Top Ten players of the Open Era (Since Laver)

[Nadalgaenger]

How would your ranking of the 10 best players since Laver look?

Here is my ranking:
1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic (rising)
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. McEnroe
10. Becker

 

[tennisaddict]

Here is my ranking:
Fed
Borg
Sampras
Nadal
Lendl
Djokovic (rising)
Connors
Agassi
McEnroe
Wilander

 

[Inanimate_object]

McEnroe
.
.
.
Federer

 

[uliks]

Here is my ranking:
1. Sampras
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Federer
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Djokovic
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. Becker

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

How would your ranking of the 10 best players since Laver look?

Here is my ranking:
1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic (rising)
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. McEnroe
10. Becker

I guess this would be my ranking:

1.Federer
..
2.Borg
3.Nadal
4.Sampras
..
5.Connors
6.Lendl
..
7.McEnroe
8.Djokovic
..
9.Agassi
..
10.Becker

But when it comes to the best playing the best..

1. Nadal

2-10. The rest

 

[Mr.Lob]

How would your ranking of the 10 best players since Laver look?

Here is my ranking:
1. Fed
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Djokovic (rising)
7. Agassi
8. Connors
9. McEnroe
10. Becker

Fed
Nadal
Sampras
Connors
McEnroe
Borg
Djokovic
Agassis
Lendl
Becker

 

[Federator]

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Lendl
9. Djokovic
10. Edberg

 

[GL44]

Here is my ranking:
1. Sampras
2. Nadal
3. Borg
4. Federer
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Djokovic
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. Becker

Dude, get real. Federer at 4?

 

[TMF]

Dude, get real. Federer at 4?

He's the oddball since basically everyone has Federer at #1.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

1. Rogi

2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg

5. McEnroe
6. Connors
7. Djokovic
8. Agassi
9. Lendl
10. Edberg

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Djokovic
Agassi
Becker

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Djokovic
Agassi
Becker

I have Djokovic higher than you. :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

I have Djokovic higher than you. :lol:

I take it you don't rate Lendl as highly due to him never winning Wimbledon?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I take it you don't rate Lendl as highly due to him never winning Wimbledon?

Got it in one.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I am always amused how the logic used to rank some players is abandoned when it comes to others.

There is generally a massive bias towards majors and the top ranking spot, and rightly so. This suits Federer, Nadal etc. but then people abandon that and put Becker above Wilander despite him winning more majors (7 vs 6), having a much better best year (3 majors vs 2), and spending far more time at #1 (20 vs 12 weeks).

Wilander also won at least one major 4 years in succession vs only 2 for Becker. In his best two year period he won 3 majors and was in 2 more finals, vs 2 titles and 1 final for Becker.

Wilander is also one of only 5 players to have won a major on all three surfaces (hard, clay grass - since he won the Aussie Open on grass twice).

In the metrics where it matters most when we compare other players there is plenty of argument for Wilander to be above Becker regardless of wherever else he fell short by comparison - such as not winning Wimbledon.

(Side note: Additionally, Wilander won one doubles major and made it to the final of three of the four majors in doubles. Becker did nothing at the majors in doubles (a sole QF at the Aussie Open).)

 

[Boom-Boom]

I am always amused how the logic used to rank some players is abandoned when it comes to others.

There is generally a massive bias towards majors and the top ranking spot, and rightly so. This suits Federer, Nadal etc. but then people abandon that and put Becker above Wilander despite him winning more majors (7 vs 6), having a much better best year (3 majors vs 2), and spending far more time at #1 (20 vs 12 weeks).

Wilander also won at least one major 4 years in succession vs only 2 for Becker. In his best two year period he won 3 majors and was in 2 more finals, vs 2 titles and 1 final for Becker.

Wilander is also one of only 5 players to have won a major on all three surfaces (hard, clay grass - since he won the Aussie Open on grass twice).

In the metrics where it matters most when we compare other players there is plenty of argument for Wilander to be above Becker regardless of wherever else he fell short by comparison - such as not winning Wimbledon.

(Side note: Additionally, Wilander won one doubles major and made it to the final of three of the four majors in doubles. Becker did nothing at the majors in doubles (a sole QF at the Aussie Open).)

yeah right, maybe because Boris Becker won 3 and reached 8 finals at WTF, (the fifth major), not mentioning olympic gold (double) and winning 49 single tournaments against only 33 for Wilander???

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I am always amused how the logic used to rank some players is abandoned when it comes to others.

There is generally a massive bias towards majors and the top ranking spot, and rightly so. This suits Federer, Nadal etc. but then people abandon that and put Becker above Wilander despite him winning more majors (7 vs 6), having a much better best year (3 majors vs 2), and spending far more time at #1 (20 vs 12 weeks).

Wilander also won at least one major 4 years in succession vs only 2 for Becker. In his best two year period he won 3 majors and was in 2 more finals, vs 2 titles and 1 final for Becker.

Wilander is also one of only 5 players to have won a major on all three surfaces (hard, clay grass - since he won the Aussie Open on grass twice).

In the metrics where it matters most when we compare other players there is plenty of argument for Wilander to be above Becker regardless of wherever else he fell short by comparison - such as not winning Wimbledon.

(Side note: Additionally, Wilander won one doubles major and made it to the final of three of the four majors in doubles. Becker did nothing at the majors in doubles (a sole QF at the Aussie Open).)

I rated them based on who I think is better, not necessarily more achieved.
But there is a large correlation between those two measures it would seem.

I rate Edberg above Becker and Wilander.

 

[Bobby Jr]

yeah right, maybe because Boris Becker won 3 and reached 8 finals at WTF, (the fifth major), not mentioning olympic gold (double) and winning 49 single tournaments against only 33 for Wilander???

Lendl and Connors won tons more tournaments than Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras and they're still below them on the list.

The top metrics are: majors won and time spent at #1. Most ranking lists seem to reflect that generally. I very much doubt any of the Nadal supporters would accept, if he achieved 17 majors to match Federer, that Federer's 6 WTF titles cemented him his as the greater player regardless of all else.

The point is: Wilander did better than Becker at the tournaments that matter most when we compare the top echelon of players.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Lendl and Connors won tons more tournaments than Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras and they're still below them on the list.

The top metrics are: majors won and time spent at #1. Most ranking lists seem to reflect that generally. I very much doubt any of the Nadal supporters would accept, if he achieved 17 majors to match Federer, that Federer's 6 WTF titles cemented him his as the greater player regardless of all else.

The point is: Wilander did better than Becker at the tournaments that matter most when we compare the top echelon of players.

Not at all. Wilander reaching only 1 final at WTF, the most difficult tournament in the tennis world and the fifth major, is a really poor tally compared to Becker three titles and 8 finals, not even mentioning reaching two WCT finals (Dallas), winning one a (quarter final best result for Wilander), or also winning the Grand Slam Cup.

WTF is a major and that's one of the reasons why most tennis experts still rank Sampras above Nadal.

3 WTF + 1 WCT title + 1 GSC title + 1 Olympic Gold medal + 16 more single titles overall largely compensate for one less slam.

And of course winning 3 and reaching seven finals at Wimbledon, the tournament that matters more in the tennis sport is far more prestigious than winning 3 OA ;-)

sorry for Mats.

 

[tennisaddict]

Becker didnt win much on clay.

Wilander on clay, hard and grass.

On top of that, Wilander has 1 more major and hence he rightly took spot No. 10 for me.

Borg, even with 11 majors , is No. 2 for me. There were only 3 majors during his time and he was good on all surfaces and dominated field. Sampras was weak on clay. Rafa was not as dominant as Borg.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Edberg and Wilander are both arguable over Becker at #10 in my list. I was just going to shove them all at position 10 but opted for just one. IMO it's hard to split the three players.

 

[Gary Duane]

If such lists end up being about favorite players then choices will be because of playing style, personalities and so on.

The stats we have today about HOW players win started pretty much around 1991. We can compare Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Nadal and Novak with the same statistics.

Before 1991 for the most part we are just swapping opinions.

Weeks at #1 is not so good because of the way rankings used to be determined vs how they work today.

Total number of slams has to take into consideration the years that the AO was often skipped - and the fact that the FO was not always given the stature it is today.

It's so much easier to stick to an era and evaluate players who faced each other.

You simply can't think of anyone who eclipsed Connors at the beginning of his career. He was a brash young kid, making waves, then he was top dog. Borg was not so lucky, coming on the scene four later. Four years is a lot in tennis, almost as much as the 5 year gap between Fed and Nadal

Borg had a 3 year head-start on JMac. JMac had a tougher time, having to catch up to Borg and work his way through Connors' prime. But Lendl was REALLY hurt by having to develop as a player. Only a year younger than JMac, he was in the same position as Novak is right now. Connors was alone, at the top of the world, and in that position he had incredible self-confidence. JMac was more in Nadal's position, having to fight for dominance, but Lendl was denied slams by being born 1 year after JMac and and 5 after Connors. (There is about 1/2 year error there, since Connors was born in Sept.)

Lendl was never a favorite of mine, also true of Novak. But I believe BOTH these players deserve more respect than they usually get because when they were born, and who they went up against.

Finally, it's just silly to rate Novak's place in history right now, when he is still at the top of his game and may move up on the all time slam list. He won 8 slams in 8 years, and that 8th year has just started. It took Pete 13 years to get his last slam. It took Agassi 12 years to get 8.

So I rate Novak way higher than the rest of you, even though I am not excited about his playing style (so far). There are only 4 people with more than 10 slams in the Open era. Laver did not win 11 slams in the Open era.

I would say that Novak not at least getting to 10 slams by the end of his career is very unlikely.

If I have to make a post-Open list, Novak has to be 5th. I'm glad to tie other people with him, but I will not put him below 5.

And I'm not even a fan.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'm judging Nole on what he's accomplished not on what he will accomplish. I expect Nole to be above Connors and Lendl by the time he's done and my gut instinct watching him is that he's slightly superior than both Connors and Lendl.

 

[Inanimate_object]

If such lists end up being about favorite players then choices will be because of playing style, personalities and so on.

The stats we have today about HOW players win started pretty much around 1991. We can compare Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Nadal and Novak with the same statistics.

Before 1991 for the most part we are just swapping opinions.

Weeks at #1 is not so good because of the way rankings used to be determined vs how they work today.

Total number of slams has to take into consideration the years that the AO was often skipped - and the fact that the FO was not always given the stature it is today.

It's so much easier to stick to an era and evaluate players who faced each other.

You simply can't think of anyone who eclipsed Connors at the beginning of his career. He was a brash young kid, making waves, then he was top dog. Borg was not so lucky, coming on the scene four later. Four years is a lot in tennis, almost as much as the 5 year gap between Fed and Nadal

Borg had a 3 year head-start on JMac. JMac had a tougher time, having to catch up to Borg and work his way through Connors' prime. But Lendl was REALLY hurt by having to develop as a player. Only a year younger than JMac, he was in the same position as Novak is right now. Connors was alone, at the top of the world, and in that position he had incredible self-confidence. JMac was more in Nadal's position, having to fight for dominance, but Lendl was denied slams by being born 1 year after JMac and and 5 after Connors. (There is about 1/2 year error there, since Connors was born in Sept.)

Lendl was never a favorite of mine, also true of Novak. But I believe BOTH these players deserve more respect than they usually get because when they were born, and who they went up against.

Finally, it's just silly to rate Novak's place in history right now, when he is still at the top of his game and may move up on the all time slam list. He won 8 slams in 8 years, and that 8th year has just started. It took Pete 13 years to get his last slam. It took Agassi 12 years to get 8.

So I rate Novak way higher than the rest of you, even though I am not excited about his playing style (so far). There are only 4 people with more than 10 slams in the Open era. Laver did not win 11 slams in the Open era.

I would say that Novak not at least getting to 10 slams by the end of his career is very unlikely.

If I have to make a post-Open list, Novak has to be 5th. I'm glad to tie other people with him, but I will not put him below 5.

And I'm not even a fan.

Very good post. Weeks at No. 1 is such a messy metric to use. Back in the day, No. 1 ranking was unclear, unfair, unreliable and simply a messy means of ranking. I don't remember it being as big a deal as it is now. The point about Lendl is an interesting one, because I believe it ties closely in with Wilander, Djokovic and Edberg/Courier (somewhat). Lendl is systematically mistreated as it relates to tennis greats, I think in no small part because people really don't like him. Alot of people I know felt the same way about Courier and Wilander, and Djokovic of course. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we are all awarding on merit. This is still a popularity contest as much as any.

These top 10s are a bit baloney, particularly if you believe a "top" player comes more from what you see and less from every minute ultra-specific statistic conjured up by media and commentators. In that respect, I have a feeling many people who put Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg et al. in their top 10 have never seen them play, and only know them from their trophies. That's fine, I guess, but it does miss a bit of the mark for me.

 

[Boom-Boom]

If such lists end up being about favorite players then choices will be because of playing style, personalities and so on.

The stats we have today about HOW players win started pretty much around 1991. We can compare Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Nadal and Novak with the same statistics.

Before 1991 for the most part we are just swapping opinions.

Weeks at #1 is not so good because of the way rankings used to be determined vs how they work today.

Total number of slams has to take into consideration the years that the AO was often skipped - and the fact that the FO was not always given the stature it is today.

It's so much easier to stick to an era and evaluate players who faced each other.

You simply can't think of anyone who eclipsed Connors at the beginning of his career. He was a brash young kid, making waves, then he was top dog. Borg was not so lucky, coming on the scene four later. Four years is a lot in tennis, almost as much as the 5 year gap between Fed and Nadal

Borg had a 3 year head-start on JMac. JMac had a tougher time, having to catch up to Borg and work his way through Connors' prime. But Lendl was REALLY hurt by having to develop as a player. Only a year younger than JMac, he was in the same position as Novak is right now. Connors was alone, at the top of the world, and in that position he had incredible self-confidence. JMac was more in Nadal's position, having to fight for dominance, but Lendl was denied slams by being born 1 year after JMac and and 5 after Connors. (There is about 1/2 year error there, since Connors was born in Sept.)

Lendl was never a favorite of mine, also true of Novak. But I believe BOTH these players deserve more respect than they usually get because when they were born, and who they went up against.

Finally, it's just silly to rate Novak's place in history right now, when he is still at the top of his game and may move up on the all time slam list. He won 8 slams in 8 years, and that 8th year has just started. It took Pete 13 years to get his last slam. It took Agassi 12 years to get 8.

So I rate Novak way higher than the rest of you, even though I am not excited about his playing style (so far). There are only 4 people with more than 10 slams in the Open era. Laver did not win 11 slams in the Open era.

I would say that Novak not at least getting to 10 slams by the end of his career is very unlikely.

If I have to make a post-Open list, Novak has to be 5th. I'm glad to tie other people with him, but I will not put him below 5.

And I'm not even a fan.

Wise post. Djokovic is underrated (and he has already won 4 WTF ;-)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Has Djokovic achieved as much yet as Lendl and Connors especially when accounting for their respective times? I don't think so. Will he? Probably.

I'm not going to judge before the fact. If his career tragically ends then I'd start using more benefit of the doubt.

Also, Inanimate and Gary, offer your attempts at a top-ten please.

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm judging Nole on what he's accomplished not on what he will accomplish. I expect Nole to be above Connors and Lendl by the time he's done and my gut instinct watching him is that he's slightly superior than both Connors and Lendl.

But I'm saying that Novak does not BELONG on such a list unless it is a fan-boy list.

Present players are always over-hyped or under appreciated. It takes a decade or two to start to put things fully into perspective.

 

[jhhachamp]

I am always amused how the logic used to rank some players is abandoned when it comes to others.

There is generally a massive bias towards majors and the top ranking spot, and rightly so. This suits Federer, Nadal etc. but then people abandon that and put Becker above Wilander despite him winning more majors (7 vs 6), having a much better best year (3 majors vs 2), and spending far more time at #1 (20 vs 12 weeks).

Wilander also won at least one major 4 years in succession vs only 2 for Becker. In his best two year period he won 3 majors and was in 2 more finals, vs 2 titles and 1 final for Becker.

Wilander is also one of only 5 players to have won a major on all three surfaces (hard, clay grass - since he won the Aussie Open on grass twice).

In the metrics where it matters most when we compare other players there is plenty of argument for Wilander to be above Becker regardless of wherever else he fell short by comparison - such as not winning Wimbledon.

(Side note: Additionally, Wilander won one doubles major and made it to the final of three of the four majors in doubles. Becker did nothing at the majors in doubles (a sole QF at the Aussie Open).)

I have Wilander ahead of Becker, but they are pretty close and arguments can be made for both players.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

But I'm saying that Novak does not BELONG on such a list unless it is a fan-boy list.

Present players are always over-hyped or under appreciated. It takes a decade or two to start to put things fully into perspective.

Well you just stated you wouldn't have him below 5th and you're not even his fan, so I actually don't get your point. Just because a player is active doesn't mean one shouldn't include them in such a list, even if provisionally.

Past or present players seem constantly over-hyped or under appreciated to me on a regular basis. Nothing special there.

Your top-10 please; gun to head scenario.

I've included 3 active players in my list. If you want, try a top-ten that includes active players and one that includes only already retired players.

 

[jhhachamp]

1. Federer
......
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Borg
.....
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Djokovic
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Wilander

If Nadal wins a 10th French Open, he moves past Sampras. I don't think he is catching up to Federer though, who is still continuing to move the target forward.

If Djokovic wins another major, he moves past Lendl and Connors. He has a long way to go to catch up the the top 4 though. If he wins the calendar year grand slam this year though, I would put him up to #2, just ahead of Sampras. He needs 2 calendar year grand slams to move past Federer.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

^^

Looks very sound and reasonable to me. I wondered myself if I should already place Djokovic ahead of McEnroe or not, but decided against it for now.

#2-4 seem quite interchangeable to me, so I agree with your "tiering" there.

 

[Inanimate_object]

Has Djokovic achieved as much yet as Lendl and Connors especially when accounting for their respective times? I don't think so. Will he? Probably.

I'm not going to judge before the fact. If his career tragically ends then I'd start using more benefit of the doubt.

Also, Inanimate and Gary, offer your attempts at a top-ten please.

Trust me, you're not going to find it very useful

1. McEnroe
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Connors/Nadal
5. Lendl

The rest I have never spent much thought on. I suppose you could throw in any of the names other posters have mentioned previously. And just to be clear, yes McEnroe is at the top of the list, and last I checked, he has fewer slams than anyone else on my list, save Connors I think. I have a tough time ranking Nadal anywhere because, as it has been said, he is still actively playing tennis - Federer I have less a problem with, as I consider what he's done now to be most of what he will ever do. And forget Sampras, I never watched him much besides his beat-downs of Agassi. How can I properly rank him?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Trust me, you're not going to find it very useful

1. McEnroe
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Connors/Nadal
5. Lendl

The rest I have never spent much thought on. I suppose you could throw in any of the names other posters have mentioned previously. And just to be clear, yes McEnroe is at the top of the list, and last I checked, he has fewer slams than anyone else on my list, save Connors I think. I have a tough time ranking Nadal anywhere because, as it has been said, he is still actively playing tennis - Federer I have less a problem with, as I consider what he's done now to be most of what he will ever do. And forget Sampras, I never watched him much besides his beat-downs of Agassi. How can I properly rank him?

I just enjoy seeing alternative views. I can see you put a big premium on the sort of raw talent level of players and I'm presuming peak levels of play. McEnroe is not the most accomplished player (even accounting for his doubles achievements imo) but he indeed could well be the best. It's interesting that you didn't watch much of Sampras... but he's clearly vastly accomplished.

I've tried to watch everything I can of all those players. Of course, there's no substitute for actually living through it.

 

[Djokovic2011]

IMO Djokovic needs to win two more slams to overtake Lendl and Connors due to them having many more weeks at #1 and incredible longevity(especially Jimmy). Having said that, if Nole gets to 9 by winning RG and completing the Career Slam I may think differently.

 

[Charlemagne]

Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Djokovic
Agassi
Becker

This is a Legitimate List.

 

[Gary Duane]

Has Djokovic achieved as much yet as Lendl and Connors especially when accounting for their respective times? I don't think so. Will he? Probably.

I'm not going to judge before the fact. If his career tragically ends then I'd start using more benefit of the doubt.

Also, Inanimate and Gary, offer your attempts at a top-ten please.

No. It's just the same problem as with the GOAT discussions.

I see parallels between what happened in the Connors/JMac/Lendl era and what is happening in this one. But I just don't think this era is better than that, or vice versa. Things are too different. Different strings. Different rackets. Different ranking system. Different priorities as to what tournaments are most important.

I think for most people here this is just history. They read about these players, maybe watch a couple matches on YouTube, but they barely remember Sampras and Agassi.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

No. It's just the same problem as with the GOAT discussions.

I see parallels between what happened in the Connors/JMac/Lendl era and what is happening in this one. But I just don't think this era is better than that, or vice versa. Things are too different. Different strings. Different rackets. Different ranking system. Different priorities as to what tournaments are most important.

I think for most people here this is just history. They read about these players, maybe watch a couple matches on YouTube, but they barely remember Sampras and Agassi.

But yet despite all that, you rank Djokovic 5th already based on what you've seen. You've already suggested where you'd place him. I see those parallels you're seeing and realise the sport changes, as well as ranking systems and tour infrastructure, but I did not live through Connors/Borg/McEnroe.. only read about the era and watched many (many) matches. That's all I can really do, but the biggest peculiarity for me there is Borg's retirement...

Also I'm not sure if you responded or not to a question I asked you the other day. Were you suggesting that McEnroe made Borg retire?

 

[NGM]

1. Federer

2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Diokovic
8. Agassi
9. Mc Enroe
10. Wilander

 

[powerangle]

As big of Nole fan as I am, I still have a difficult time placing him about Agassi. If push comes to shove, I'd put him above Andre...but I guess I place a lot of weight on the Career GS. Andre won Wimbledon and FO when they were polar opposites. He won his Wimby title when it was played on SUPER FAST grass in 1992....against uber-server Goran. Plus Agassi "still" (though I know it probably won't last long) has 10 more titles than Novak.

Novak's numerous other stats over Andre probably puts him above, but the Career slam is always in the back of my mind...

C'mon Novak, just win RG already this year.

 

[Boom-Boom]

Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Djokovic
Agassi
Becker

Pretty good list indeed.

 

[tennisaddict]

As big of Nole fan as I am, I still have a difficult time placing him about Agassi. If push comes to shove, I'd put him above Andre...but I guess I place a lot of weight on the Career GS. Andre won Wimbledon and FO when they were polar opposites. He won his Wimby title when it was played on SUPER FAST grass in 1992....against uber-server Goran. Plus Agassi "still" (though I know it probably won't last long) has 10 more titles than Novak.

Novak's numerous other stats over Andre probably puts him above, but the Career slam is always in the back of my mind...

C'mon Novak, just win RG already this year.

5 of 8 majors won by Agassi were against weak opponents. That is quite a lot.

 

[NEW_BORN]

1. Federer (17 slams, 84 titles and counting, a near-complete resume)
.
2/3. Sampras / Nadal (14 slams, hard to separate these two)
4. Borg (11 slams, retired too early)
.
5. Lendl (94 titles, Mr consistency)
6. Connors (109 titles, Mr longevity)
.
7. Djokovic (8 slams, 50 titles and counting, the mordern day Lendl)
8. Agassi (8 slams, career golden slam)
.
9. Mcenroe (7 slams, Master volleyer)
10. Wilander (7 slams, Master tactician)

 

[timnz]

My List

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Djokovic (Rising)
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander

I think Djokovic will pass McEnroe this year (2015), a while to go before he passes Lendl though.

Becker is clearly ahead of Edberg and Wilander especially if you include his important indoor wins (5 indoor majors (and many runner-ups) vs 1 for Edberg and 0 for Wilander. Indoor was big in the 1980's and 1990's).

I think of Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Connors, Agassi as a pretty tight bunch - but in that order.

 

[Zoid]

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. Djokovic
8. Mcenroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker

I was fence-sitting on 3/4 but gave Nadal the edge given that he has won the career slam. I am keenly aware that is easier in this generation given surface homogenisation, still I feel Pete definitely should have done better at the french and adapted his game.

Djokovic gets the nod at 7 having to compete with 2 of the best in his prime.

My top 4 I am happy with, 5-10 arguments can definitely be made for one over another so I'll be happy to talk about that.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If I wasn't counting doubles achievements then I'd probably have an identical list to yours (Djo-Mac switched), though I also separated my players into basic tiers in which the players within are somewhat interchangeable.

 

[abmk]

federer
sampras
borg
nadal
lendl
mac
connors
agassi
djokovic
becker

 

[reaper]

I can understand the rationale for an open era top 10. What I can't understand is why it would be post Laver. Why exclude the only open era player to have won the Grand Slam from eligibility in an open era top 10?

Anyway:

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Sampras
4) Borg
5) Djokovic
6) Lendl
7) McEnroe
8) Conners
9) Agassi
10) Becker

With Laver at 5 if he was eligible.

 

[tennisaddict]

This thread is open for Rafa fans

 

[Djokovic2011]

For those of y'all who put Agassi above Djokovic: how many more Slams do you think Nole needs to win to surpass him should he never go on to win RG?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

For those of y'all who put Agassi above Djokovic: how many more Slams do you think Nole needs to win to surpass him should he never go on to win RG?

The career slam is my only reservation, but his other stats are enough to put him above Agassi now in my opinion.

What he really needed was that eighth slam.