Top 7 in the Open Era History : Lendl / Edberg under rated ?

tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I have made an attempt to rank the top players in each major and see how many of them manage to be in the top at multiple majors.

The ranking itself within the list is arbitrary. I did not go further than 7 ranks to the list as it becomes real murky after #7.

AO :

Federer
Djokovic
Agassi
Wilander
Becker
Sampras (replaced Edberg)
Lendl



French :

Nadal
Borg
Wilander
Lendl
Kuerten
Courier
Brugera

Wimbledon:

Federer
Sampras
Borg
Becker
McEnroe
Connors
Edberg



USO :
Federer
Connors
Sampras
McEnroe
Lendl
Agassi
Edberg

While we know Fed / Sampras / Borg excelled in multiple majors, the most under rated aspect is that Lendl was very good at 3 of the 4 majors and Edberg at 2 of the 4.

Federer / Lendl /Sampras - 3 majors
Borg / McEnroe / Connors / Agassi / Becker / Wilander /Edberg - 2 majors
Nadal / Kuerten / Bruguera /Djokovic - 1 major

Lendl and Edberg deserve far more credit than they are given
 
Last edited:
How are Becker and Edberg on the list for the Australian Open, when Courier and Sampras aren't? All three of them have 2 AO titles, and it's not as if Becker made it to a slew of other AO finals or SF appearances sufficient for him to merit a higher ranking. :confused:

Just curious.

ETA:

This seems particularly confusing because you include Edberg at the U.S. Open, presumably based solely on his 2 wins. If that’s the criteria, then Courier and Sampras both belong on the list for the AO Open. And Nadal and Djokovic would also seem to belong on your list for Wimbledon. This would mean adding Sampras to your list of players who were good at 3/4 majors and Courier, Djokovic, and Nadal to your list of players who were good at 2/4.
 
Last edited:
How Federer is better than Sampras at Us with two less finals? With the same criteria you put Fed over Sampras at Wimbledon ...
 
The only one underrated on these lists is Djokovic.
Only on one list :shock: And why only top 7? Why not top 10? Only to to be able to exclude Djokovic :mad:
 
I think that probably Lendl should be over Willander at the French and the later one is rated too high at Australia too in my opinion because at the time I read the players field was quite poor.
 
How in hell is Edberg in the USO and Becker in the AO but not Sampras neither Courier in the AO (when both have the same amount of titles but they also made finals) ?
 
I think that part of the reason Edberg is underrated is the switch from grass to Rebound Ace at the Australian Open in 1988. Edberg won the last 2 years the tournament was held on grass and then never won it on Rebound Ace, despite making 3 more finals. Clearly, the grass better suited his game, and it's not hard to imagine Edberg winning at least a few more titles between 1988-1993 (when he lost in the finals to Courier). Bad luck on his part.
 
Bukmeikara said:
How Federer is better than Sampras at Us with two less finals? With the same criteria you put Fed over Sampras at Wimbledon ...
Click to expand...

mattennis said:
How in hell is Edberg in the USO and Becker in the AO but not Sampras neither Courier in the AO (when both have the same amount of titles but they also made finals) ?
Click to expand...

oberyn said:
I asked the same questions.
Click to expand...

The OP wants to downplay the others, and put his Idol on top. Can't blame him though, he's a fanatic .......:twisted:
 
So much hate and underrating of Djokovic. This thread is clearly created only to push Edberg and Becker ahead of Djokovic on the open era top list.

Unbelievable. :mad:
 
IMO, Edberg’s underrated for a variety of reasons.

His AO victories were in 1985 and 1987. This was the period when the AO was really not viewed as being on par with the other 3 slams. They were actually back-to-back victories as the AO was played in December of 1985 and January 1987. I grew up in the 80s and I remember several years where I literally did not find out who’d won the Australian Open until some reference was made to it during French Open coverage.

He was overshadowed by the “bigger” personalities and more popular players of his era. This is certainly not Edberg’s fault, but I think it contributes to his being underrated. Look at the 1991 U.S. Open. Edberg won the tournament that many pundits said he’d never win. Yet, the story of that tournament remains Jimmy Connors’ run to the semis.
 
mattennis said:
How in hell is Edberg in the USO and Becker in the AO but not Sampras neither Courier in the AO (when both have the same amount of titles but they also made finals) ?
Click to expand...

Well OP is just pointing out that Federer is GOAT at 3/4 slams. And Nadal is nowhere to be seen outside the French Open. That's basically the sole purpose of this thread. :lol: Sampras, Courier and Edberg, Lendl for that matter are not important in this thread.
 
oberyn said:
IMO, Edberg’s underrated for a variety of reasons.

His AO victories were in 1985 and 1987. This was the period when the AO was really not viewed as being on par with the other 3 slams. They were actually back-to-back victories as the AO was played in December of 1985 and January 1987. I grew up in the 80s and I remember several years where I literally did not find out who’d won the Australian Open until some reference was made to it during French Open coverage.

He was overshadowed by the “bigger” personalities and more popular players of his era. This is certainly not Edberg’s fault, but I think it contributes to his being underrated. Look at the 1991 U.S. Open. Edberg won the tournament that many pundits said he’d never win. Yet, the story of that tournament remains Jimmy Connors’ run to the semis.
Click to expand...

Yeah while the Australian Open had made a big recovery from 1983-1987 after it was a complete joke of a major from 1976-1982 (and possibly even before that as well), it still wasn't on a par with the other 3 majors as it had a smaller draw size, less ranking points, less prize money and terrible facilities at Kooyong.

Edberg himself hasn't given a lot of credit to his own back to back Aussie Open titles in 1985 and 1987, as he has said in the past that he considered his Wimbledon 1988 title to be his first 'real' major. Also he repeatedly talked about how it was a big career regret for him that he never won the Aussie Open title after the switch to hard courts at Melbourne Park in 1988, when the tournament finally had a 128 player draw and moved on a par with the other majors. He was certainly unlucky there from 1988-1993:

1988 – Loses in 5 sets to Wilander in the semis.
1989 – Injures his back near the end of his 4th round demolition of Cash, and has to default his quarter-final against Muster, who he had a perfect 10-0 record against.
1990 – Retires during the 3rd set of his final against Lendl with a torn stomach muscle injury, after he had served for a 2 sets to love lead. The injury had surfaced during the final game of his SF demolition of Wilander, which was the best and most flawless performance of his career up to that point.
1991 – Loses in 5 sets to Lendl in the semis, after holding 2 match points in the 4th set.
1992 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final.
1993 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final. He again suffered a back injury during his 3rd round victory over Mansdorf, and there was speculation over whether he would default his 4th round match.

It's true that he was often over-shadowed during his career. It didn't help that he was considered to be so boring and not have a personality, compared to his rival Becker who was a big personality and superstar everywhere he went.

Also while he was rightly praised for his artistry and elegant game, his resilience and fighting spirit was also underrated a lot during his career. I guess his string of victories during his 1992 US Open title run was the biggest showcase of that, but he fought back from losing positions to win so many matches during his career, big matches, tense 5 setters etc. And the way he fought during that 1990 Aussie final before he was forced to retire, when he was clearly in so much pain was admirable.
 
Last edited:
uliks said:
Well OP is just pointing out that Federer is GOAT at 3/4 slams. And Nadal is nowhere to be seen outside the French Open. That's basically the sole purpose of this thread. :lol: Sampras, Courier and Edberg, Lendl for that matter are not important in this thread.
Click to expand...

Beside that his clear intention it to undermine Djokovic and make him lesser player than Edberg and Becker. Why top 7? Why 7? :shock: Why not top 4 or top 6 or top 11?

Also his lists are ridiculous and underrate Djokovic to the extreme.
 
Chico said:
Beside that his clear intention it to undermine Djokovic and make him lesser player than Edberg and Becker. Why top 7? Why 7? :shock: Why not top 4 or top 6 or top 11?

Also his lists are ridiculous and underrate Djokovic to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Is there an option where I cant see the writtings of some particular users because it really push me away from this forum.... The admins should work on that.
 
Gizo said:
Yeah while the Australian Open had made a big recovery from 1983-1987 after it was a complete joke of a major from 1976-1982 (and possibly even before that as well), it still wasn't on a par with the other 3 majors as it had a smaller draw size, less ranking points, less prize money and terrible facilities at Kooyong.

Edberg himself hasn't given a lot of credit to his own back to back Aussie Open titles in 1985 and 1987, as he has said in the past that he considered his Wimbledon 1988 title to be his first 'real' major. Also he repeatedly talked about how it was a big career regret for him that he never won the Aussie Open title after the switch to hard courts at Melbourne Park in 1988, when the tournament finally had a 128 player draw and moved on a par with the other majors. He was certainly unlucky there from 1988-1993:

1988 – Loses in 5 sets to Wilander in the semis.
1989 – Injures his back near the end of his 4th round demolition of Cash, and has to default his quarter-final against Muster, who he had a perfect 10-0 record against.
1990 – Retires during the 3rd set of his final against Lendl with a torn stomach muscle injury, after he had served for a 2 sets to love lead. The injury had surfaced during the final game of his SF demolition of Wilander, which was the best and most flawless performance of his career up to that point.
1991 – Loses in 5 sets to Lendl in the semis, after holding 2 match points in the 4th set.
1992 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final.
1993 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final. He again suffered a back injury during his 3rd round victory over Mansdorf, and there was speculation over whether he would default his 4th round match.

It's true that he was often over-shadowed during his career. It didn't help that he was considered to be so boring and not have a personality, compared to his rival Becker who was a big personality and superstar everywhere he went.

Also while he was rightly praised for his artistry and elegant game, his resilience and fighting spirit was also underrated a lot during his career. I guess his string of victories during his 1992 US Open title run was the biggest showcase of that, but he fought back from losing positions to win so many matches during his career, big matches, tense 5 setters etc. And the way he fought during that 1990 Aussie final before he was forced to retire, when he was clearly in so much pain was admirable.
Click to expand...

Those are all excellent points.

Personally, I was captivated by Edberg's run to the 1992 U.S. Open title, and I certainly don't think he gets the credit he deserves for that performance.
 
Bukmeikara said:
Is there an option where I cant see the writtings of some particular users because it really push me away from this forum.... The admins should work on that.
Click to expand...

There is the ignore list. Feel free to use it:

UserCP->Buddy/Ignore Lists.

I am strongly considering adding you to the ignore list, since your unreasonable underrating of Novak is becoming really annoying.
 
Gizo said:
Yeah while the Australian Open had made a big recovery from 1983-1987 after it was a complete joke of a major from 1976-1982 (and possibly even before that as well), it still wasn't on a par with the other 3 majors as it had a smaller draw size, less ranking points, less prize money and terrible facilities at Kooyong.

Edberg himself hasn't given a lot of credit to his own back to back Aussie Open titles in 1985 and 1987, as he has said in the past that he considered his Wimbledon 1988 title to be his first 'real' major. Also he repeatedly talked about how it was a big career regret for him that he never won the Aussie Open title after the switch to hard courts at Melbourne Park in 1988, when the tournament finally had a 128 player draw and moved on a par with the other majors. He was certainly unlucky there from 1988-1993:

1988 – Loses in 5 sets to Wilander in the semis.
1989 – Injures his back near the end of his 4th round demolition of Cash, and has to default his quarter-final against Muster, who he had a perfect 10-0 record against.
1990 – Retires during the 3rd set of his final against Lendl with a torn stomach muscle injury, after he had served for a 2 sets to love lead. The injury had surfaced during the final game of his SF demolition of Wilander, which was the best and most flawless performance of his career up to that point.
1991 – Loses in 5 sets to Lendl in the semis, after holding 2 match points in the 4th set.
1992 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final.
1993 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final. He again suffered a back injury during his 3rd round victory over Mansdorf, and there was speculation over whether he would default his 4th round match.

It's true that he was often over-shadowed during his career. It didn't help that he was considered to be so boring and not have a personality, compared to his rival Becker who was a big personality and superstar everywhere he went.

Also while he was rightly praised for his artistry and elegant game, his resilience and fighting spirit was also underrated a lot during his career. I guess his string of victories during his 1992 US Open title run was the biggest showcase of that, but he fought back from losing positions to win so many matches during his career, big matches, tense 5 setters etc. And the way he fought during that 1990 Aussie final before he was forced to retire, when he was clearly in so much pain was admirable.
Click to expand...

Great post, Edberg was my first favorite, but I was only a small kid, who didn't understand much, so I don't remember most of this.

Chico, how on earth is Djoko top-7 open era at the US Open?
 
uliks said:
Well OP is just pointing out that Federer is GOAT at 3/4 slams. And Nadal is nowhere to be seen outside the French Open. That's basically the sole purpose of this thread. :lol: Sampras, Courier and Edberg, Lendl for that matter are not important in this thread.
Click to expand...

Hahaha.....I was gonna point it out, but you beat me to it......:twisted:
 
President said:
Why would Edberg be ahead of Nadal at the US Open?
Click to expand...

Another good point. I forgot about Nadal at the USO.

So, based on the OP’s own criteria:

Sampras (AO/Wimb/USO) and Nadal (FO/Wimb/USO) should be added to the 3/4.

Courier (AO/FO) and Djokovic (FO/Wimb) should be added to the 2/4.
 
Gizo said:
Yeah while the Australian Open had made a big recovery from 1983-1987 after it was a complete joke of a major from 1976-1982 (and possibly even before that as well), it still wasn't on a par with the other 3 majors as it had a smaller draw size, less ranking points, less prize money and terrible facilities at Kooyong.

Edberg himself hasn't given a lot of credit to his own back to back Aussie Open titles in 1985 and 1987, as he has said in the past that he considered his Wimbledon 1988 title to be his first 'real' major. Also he repeatedly talked about how it was a big career regret for him that he never won the Aussie Open title after the switch to hard courts at Melbourne Park in 1988, when the tournament finally had a 128 player draw and moved on a par with the other majors. He was certainly unlucky there from 1988-1993:

1988 – Loses in 5 sets to Wilander in the semis.
1989 – Injures his back near the end of his 4th round demolition of Cash, and has to default his quarter-final against Muster, who he had a perfect 10-0 record against.
1990 – Retires during the 3rd set of his final against Lendl with a torn stomach muscle injury, after he had served for a 2 sets to love lead. The injury had surfaced during the final game of his SF demolition of Wilander, which was the best and most flawless performance of his career up to that point.
1991 – Loses in 5 sets to Lendl in the semis, after holding 2 match points in the 4th set.
1992 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final.
1993 – Loses in 4 sets to Courier in the final. He again suffered a back injury during his 3rd round victory over Mansdorf, and there was speculation over whether he would default his 4th round match.

It's true that he was often over-shadowed during his career. It didn't help that he was considered to be so boring and not have a personality, compared to his rival Becker who was a big personality and superstar everywhere he went.

Also while he was rightly praised for his artistry and elegant game, his resilience and fighting spirit was also underrated a lot during his career. I guess his string of victories during his 1992 US Open title run was the biggest showcase of that, but he fought back from losing positions to win so many matches during his career, big matches, tense 5 setters etc. And the way he fought during that 1990 Aussie final before he was forced to retire, when he was clearly in so much pain was admirable.
Click to expand...

Great post, lots of good stuff here. I think Edberg is underrated also in part because as part of the first ATP generation (led by Wilander/Lendl) who played 4 majors a year routinely, he didn't have a signature season where he won 2 or more majors. 1990 really should've been that season, it's a shame he tore his stomach muscle in the AO final.
 
oberyn said:
Those are all excellent points.

Personally, I was captivated by Edberg's run to the 1992 U.S. Open title, and I certainly don't think he gets the credit he deserves for that performance.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right he doesn't. It was just an amazing run.

The complete contrast between his 1991 and 1992 US Open title runs is fascinating (a big like between Borg's first 2 Wimbledon title runs in 1976 and 1977). In 1991 he won his last 4 matches in straight sets, demolishing Lendl in the semi-finals and Courier in the final when he was just flawless. And in 1992 he survived those 3 consecutive, tense, thrilling 5 setters against Krajicek, Lendl and Chang (in 5 hours and 26 minutes) before he somehow still had enough left in the tank to beat Sampras in the final after losing the first set.

He had quite a lot of epic 5 set victories during his career that's for sure.
 
This could be interesting to look at.

Let's do a very, very simple listing of the top ten (or just over because of ties at the AO) at each Major based on just wins and finals (and forgetting about things that clearly had a huge impact like the Open era arriving near the end of some all-time greats' careers, top players often skipping the AO and resulting in weak fields until the mid-80s, players banned from RG due to WTT, etc.)

Australian Open
#1 Roger Federer - 4 titles (1 RU)
#2= Novak Djokovic - 4
#2= Andre Agassi - 4
#4 Mats Wilander - 3(1)
#5 Stefan Edberg - 2(3)
#6 Ivan Lendl - 2(2)
#7= John Newcombe - 2(1)
#7= Guillermo Vilas - 2(1)
#7= Pete Sampras - 2(1)
#10= Ken Rosewall - 2
#10= Johan Kriek - 2
#10= Boris Becker - 2
#10= Jim Courier - 2

Roland Garros
#1 Rafael Nadal - 9
#2 Bjorn Borg - 6
#3= Mats Wilander - 3(2)
#3= Ivan Lendl - 3(2)
#5 Gustavo Kuerten - 3
#6 =Jim Courier - 2(1)
#6= Sergi Bruguera - 2(1)
#8 Jan Kodes - 2
#9 Roger Federer - 1(4)
#10 Guillermo Vilas - 1(3)

Wimbledon
#1 Roger Federer - 7(2)
#2 Pete Sampras - 7
#3 Bjorn Borg - 5(1)
#4 Boris Becker - 3(4)
#5 John McEnroe - 3(2)
#6 Jimmy Connors - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(3)
#8= John Newcombe - 2(1)
#8= Stefan Edberg - 2(1)
#8= Novak Djokovic - 2(1)

US Open
#1 Pete Sampras - 5(3)
#2 Jimmy Connors - 5(2)
#3 Roger Federer - 5(1)
#4 John McEnroe - 4(1)
#5 Ivan Lendl - 3(5)
#6 Andre Agassi - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(1)
#8= Stefan Edberg - 2
#8= Pat Rafter - 2
#10 Novak Djokovic - 1(4)

Federer is the only player on all 4 lists with AO #1, RG #9, W #1 and USO #3.

Rafa is on 3 of the 4 with RG #1, W #7 and USO #7.

Novak is also on 3 of the 4 with AO #2=, W #8= and USO #10.

Lendl, Edberg and Sampras are also on 3 of the 4.
 
eldanger25 said:
Great post, lots of good stuff here. I think Edberg is underrated also in part because as part of the first ATP generation (led by Wilander/Lendl) who played 4 majors a year routinely, he didn't have a signature season where he won 2 or more majors. 1990 really should've been that season, it's a shame he tore his stomach muscle in the AO final.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a very point good. Wilander had his 1988, Lendl had his 1986 and 1987, and even Becker had his 1989 when most people considered him be the best in the world in-spite of what the ranking computer said, but Edberg had no multi-slam winning season which was a shame. That coupled with his frequent criticisms for having a boring personality always meant that he was overshadowed, but then again that was just the way he liked it. He hated the limelight.

Regarding the 1990 Aussie Open final, while we don't know for sure that Edberg would have won it had he not been injured (and Lendl did win their titanic SF there the next year), and he may have had some doubts creep in after losing 2 major finals in 1989, I personally think that he would have won it had it not been for his stomach injury. The way he played in his SF against Wilander was just incredible and everything he touched was turning to gold, with approximately 40 winners at the net in 3 short sets. I find it difficult to imagine that he would then suffer a huge nosedive in form and lose to Lendl. Plus he nearly took a 2 sets to love lead in the final despite his injury anyway.

Also while 1989 had been a frustrating year for him at the majors, with those RG and Wimbledon final defeats alongside his back injury at the Aussie Open and his beat-down by a 37 year old Connors at the US Open, he finished it strongly by beating Lendl and Becker back to back to win the Masters. That would have done wonders for his confidence going into 1990.

It would have been hilarious had Edberg finished 1990 with two grand slam titles at the Aussie Open and Wimbledon, combined with his two 1st round defeats at RG and the US Open (both of which were in straight sets). That would have been an interesting symmetry and imbalance.
 
Last edited:
To continue my exceedingly simplistic and silly system:

Rafa is #14= at AO with Safin. So we can give him some pointless number (let's call it Major Coefficient) of (14+1+7+7)/4 = 7.25. Of course this number does not take into account his dominance at RG, as adding to his titles there would not add to this number.

Novak is currently #26= at RG (although remember this system puts Gaudio's 1 RG win with no other QF above Novak's 2 RUs, 4 SFs and 2 QFs) giving his Major Coefficient as (2+26+8+10)/4 = 11.5.

Fed's would be (1+9+1+3)/4 = 3.5.
 
Strobe Lights said:
To continue my exceedingly simplistic and silly system:

Rafa is #14= at AO with Safin. So we can give him some pointless number (let's call it Major Coefficient) of (14+1+7+7)/4 = 7.25. Of course this number does not take into account his dominance at RG, as adding to his titles there would not add to this number.

Novak is currently #26= at RG (although remember this system puts Gaudio's 1 RG win with no other QF above Novak's 2 RUs, 4 SFs and 2 QFs) giving his Major Coefficient as (2+26+8+10)/4 = 11.5.

Fed's would be (1+9+1+3)/4 = 3.5.
Click to expand...

Very good posts altogether, mate. Do you think Rafa is never gonna win anymore GS outside of the FO ?
 
Strobe Lights said:
This could be interesting to look at.

Let's do a very, very simple listing of the top ten (or just over because of ties at the AO) at each Major based on just wins and finals (and forgetting about things that clearly had a huge impact like the Open era arriving near the end of some all-time greats' careers, top players often skipping the AO and resulting in weak fields until the mid-80s, players banned from RG due to WTT, etc.)

Australian Open
#1 Roger Federer - 4 titles (1 RU)
#2= Novak Djokovic - 4
#2= Andre Agassi - 4
#4 Mats Wilander - 3(1)
#5 Stefan Edberg - 2(3)
#6 Ivan Lendl - 2(2)
#7= John Newcombe - 2(1)
#7= Guillermo Vilas - 2(1)
#7= Pete Sampras - 2(1)
#10= Ken Rosewall - 2
#10= Johan Kriek - 2
#10= Boris Becker - 2
#10= Jim Courier - 2

Roland Garros
#1 Rafael Nadal - 9
#2 Bjorn Borg - 6
#3= Mats Wilander - 3(2)
#3= Ivan Lendl - 3(2)
#5 Gustavo Kuerten - 3
#6 =Jim Courier - 2(1)
#6= Sergi Bruguera - 2(1)
#8 Jan Kodes - 2
#9 Roger Federer - 1(4)
#10 Guillermo Vilas - 1(3)

Wimbledon
#1 Roger Federer - 7(2)
#2 Pete Sampras - 7
#3 Bjorn Borg - 5(1)
#4 Boris Becker - 3(4)
#5 John McEnroe - 3(2)
#6 Jimmy Connors - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(3)
#8= John Newcombe - 2(1)
#8= Stefan Edberg - 2(1)
#8= Novak Djokovic - 2(1)

US Open
#1 Pete Sampras - 5(3)
#2 Jimmy Connors - 5(2)
#3 Roger Federer - 5(1)
#4 John McEnroe - 4(1)
#5 Ivan Lendl - 3(5)
#6 Andre Agassi - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(1)
#8= Stefan Edberg - 2
#8= Pat Rafter - 2
#10 Novak Djokovic - 1(4)

Federer is the only player on all 4 lists with AO #1, RG #9, W #1 and USO #3.

Rafa is on 3 of the 4 with RG #1, W #7 and USO #7.

Novak is also on 3 of the 4 with AO #2=, W #8= and USO #10.

Lendl, Edberg and Sampras are also on 3 of the 4.
Click to expand...

Good list. I tend to think Top 8 (no ties) is better than Top 10, since you're left with multiple winners everywhere and it has a nice YEC-esque ring to it.

Here'd be my list:

Australian Open
#1 Roger Federer - 4 titles (1 RU; 6 SFs)
#2 Andre Agassi - 4 titles (2 SFs; 90+ w/p in 9 total appearances)
#3 Novak Djokovic - 4 titles (3 straight b/w 2011-13 - will very probably top this list when all is said and done, particularly given Fed's 6 year head start)
#4 Mats Wilander - 3 titles (including on both grass and HCs)
#5 Stefan Edberg - 2(3) (reached the finals on both grass and HCs)
#6 Ivan Lendl - 2(2) (reached the finals on both grass and HCs)
#7 Pete Sampras - 2(1) (arguably de facto final in 2000 as well)
#8 John Newcombe - 2(1) (stopped Connors in his tracks in January '75 final after Jimbo's 20-0 run at the majors in 1974)

Roland Garros
#1 Rafael Nadal - 9
#2 Bjorn Borg - 6
#3= Mats Wilander - 3(2)
#3= Ivan Lendl - 3(2)
#5 Gustavo Kuerten - 3
#6 =Jim Courier - 2(1)
#6= Sergi Bruguera - 2(1)
#8 Jan Kodes - 2

Wimbledon
#1 Roger Federer - 7(2)
#2 Pete Sampras - 7
#3 Bjorn Borg - 5(1)
#4 Boris Becker - 3(4)
#5 John McEnroe - 3(2)
#6 Jimmy Connors - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(3)
#8 John Newcombe - 2(1) (2 wins and a final there in 7 tries during second half of his career/Open Era)

US Open
#1 Jimmy Connors - 5(2) (titles on all 3 surfaces at the Open, including clay win over Vilas/Borg, HC wins over Lendl etc. - made a ton of QFs/SFs from 1973-1991)
#2 Pete Sampras - 5(3) (twelve year gap b/w first and last win is longest in Open Era)
#3 Roger Federer - 5(1)
#4 John McEnroe - 4(1)
#5 Ivan Lendl - 3(5) (could argue that he and Mac should be tied)
#6 Andre Agassi - 2(4)
#7 Rafael Nadal - 2(1) (extra final plus Edberg's sub-80 percent w/p at the Open separates him here)
#8 Stefan Edberg - 2 (a few SF runs separate him and Rafter)
 
Gizo said:
Yeah that's a very point good. Wilander had his 1988, Lendl had his 1986 and 1987, and even Becker had his 1989 when most people considered him be the best in the world in-spite of what the ranking computer said, but Edberg had no multi-slam winning season which was a shame. That coupled with his frequent criticisms for having a boring personality always meant that he was overshadowed, but then again that was just the way he liked it. He hated the limelight.

Regarding the 1990 Aussie Open final, while we don't know for sure that Edberg would have won it had he not been injured (and Lendl did win their titanic SF there the next year), and he may have had some doubts creep in after losing 2 major finals in 1989, I personally think that he would have won it had it not been for his stomach injury. The way he played in his SF against Wilander was just incredible and everything he touched was turning to gold, with approximately 40 winners at the net in 3 short sets. I find it difficult to imagine that he would then suffer a huge nosedive in form and lose to Lendl. Plus he nearly took a 2 sets to love lead in the final despite his injury anyway.

Also while 1989 had been a frustrating year for him at the majors, with those RG and Wimbledon final defeats alongside his back injury at the Aussie Open and his beat-down by a 37 year old Connors at the US Open, he finished it strongly by beating Lendl and Becker back to back to win the Masters. That would have done wonders for his confidence going into 1990.

It would have been hilarious had Edberg finished 1990 with two grand slam titles at the Aussie Open and Wimbledon, combined with his two 1st round defeats at RG and the US Open (both of which were in straight sets). That would have been an interesting symmetry and imbalance.
Click to expand...

That would've been an interesting symmetry, I agree. Edberg had a great year across the tour in 1990 as well if I recall, winning key tournaments throughout various parts of the season. I definitely rate him sole Player of the Year in 1990.
 
mattennis said:
How in hell is Edberg in the USO and Becker in the AO but not Sampras neither Courier in the AO (when both have the same amount of titles but they also made finals) ?
Click to expand...

Sampras and Courier are outshadowed by those on my list of the 7 great players at AO. Edberg had 2 wins and 3 finals there.

Edberg at USO has 2 wins and 2 semi finals .Edberg beat Sampras and Courier in those finals .
 
tennisaddict said:
AO :

Federer
Djokovic
Agassi
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Lendl

USO :
Federer
Connors
Sampras
McEnroe
Lendl
Agassi
Edberg
Click to expand...

Just interested in why you would put Djokovic ahead of Agassi at the AO when Agassi has the better record at the AO. They both have 4 tournament wins - but Agassi also has 2 Semi's and 1 quarters; Djokovic has 3 quarters. Also why is Federer ahead of Sampras at the USO? Federer has 5 wins, 1 runner-up; Sampras has 5 wins, 3 runner-ups (Connors has 5 wins, 2 runner-ups).

So for the AO shouldn't it be:

Federer
Agassi
Djokovic
etc

So for the USO shouldn't it be:

Sampras
Connors
Federer
etc
 
Last edited:
I mentioned in OP that the listing is not in any specific order .

Also the reason for not going beyond 7 is that the list will get diluted .
 
Well I would definitely rank Connors over Sampras (and Federer) at the US Open. Sure Sampras reached 1 more final there, but Connors reached 5 more semi-finals than him (or Federer for that matter) there which surely outweighs that.

Sampras twice failed to reach the quarter-finals there during his 1993-1997 peak window, although admittedly in 1994 he hadn't played a single warm-up match after his ankle injury had ruined his summer hard court season. Connors reached the semi-finals or better there every single year during his prime from 1974-1984, and then 3 more times after that in 1985, 1987 and 1991.
 
Last edited:
Federer ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon ???

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final. Federer lost to a clay courter.

And Sampras ahead of Federer at US Open, tougher opponents and he won it for the first time at a very young age.
 
Last edited:
President said:
Why would Edberg be ahead of Nadal at the US Open?
Click to expand...

Better question is why would Edberg be ahead of Nadal at Wimbledon? Nadal played five consecutive finals there (if we ignore the year he didn't play), which is two more finals than Edberg (and all in a row!), which puts him above Stefan because each of them won two titles.

At the US Open...tough call, IMO. Nadal's reached three finals and won two titles, but Edberg was able to defend his title there, even though he'd reached one final less.
 
rossi46 said:
Federer ahead of Sampras at Wimbledon ???

Sampras never lost a Wimbledon final. Federer lost to a clay courter.

And Sampras ahead of Federer at US Open, tougher opponents and he won it for the first time at a very young age.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous statement, indeed. He's lost to a man who's won Wimbledon twice and who's reached five consecutive Wimbledon finals. Sampras has never faced an opponent with such a resume on grass (bar Becker).
Also, do you think that it's better to lose a QF match at Wimbledon, in straight sets, during your prime, against a player who's reached one final and has won just one title (Krajicek) or to someone like Nadal, who is by far superior grass court player than any of Pete's opponent in finals (with the exception of Becker)?

Regarding his second loss in the final...well, he's lost to Djokovic (already the champion at Wimbledon and seven time Major champion overall) at the age of 34, only after five sets. Not to mention that he actually won the title in 2012, at the age of 31. At the same age, Sampras lost to nobody in the graveyard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Martin J said:
Better question is why would Edberg be ahead of Nadal at Wimbledon? Nadal played five consecutive finals there (if we ignore the year he didn't play), which is two more finals than Edberg (and all in a row!), which puts him above Stefan because each of them won two titles.

At the US Open...tough call, IMO. Nadal's reached three finals and won two titles, but Edberg was able to defend his title there, even though he'd reached one final less.
Click to expand...


Not much to separate Edberg from Nadal at WImbledon. The reason I chose Edberg because he beat his nemesis Becker, while Nadal faced his pigeons Fed and Berdych.

Also Edberg was great on carpet and he does not get credit.

At the Uso, Like you said Edberg defended titles beating SAmpras and Courier.
 
tennisaddict said:
Sampras and Courier are outshadowed by those on my list of the 7 great players at AO. Edberg had 2 wins and 3 finals there.

Edberg at USO has 2 wins and 2 semi finals .Edberg beat Sampras and Courier in those finals .
Click to expand...

But that still doesn’t explain why Becker is on there for the AO instead of Courier or Sampras. Becker has 2 wins and 1 QF (No runner-ups and no SF appearances). Sampras and Courier equal Becker in titles at the AO and also had more years in which they reached the semis or better.

And Courier defended his title at the AO in 1993. How is this a factor in Edberg's favor at the USO, yet not a factor for Courier at the AO?
 
tennisaddict said:
Not much to separate Edberg from Nadal at WImbledon. The reason I chose Edberg because he beat his nemesis Becker, while Nadal faced his pigeons Fed and Berdych.

Also Edberg was great on carpet and he does not get credit.

At the Uso, Like you said Edberg defended titles beating SAmpras and Courier.
Click to expand...

Pigeon Federer :):):) With this kind of statements you get zero credibility!
 
tennisaddict said:
Not much to separate Edberg from Nadal at WImbledon. The reason I chose Edberg because he beat his nemesis Becker, while Nadal faced his pigeons Fed and Berdych.

Also Edberg was great on carpet and he does not get credit.

At the Uso, Like you said Edberg defended titles beating SAmpras and Courier.
Click to expand...

So, you say that beating seven time champion there (Federer) is easier than beating three time champion (Becker), because he is your nemesis? I think you've overlooked the fact that Nadal has lost twice in a row to Federer, including a heart breaking loss (according to his own confession) in 2007. In my opinion, Nadal's job was tougher than Edberg's. But anyway, two more finals speaks for itself. I think Nadal should be ranked above Edberg.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
oberyn said:
But that still doesn’t explain why Becker is on there for the AO instead of Courier or Sampras. Becker has 2 wins and 1 QF (No runner-ups and no SF appearances). Sampras and Courier equal Becker in titles at the AO and also had more years in which they reached the semis or better.

And Courier defended his title at the AO in 1993. How is this a factor in Edberg's favor at the USO, yet not a factor for Courier at the AO?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. I corrected the OP to include Sampras at AO.
 
Martin J said:
So, you say that beating seven time champion there (Federer) is easier than beating three time champion (Becker), because he is your nemesis? I think you've overlooked the fact that Nadal has lost twice in a row to Federer, including a heart breaking loss (according to his own confession) in 2007. In my opinion, Nadal's job was tougher than Edberg's. But anyway, two more finals speaks for itself. I think Nadal should be ranked above Edberg.
Click to expand...

Nadal always had a match up advantage against Fed and it was just a matter of time before he won against Fed. 2007 Wimb finals was itself close.

Becker lead Edberg 25-10 in their career h2h , far worse than Fedal. You have to give credit for that alone that he overcame all odds .
 
oberyn said:
IMO, Edberg’s underrated for a variety of reasons.

His AO victories were in 1985 and 1987. This was the period when the AO was really not viewed as being on par with the other 3 slams. They were actually back-to-back victories as the AO was played in December of 1985 and January 1987. I grew up in the 80s and I remember several years where I literally did not find out who’d won the Australian Open until some reference was made to it during French Open coverage.

He was overshadowed by the “bigger” personalities and more popular players of his era. This is certainly not Edberg’s fault, but I think it contributes to his being underrated. Look at the 1991 U.S. Open. Edberg won the tournament that many pundits said he’d never win. Yet, the story of that tournament remains Jimmy Connors’ run to the semis.
Click to expand...

thats true but the 92 open was all Edberg. he was channeling conners in that tournament. the 92 us open will always be quintisential edberg at his absolute peak. Even with a bad back you just could not take him out. Epic five setter after five setter only to take pete out in the final in four sets. its arguably the greatest performance at a slam in the history of the game.
 
My List

Open era only

AO
---
1. Federer (4 wins, 1 runner up, 6 Semi finals)
2. Agassi (4 wins, 2 Semi's, 1 Quarter)
3. Djokovic (4 wins, 3 Quarters)
4. Wilander (3 wins, 1 runner up)
5. Lendl (2 wins, 2 runner-ups)
6. Sampras (2 wins, 1 runner-up)
7=. Becker (2 wins)/Courier (2 wins)/Rosewall (2 wins)/Kriek (2 wins)

French Open
--------------
1. Nadal (9 Wins)
2. Borg (6 Wins)
3=. Lendl/Wilander (3 wins/2 runner-ups)
5. Kuerten (3 wins)
6=. Courier/Bruguera (2 wins/1 runner-up)

Wimbledon
------------
1. Federer (7 wins/2 runner-ups)
2. Sampras (7 wins)
3. Borg (5 wins/1 runner-up)
4. Becker (3 wins/4 runner-ups)
5. McEnroe (3 wins/2 runner-ups)
6. Connors (2 wins/4 runner-ups)
7. Nadal (2 wins/3 runner-ups)

US Open
----------
1. Sampras (5 wins/3 runner-ups)
2. Connors (5 wins/2 runner-ups)
3. Federer (5 wins/1 runner-up)
4=. McEnroe (4 wins/1 runner-up)/Lendl (3 wins/5 runner-ups)
6. Agassi (2 wins/4 runner-ups)
7. Nadal (2 wins/1 runner-up)
 
timnz - Your list is pretty good.

I factor in the path taken to the achievements, whereas yours is purely based on the final outcome. Not much difference .
 
Looking at timnz's lists, the most evenly matched comparison is between Wilander and Lendl at RG. Both players won 3 titles, reached 5 finals and reached 7 quarter-finals there. Their h2h is level at 1-1 in RG finals and 2-2 in RG matches. The only minor difference is that Wilander reached 6 semi-finals there to Lendl's 5.

However I would personally rank Lendl ahead there, given that he successfully defended his RG title in 1987 which Wilander failed to do, and was more more dominant there with 3 titles and 4 consecutive finals from 1984-1987. To me that that definitely outweighs Wilander’s 1 extra semi-final appearance or breaks any deadlock. Also subjectively I do think that Lendl at his best at RG was better and more dominating than Wilander at his best. I would favour the Lendl of 1986-1987 to beat any version of Wilander at RG.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Most All Time Greats - Defeated at One Grand Slam - Has Anyone Come Close to Nadal at French Open?
Replies
28
Views
2K
SonnyT
S
JennyS
The h2h of 6+ Slam winners against each other
Replies
6
Views
2K
JennyS
JennyS
Phoenix1983
H2H records of the Open Era greats
Replies
11
Views
2K
tacou
tacou
Lew II
Djokovic won by far the most finals over ATGs in the Open Era
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
10K
FlyingSaucer
FlyingSaucer
A
most matches played between 2 players
Replies
11
Views
1K
BobbyOne
B
Back
Top