United States Jimmy Connors
85.4105–18Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl
84.1127–24United States Andre Agassi
83.973–14United States John McEnroe
83.7144–28Spain Rafael Nadal
81.339–9Italy Jannik Sinner
80.884–20Sweden Stefan Edberg
[th]
%​
[/th][th]
W–L​
[/th][th]
Hard​
[/th]​
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
I don't know why you believe Evert WOULDN'T win some matches against Venus on grass. There's some bunko belief that Evert couldn't handle a power game, which couldn't be further from the truth. that's not trolling. She has 6 grass slams after all. and too many runner ups to MN
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have amateurish basic reading comprehension skills. As if you could read properly you would already know I never said she couldn't win some. I said she wouldn't win more, especialy in a long series of matches. You may disagree and that is fine, but I am perfectly confident in that opinion. Nor do I think most would disagree with me.

And if there were 2 or 3 grass slams today as there was during Everts career all of Graf, Venus, Serena would easily be double digit in slam wins on grass, the way the actual best grass courter of the 20 or so years Evert played- Court, Navratilova, King, already do.
 
jrepac said:
I don't know why you believe Evert WOULDN'T win some matches against Venus on grass. There's some bunko belief that Evert couldn't handle a power game, which couldn't be further from the truth. that's not trolling. She has 6 grass slams after all. and too many runner ups to MN
Click to expand...
Its all going to depend on what rackets they are playing with. Venus did not build her game with a wood racket in mind, and boy is there going to be a rude awakening if she tries to overpower Evert with a sweet spot the size of tangerine.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
Perhaps you have amateurish basic reading comprehension skills. As if you could read properly you would already know I never said she couldn't win some. I said she wouldn't win more, especialy in a long series of matches. You may disagree and that is fine, but I am perfectly confident in that opinion. Nor do I think most would disagree with me.

And if there were 2 or 3 grass slams today as there was during Everts career all of Graf, Venus, Serena would easily be double digit in slam wins on grass, the way the actual best grass courter of the 20 or so years Evert played- Court, Navratilova, King, already do.
Click to expand...
What Evert got, was not so much an increase in chances of winning slams (she was too young and inexperienced to ever win at Forest Hills against the caliber of players you mention above and she barely took advantage of the Aussie because it was an 'afterthought slam' in the 1970's) but she got the best early grass-court education any clay-court baseliner could ever acquire. She attended symposiums at the Harvard School of Grass-court Tennis 2-3 times a year with Prof's Court, Wade, King, Goolagong & Turnbull teaching the lectures on both singles and doubles!

It wasn't just the tournaments in those days, it was also Bonne Belle Cup ( a yearly competition between Australia and US) and Wightman Cup ( Britain and US) and a few Fed cups were played on grass as well. Young Evert did not normally play all these team events, but she often played one at least or two, and half the time those were on grass.

The reason she kept winning matches and reaching so many more finals no other baseliner consistently did, is because she learned to tweak her strokes, her movement, and shot selection trying to hang with the last great grass generation. Every subsequent baseliner only got one class a year in Eastbourne or Newport in June before the final exam at Wimbledon.

If you check Evert's entire grass record, you will not find any 'upsets' or 'losses' to a fellow baseliner. No losses to a Richey or a Maleeva, or a Jaeger or an Austin or a Sabatini until Graf killed Chris in 1989. Its not that she beat them all the time, but if they were seeded, they very rarely lasted long enough to get to Chris!
Graf was the best baseliner athlete for true grass because she was so incredibly strong and fast (make no mistake, grass rewards and showcases athleticism more than any other surface), but Evert had the better education and preparation!
 
Last edited:
Grass

- Federer
- Sampras
- Borg
- Djokovic
- Mac

Clay

- Nadal
- Borg
- Lendl
- Djokovic
- Kuerten

Hard

- Djokovic
- Federer
- Sampras
- Agassi
- Nadal
 
BTURNER said:
What Evert got, was not so much an increase in chances of winning slams (she was too young and inexperienced to ever win at Forest Hills against the caliber of players you mention above and she barely took advantage of the Aussie because it was an 'afterthought slam' in the 1970's) but she got the best early grass-court education any clay-court baseliner could ever acquire. She attended symposiums at the Harvard School of Grass-court Tennis 2-3 times a year with Prof's Court, Wade, King, Goolagong & Turnbull teaching the lectures on both singles and doubles!

It wasn't just the tournaments in those days, it was also Bonne Belle Cup ( a yearly competition between Australia and US) and Wightman Cup ( Britain and US) and a few Fed cups were played on grass as well. Young Evert did not normally play all these team events, but she often played one at least or two, and half the time those were on grass.

The reason she kept winning matches and reaching so many more finals no other baseliner consistently did, is because she learned to tweak her strokes, her movement, and shot selection trying to hang with the last great grass generation. Every subsequent baseliner only got one class a year in Eastbourne or Newport in June before the final exam at Wimbledon.

If you check Evert's entire grass record, you will not find any 'upsets' or 'losses' to a fellow baseliner. No losses to a Richey or a Maleeva, or a Jaeger or an Austin or a Sabatini until Graf killed Chris in 1989. Its not that she beat them all the time, but if they were seeded, they very rarely lasted long enough to get to Chris!
Graf was the best baseliner athlete for true grass because she was so incredibly strong and fast (make no mistake, grass rewards and showcases athleticism more than any other surface), but Evert had the better education and preparation!
Click to expand...
I agree with all this. And in fairness comparing Venus and Evert on grass is almost impossible and unfair to anyway. Then again that applies to 90% of these Former Player discussions we all indulge in anyway.
 
Graf was obviously in her prime in 1987. She went 75-2 for the year and at 97.40% that’s the 4th greatest winning percentage in modern history, which is just slightly below 97.73 (2nd greatest) she achieved in 1989. She killed Martina + Chris at Key Biscayne in consecutive matches in a way that no one else ever had. She only lost 8 games + was on court less than two hours in total in those beat downs. Martina was no longer peak as the year went on but she was still in her prime and she somehow peaked perfectly at the slams. Graf was visibly nervous in her first Wimbledon final and Martina pounced on that. Steffi was suffering from a cold in the USO final and just didn’t have enough left in the tank to compete with what was probably the very last appearance of peak Martina. She triple crowned at the 1987 USO. She wasn’t playing her best during the regular tour events but she was just as brilliant as her 1983-1986 peak during the ‘87 W + USO finals.

If Martina hadn’t been peaking during those two matches Steffi Graf may have very well completed the only perfect season of the modern era. Two matches lost out of 77 played, and to the same person/GOAT, is prime Steffi. The beginning of prime Steffi, but still Grade A Prime™️!
 
Last edited:
Grass:

1. Court- 19 grass slams is hard to argue with.
2. Serena, Graf, Navratilova- these 3 are all interchangeable, not sure what order to put them in.
5. Venus

Hard:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Evert, Navratilova, Clijsters, Davenport, Seles, Hingis- could argue almost any order after the top 2 amongst many women.

Clay:

1. Evert
2. Graf
3. Seles or Henin- again interchangeable
5. Swiatek


Grass:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Borg- IMO he is better than Djokovic on grass, but 7 titles to 5, plus all Djokovic's extra finals and semi finals, it is impossible to argue against when it comes to who is greater or should rank higher
5. McEnroe

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Djokovic

Both Djokovic and Kuerten heavily lack in number of clay titles outside of RG. I even thought of putting Vilas at #5 for that reason.

Hard:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Sampras
4. Connors
5. Nadal

Honorable mentions to Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe who all could have easily made top 5 as well.
 
Angrybirdstar said:
genuinely loled

@pierceforehands your presence is requested and perhaps even morally obligated
Click to expand...


Insideoutforehanders is likely another Seles nutter like Mustard, Djokovicsomething, and others who will never let go of their certainty Seles was a guaranteed 30+ winner and the best player of her era on every surface, even grass, without the stabbing. There is no arguing or debating with those people so I don't even bother anymore. Just laugh.
 
fedfan24 said:
Grass:
Federer
Pete
Borg
Djokovic
McEnroe

HC:
Federer
Djokovic
Agassi
Pete
Nadal

Clay:
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Djokovic
Click to expand...
For me

Grass

Federer
Djokovic (reached more finals than Sampras)
Sampras
Borg
McEnroe

Clay

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Djokovic

Indoor (hard and carpet )

McEnroe (by just a nose over Lendl)
Lendl
Becker (won 5 important indoor titles)
Connors

Hard outdoors (I would put federer above djokovic on fast hard, but most hard is on slow courts these days)

Djokovic
Federer
Sampras
Connors
Mcenroe
 
Last edited:
jl809 said:
8 Wimbledon finals against Evert and Graf combined is absolutely not light years behind 5 finals against Venus and Sharapova
Click to expand...
First of all, women's tennis was always open as there was NO female pro tour. Also, Wimbledon was not the only grass court slam in the Court era, in which she won 19 grass court slams. King won 10. Of course, they had the advantage in that three of the four slams were on grass in their era, so it is hard to compare them with players from the late eighties on. The same is true of hard-court slams, as there were none in the Court-King era.
 
thrust said:
First of all, women's tennis was always open as there was NO female pro tour. Also, Wimbledon was not the only grass court slam in the Court era, in which she won 19 grass court slams. King won 10. Of course, they had the advantage in that three of the four slams were on grass in their era, so it is hard to compare them with players from the late eighties on. The same is true of hard-court slams, as there were none in the Court-King era.
Click to expand...
There might not have been a pro tour, but players like Alice Marble, Sarah Palfrey Cooke, Pauline Batz (involuntarily), and Althea Gibson turned pro when they otherwise would have been favorites to keep stacking Majors at the amateur level.
 
Last edited:
thrust said:
First of all, women's tennis was always open as there was NO female pro tour. Also, Wimbledon was not the only grass court slam in the Court era, in which she won 19 grass court slams. King won 10. Of course, they had the advantage in that three of the four slams were on grass in their era, so it is hard to compare them with players from the late eighties on. The same is true of hard-court slams, as there were none in the Court-King era.
Click to expand...
Well, it was purely considered an amateur sport, pre-Open era, no? with amateur money as well, not like Open era. It's a little unusual that no pro-tour was attempted....maybe due to the biases of the era, perhaps? Could Court and a few others gone off and gotten something going? have to wonder if it was ever considered.
 
buscemi said:
There might not have been a pro tour, but players like Alice Marble, Sarah Palfrey Cooke, Pauline Batz (involuntarily), and Althea Gibson turned pro when they otherwise would have been favorites to keep stacking Majors at the amateur level.
Click to expand...
reading out of order...so was there an actual pro-tour for the ladies? or just intermittent exos?
 
buscemi said:
Somewhat. For example, Alice Marble played 61 matches with Mary Hardwick and then Betz played against Sarah Palfrey Cooke and Gussie Moran as part of Kack Kramer's pro tour.
Click to expand...

Marble had such a powerful serve and volley game, and overall game. King said in her biography Marble and Wills Moody were the most powerful overall hitters of the entire pre Open Era, even including Connolly.
 
buscemi said:
Somewhat. For example, Alice Marble played 61 matches with Mary Hardwick and then Betz played against Sarah Palfrey Cooke and Gussie Moran as part of Kack Kramer's pro tour.
Click to expand...

The womens
timnz said:
For me

Grass

Federer
Djokovic (reached more finals than Sampras)
Sampras
Borg
McEnroe

Clay

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Djokovic

Indoor (hard and carpet )

McEnroe (by just a nose over Lendl)
Lendl
Becker (won 5 important indoor titles)
Connors

Hard outdoors (I would put federer above djokovic on fast hard, but most hard is on slow courts these days)

Djokovic
Federer
Sampras
Connors
Mcenroe
Click to expand...

Djokovic over Sampras on grass. :-D:-D

And I can't imagine atleast 1 of Sampras or Borg isn't top 5 on carpet, probably both.
 
pierceforehands said:
The womens


Djokovic over Sampras on grass. :-D:-D

And I can't imagine atleast 1 of Sampras or Borg isn't top 5 on carpet, probably both.
Click to expand...
Why not Djokovic over Sampras on grass? Same number of championships - 7 and in addition Djokovic has an additional 3 runnerups whereas Sampras next best 3 placings at Wimbledon were 1 semi, 1 quarter, 1 4th round
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
Well, it was purely considered an amateur sport, pre-Open era, no? with amateur money as well, not like Open era. It's a little unusual that no pro-tour was attempted....maybe due to the biases of the era, perhaps? Could Court and a few others gone off and gotten something going? have to wonder if it was ever considered.
Click to expand...
The problem was the perception that nobody would invest in a barnstorming tour for just women. Previously, a couple of of amateurs ladies with a little celebrity, would attach themselves to a men's pro tour like a novelty act but not as a stand-alone entity.... nobody believed it would be financially viable, so such efforts were stillborne.

Remember how much less press coverage there were for women's tennis results than the men. The men's final would get an article in the local paper, and the women's final would get a two sentence paragraph.
 
On clay, Vilas is necessarily in the top 5, because he is the recordman of matches won on clay + won 49 tournaments on clay (just behind Nadal), including 2 Grand Slams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
bobcolbert said:
On clay, Vilas is necessarily in the top 5, because he is the recordman of matches won on clay + won 49 tournaments on clay (just behind Nadal), including 2 Grand Slams.
Click to expand...
According to user Ivan69, Bill Tilden won the most matches on clay:

Total regular wins on clay​
Player Wins​
1. Bill Tilden 744​
2. Guillermo Vilas 699​
3. Manuel Orantes 536​
4. Nicola Pietrangeli 478​
5. Rafael Nadal 474​
6. Jaroslav Drobny 473​
7. Ken Rosewall 456​
8. Ilie Nastase 451​
9. Thomas Muster 426​
10. Rod Laver 419​

(This was Nadal's total at some point in 2021).

Also won more titles than Vilas:

Total regular titles on clay​
Player Sum of Titles​
1. Rafael Nadal 66​
2. Bill Tilden 64​
3. Rod Laver 55​
4. Guillermo Vilas 53​
5. Tony Wilding 49​
 
Last edited:
bobcolbert said:
On clay, Vilas is necessarily in the top 5, because he is the recordman of matches won on clay + won 49 tournaments on clay (just behind Nadal), including 2 Grand Slams.
Click to expand...
I think I see that the same way, with some different rationales maybe. I have Vilas #5 (see above) on clay overall. Specific to the French Open, I would not have him top 5. I think he is hurt a bit by the fact that he was always certainly behind Borg during his entire prime, and kind of right with Orantes. His career numbers are very high owing partly to playing a long time and partly owing to his career occurring at a time when Clay just was played on a good deal more than the present tour. I actually thought for a long time Nadal would struggle to overtake Vilas in total career clay titles, but he got there. Even in match wins though he couldn’t. I think in terms of prime runs, Borg in the 70s, Lendl in the 80s, and Nadal for his virtual entire career, with Djokovic coming up from time to time all rank ahead of Vilas. But I’d have Vilas over every 90s player - barely over Muster; as well as over Wilander.
 
SamSpade said:
I think I see that the same way, with some different rationales maybe. I have Vilas #5 (see above) on clay overall. Specific to the French Open, I would not have him top 5. I think he is hurt a bit by the fact that he was always certainly behind Borg during his entire prime, and kind of right with Orantes. His career numbers are very high owing partly to playing a long time and partly owing to his career occurring at a time when Clay just was played on a good deal more than the present tour. I actually thought for a long time Nadal would struggle to overtake Vilas in total career clay titles, but he got there. Even in match wins though he couldn’t. I think in terms of prime runs, Borg in the 70s, Lendl in the 80s, and Nadal for his virtual entire career, with Djokovic coming up from time to time all rank ahead of Vilas. But I’d have Vilas over every 90s player - barely over Muster; as well as over Wilander.
Click to expand...

I don't know about overall on clay but as for the French Open itself Courier at the 92 French >>> Vilas any year at the French (including 77, where he won in dominant fashion but over a pitiful draw, while Courier in 92 won in dominant fashion going through possibly the toughest overall draw ever). As for clay overall, Muster in 95 >>> Vilas any year of his career, again including 77.

Vilas at the French was not even that hurt by Borg. He lost to him only twice, but both years were years he would have had to play people (the ones who also made it to the end those years) who he didn't have that good a record against around that time. At most he possibly wins 1 of those 2, and adds 1 more French Open. His case for a high ranking can only be his total quota of clay titles and overall performance on the clay tour, which he has a case for, but it depends if you want to reward quantity over quality. If you reward quality Vilas is definitely not top 5, if you reward quantity then possibly.

I personally would have a hard time ranking Vilas over Wilander, not only with Wilander having triple the number of French Open titles, but the glaring fact he failed to beat a 17 year old Wilander in a French Open final.
 
pierceforehands said:
I don't know about overall on clay but as for the French Open itself Courier at the 92 French >>> Vilas any year at the French (including 77, where he won in dominant fashion but over a pitiful draw, while Courier in 92 won in dominant fashion going through possibly the toughest overall draw ever). As for clay overall, Muster in 95 >>> Vilas any year of his career, again including 77.

Vilas at the French was not even that hurt by Borg. He lost to him only twice, but both years were years he would have had to play people (the ones who also made it to the end those years) who he didn't have that good a record against around that time. At most he possibly wins 1 of those 2, and adds 1 more French Open. His case for a high ranking can only be his total quota of clay titles and overall performance on the clay tour, which he has a case for, but it depends if you want to reward quantity over quality. If you reward quality Vilas is definitely not top 5, if you reward quantity then possibly.

I personally would have a hard time ranking Vilas over Wilander, not only with Wilander having triple the number of French Open titles, but the glaring fact he failed to beat a 17 year old Wilander in a French Open final.
Click to expand...
Oh we are on the same page with Courier and Muster - big fans of both and the arguments behind each of them. In Clay overall - which is what my list lays out above - I do have Vilas over Courier and Muster. That is due mostly to longevity. I agree that Muster in 95-96 range is superior to Vilas in any isolated two year span. Vilas though, in my judgment, narrowly edges out Muster in 73-86 vs 88-99 (or whatever the specific years of their careers). Isolated to the FO, I too would be high on Courier. I’d rank him above Vilas for sure, and ahead of Bruguera, Muster, Federer etc. The 92 run was indeed awesome - as was his Australian runs of the same era. Of course what holds Courier back in the broader ‘all clay’ list is that I believe he only won 5 titles on clay - 2 FO; 2 Rome and something else - so he just didn’t play in it much including in his brief prime - but when he did, phenomenal.
 
SamSpade said:
Oh we are on the same page with Courier and Muster - big fans of both and the arguments behind each of them. In Clay overall - which is what my list lays out above - I do have Vilas over Courier and Muster. That is due mostly to longevity. I agree that Muster in 95-96 range is superior to Vilas in any isolated two year span. Vilas though, in my judgment, narrowly edges out Muster in 73-86 vs 88-99 (or whatever the specific years of their careers). Isolated to the FO, I too would be high on Courier. I’d rank him above Vilas for sure, and ahead of Bruguera, Muster, Federer etc. The 92 run was indeed awesome - as was his Australian runs of the same era. Of course what holds Courier back in the broader ‘all clay’ list is that I believe he only won 5 titles on clay - 2 FO; 2 Rome and something else - so he just didn’t play in it much including in his brief prime - but when he did, phenomenal.
Click to expand...

So out of your curiosity what would say your top 12 of the Open Era clay list be.
 
Womens grass

1. Graf- highest average of slams per grass major (7) tied with Serena, and would have easily tied or broken Navratilova's Wimbledon record without her knee operation. Seles is irrelevant to Graf on grass, so the Seles stabbing is also irrelevant to this.

2. Serena- Tied with Graf for highest grass major (7) per grass major at the time average, and had BY FAR the toughest grass competition compared to any of Navratilova (the weakest), Graf (2nd weakest) or Court. Only don't have her #1, since she should have broken the Wimbledon record and didn't since she choked in finals vs lesser opponents, unlike Graf who was prevented it by injury.

3. Court- 19 grass majors out of 3 grass slams, so an average of 6.5 grass slams per major. However Australian Open was not a real slam, so that is a bit skewed, however she wins almost all those anyway so would still be around 6. Also would be even higher if she didn't skip so much time for her various pregnancies and breaks. Would probably be the grass GOAT without all her breaks.

4. Navratilova- Wimbledon record but only averaged 6 grass slams out of 2 grass majors, and the only years she missed Australia she could win are 78 and 79, but had Evert, Goolagong and others played those she probably wins 0 or 1 of those, as she wasnt dominant yet, and was always weaker on Australian grass than Wimbledon grass. Her grass competition also sucked, even more than Graf's which also sucked.

5. Venus- close between Venus and King but went with Venus.

6. King

7. Goolagong- IMO better grass courter than Evert and she does have 1 more (6 to 5) grass major and also leads their head to head on grass 5-4, with all of Evert's wins minus 76 Wimbledon being when Evonne was past her prime. Evert has 1 more WImbledon, but Goolagong beating peak King and peak Court back to back to win 71 and peak Austin and peak Evert back to back to win 80, are more impressive than any of Evert's Wimbledon titles, and way more impressive than Evert's 74 or 81 titles where she beat nobody except a horribly playing Hana in the 81 final.

8. Evert- a quality grass courter, but never would be a dominant one in any era ever. Yes she was unlucky to have Martina, but it is a similar situation to Federer. You could say Federer wins 6 French Opens without Nadal, probably true, but there also isn't a single era you place Federer in he wins anywhere near 6 French Opens. Likewise Evert might have 6 or 7 Wimbledons without Navratilova, but there also isn't a single era you place her in she wins anywhere near 6 or 7 Wimbledons. An excellent grass courter, just not a dominant one, like she was on all other surfaces.

9. Davenport- I put her this high as she probably wins 6 or 7 Wimbledons without the Williams sisters, which is super bad luck and was in an incredibly hard grass era with not only the Williams, herself, plus Mauresmo, Sharapova, Hingis, Henin. The fact Henin who is definitely a quality grass courter, never won Wimbledon, just shows how hard that era is.

10. Mandlikova/Novotna- These two are kind of tied for 10th for me. Novotna clearly better at Wimbledon, but Hana was great at Australia on grass and other grass events.


Mens grass

1. Sampras- I know stats favor Federer but IMO Sampras is superior. I know this ranking will get a lot of complaints, I don't care, they are mine and I can do whatever the f-ck I want.

2. Federer

3. Djokovic/Borg- I have them tied. Djokovic 2 more Wimbledons, but Borg retiring super early, and had a decent shot to match Djokovic's 7 or atleast get a 6th if he continued. Borg won 5 in a row, which nobody did, not even Sampras or Federer, nor Djokovic. And Borg had way harder competition, but also played in an era with proper grass, which would be less suited to both Borg and Djokovic, but which Djokovic never had to deal with, and Borg did and still was this dominant inspite of it.

5. McEnroe

6. Edberg- I rank him over Becker since he has 1 more grass major (4 to 3) and is also 2-1 vs him at Wimbledon. Both had the benefit of a 2nd major on grass before 88.

7. Becker

8. Nadal- Ranking him this high might be controversial, but again they are my rankings so I don't care. He was inconsistent on grass but had great longevity of strong performances, and having to deal with two of the grass GOATs Djokovic and Federer, and still winning twice, being involved in two of the best finals ever in 2007 and 2008, reaching 5 finals and numerous other semis.

9. Connors- I guess on paper he should be over Nadal. It is a hard comparision, I was just more impressed with Nadal at Wimbledons 2007, 2008, and 2010 than I ever was by anything I saw from Connors personally. Their Wimbledon records are virtually identical, although Connors was more consistent.

10. Newcombe I guess, or maybe Laver who had enough strong play on grass Open Era alone to be in contention for this.
 
Womens clay rankings

1. Graf- She has 1 fewer French Open than Evert, but won 6 French Opens in the toughest clay era in history, bar none, which puts her #1 for me. The only caveat I have is the Seles stabbing, as I am sure she wouldn't even be in contention for any higher than 3rd (behind Evert and Seles) otherwise.

2. Evert- best record on clay but terrible clay field during her era.

3. Seles- would likely be #1 without the stabbing, although even that is hard to tell with all her personal problems, injuries, weight problems.

4. Henin- would be #1 most likely without her early retirement.

5. Sanchez Vicario- won 3 French Opens and reached many finals in by far the toughest clay era in history.

6. Court- Just her Open Era performances alone put her this high, if we took into account her entire career she would be even higher of course.

7. Swiatek- stellar clay record, but just like Evert in a terrible field. Henin is another who excelled in a weak clay field while Graf, Seles, Sanchez, Court excelled in really strong clay fields.

8. Serena- terrible clay field, especialy when Henin retired, but still 3 RG titles.

9. Navratilova

10. not sure who belongs here. It could be any of Sharapova, Pierce, Mandlikova probably


Mens clay rankings

1. Nadal

2. Borg

3. Lendl

4. Wilander

5. Kuerten

6. Djokovic- terrible clay field, and great success in Masters but lack of success in 250s and 500s the others excelled in. Plus even with the terrible clay field, and his extremely long career, all of Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten still have as many French Opens as him.

7. Muster- body of work on clay, not his FO record itself which is dissapointing.

8. Vilas- again body of work on clay.

9. Courier

10. Bruguera, Federer, Ferrero- 3 way tie.
 
buscemi said:
I wonder whether Kvitová would be a contender here, too.
Click to expand...

True I forgot about her. She is the only one of those with 2 Wimbledons. I wonder how a prime Novotna vs prime Kvitova match up would go, a total contrast of styles. The classic serve and volleyer with a strong all court game, big serve, big forehand, and great slice backhand, and great mobility and overall athleticsm (Novotna), vs the ultimate power baseliner with the big lefty serve, and huge shots off both sides, not much volleying ability, and mediocre movement (Petra). Both mentally basketcases, and erratic players, so that part is also a wash, although I think Jana is a more consistent mental player on tour, but much more prone to choking in big moments than Petra. When I think of players most similar to Petra in Jana's time I think of Pierce who Jana totally owns and Lindsay who totally owns Jana, so the mysteriousness only deepens, LOL!

And of course Hana is also Czech, so interesting to wonder about match ups of all 3 of them.
 
Hard Courts

1. Federer- Djokovic is more successful but Federer is flat out better. As my rankings show I don't always go 100% by results even if results is the biggest factor.

2. Sampras- Again prime for prime I just think he is better than Djokovic, particularly on medium to fast hard courts. Djokovic is better on slower ones though, so it is close.

3. Djokovic

4. Connors

5. McEnroe

6. Nadal

7. Agassi

8. Edberg- I personally don't think Becker is better than Edberg on hard courts despite technically having 1 more hard court slam. Just compare their performances at the US Open. Edberg also easily wins the 90 Australian Open without his injury, and would have won both 85 and 87 even if they were on hard courts instead, so would have more hard court majors. He also seemed to perform better on the regular tour on hard courts.

9. Becker

10. no idea, Murray, Wawrinka, Wilander, Courier, all have a case.


Hard Courts

1. Serena

2. Graf

3. Seles

4. Evert- I debated between her and Seles at #3, but I could never see Evert winning 5 straight hard court slams in Seles's era, not a chance.

5. Navratilova- at her peak better than Evert, but her body of work on hard courts is inferior.

6. Clijsters and Davenport tied- both incredible hard court players, despite Davenport only having 2 majors on hard courts shockingly, she was so formidable all around the regular tour, and had some very bad luck in hard court majors. Clijsters also easily could have wound up with much more than even the 4 hard court majors she has. Both had potential to be even higher on this list with less choking, and better luck, and Kim's case not so many retirements, and a relatively short career.

8. Henin- I guess on paper there is a case for her to be over Clijsters and/or Davenport, but my personal feeling is both are better hard court players than her, although I favor Henin in the match up with Davenport, as she is just naturally a very bad match up for Davenport.

9. Venus- I put her behind Henin for never winning the Australian Open.

10. Sharapova, Mandlikova, Austin all have a case. Would probably go with Sharapova.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Hard Courts

1. Federer- Djokovic is more successful but Federer is flat out better. As my rankings show I don't always go 100% by results even if results is the biggest factor.

2. Sampras- Again prime for prime I just think he is better than Djokovic, particularly on medium to fast hard courts. Djokovic is better on slower ones though, so it is close.

3. Djokovic

4. Connors

5. McEnroe

6. Nadal

7. Agassi

8. Edberg- I personally don't think Becker is better than Edberg on hard courts despite technically having 1 more hard court slam. Just compare their performances at the US Open. Edberg also easily wins the 90 Australian Open without his injury, and would have won both 85 and 87 even if they were on hard courts instead, so would have more hard court majors. He also seemed to perform better on the regular tour on hard courts.

9. Becker

10. no idea, Murray, Wawrinka, Wilander, Courier, all have a case.


Hard Courts

1. Serena

2. Graf

3. Seles

4. Evert- I debated between her and Seles at #3, but I could never see Evert winning 5 straight hard court slams in Seles's era, not a chance.

5. Navratilova- at her peak better than Evert, but her body of work on hard courts is inferior.

6. Clijsters and Davenport tied- both incredible hard court players, despite Davenport only having 2 majors on hard courts shockingly, she was so formidable all around the regular tour, and had some very bad luck in hard court majors. Clijsters also easily could have wound up with much more than even the 4 hard court majors she has. Both had potential to be even higher on this list with less choking, and better luck, and Kim's case not so many retirements, and a relatively short career.

8. Henin- I guess on paper there is a case for her to be over Clijsters and/or Davenport, but my personal feeling is both are better hard court players than her, although I favor Henin in the match up with Davenport, as she is just naturally a very bad match up for Davenport.

9. Venus- I put her behind Henin for never winning the Australian Open.

10. Sharapova, Mandlikova, Austin all have a case. Would probably go with Sharapova.
Click to expand...
Osaka?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

grafforehand
  • Poll Poll
Is Graf the best female player ever on all surfaces
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
18K
BTURNER
B
illusions30
Top 10 women of all time per surface
Replies
30
Views
3K
BTURNER
B
S
  • Poll Poll
Best ever debates by surface
Replies
47
Views
3K
jrepac
J
anointedone
Top 10 women players of all time per surface
2 3
Replies
101
Views
10K
Verbal Volley
V
F
Top ten of last 3 decades on each surface
Replies
13
Views
2K
Cenc
C
Back
Top