Top Ten players of the Open Era (Since Laver)

1. Christo van Rensburg
2. Karsten Braasch
3. Roberto Carretero
4. Markus Zoecke
5. Jeff Tarango
6. Veli Paloheimo
7. Paolo Lorenzi
8. Jim Grabb
9. Marc-Kevin Goellner
10. Jeremy Bates
 
reaper said:
The slam record is a reflection of the times...it's easier to win more Slams when you play 4 per year than when you play 3. The AO simply didn't have the prestige of a slam tournament (despite the official classification) in Borg's era. I also wouldn't be too confident about Nadal retaining the superior win % unless he retires in the near future.
Click to expand...

Ok well Borg's win percentage could just as easily be attributed to his early retirement.

Unless Nadal has a horrific string of seasons he will maintain his GOAT win percentage.
 
I doubt Borg's winning percentage would've been much dented by playing on another few years. He retired in the middle of his prime, so his numbers would've gone up for a while.

Federer's career winning % peaked in 2012.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Ok well Borg's win percentage could just as easily be attributed to his early retirement.

Unless Nadal has a horrific string of seasons he will maintain his GOAT win percentage.
Click to expand...

Nadal doesn't need a string of horrific seasons to lose the win % record. If he plays uninjured to the end of 2016 and wins 75% of his matches between now and then, he'll lose the record.
 
Borg could of added to his win/loss for a few more years, generally it's your earlier career which influences your win/loss more than your decline - unless you hang around forever like a Lleyton Hewitt.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
How do you argue for Borg over Nadal? Nadal=more GS, H2H against GOAT, better on clay, better on HC, longer career, higher winning percentage (top all time and Borg 2nd all time).
Click to expand...

Cause not everything is stats. Borg changed tennis like no other person has. Also Borg had harder competition. Yet he managed to win 40% of the slams he entered, which no one else has been close to do.
 
NatF said:
Borg could of added to his win/loss for a few more years, generally it's your earlier career which influences your win/loss more than your decline - unless you hang around forever like a Lleyton Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Borg's winning percentage for his career is actually a lot higher than on the ATP records by the way. His early teen years didn't give him a high winning percentages so odds are that his career percentage would have rose for a number of years and probably would have settled to around what he has in actuality now. At least that's my best guess.
 
pc1 said:
Borg's winning percentage for his career is actually a lot higher than on the ATP records by the way. His early teen years didn't give him a high winning percentages so odds are that his career percentage would have rose for a number of years and probably would have settled to around what he has in actuality now. At least that's my best guess.
Click to expand...

Yes all those unofficial tournament wins would likely given him a much higher figure. No one won more by 25 than he did. Crazy.
 
Those other tournament wins give Borg more overall titles than many of the currently active players. If the players today had an alternative tour, they too would have more overall tournament victories than they currently do.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Those other tournament wins give Borg more overall titles than many of the currently active players. If the players today had an alternative tour, they too would have more overall tournament victories than they currently do.
Click to expand...

I think including potential exo's etc...Borg has 100 or so tournament victories. Some of those were 4 man events I find hard to rationalize with the current tour.
 
NatF said:
I think including potential exo's etc...Borg has 100 or so tournament victories. Some of those were 4 man events I find hard to rationalize with the current tour.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

Borg had more tournaments to go at, spreading himself thin over two tours (and then burning out) and has more tournament victories. Federer et al have 4 firmly established and "respected" Majors to go at where as the situation was more foggy in Borg's time, so in a sense he had less Majors to go at.

Maybe Borg would have been fine if he only played the one tour and gone on to win 14-20 Slams. He could have been the GOAT.. instead he has to be given huge benefit of the doubt to have a real GOAT argument. We have to guess and suppose on his behalf rather than view what would and maybe should have been accomplished were it not for his ludicrously early retirement.

The retirement doesn't help him, it hurts him.

Still, for now I have him at #2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. McEnroe
6. Agassi
7. Connors
8. Djokovic
9. Lendl
10. Edberg
 
TMF said:
There are other good reasons/cases to pick Borg. Not everyone like you who only sees things through rose-colored glasses.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=18165
Click to expand...

Honestly, Nadal is the victim of an unusual degree of contempt because of his style of play. If you look purely at numbers and level of competition and get over some of his awkward mannerisms and the fact that he is the only real chink in Fed's GOAT campaign armor, then we see him for what he is--namely, one of the greatest players ever to wield a racket.

I honestly wasn't alive in Borg's day but have great respect for his tennis. I just think that we have to take Nadal as the greater overall player given what we have to work with: 1) stats 2) greater competition (winning titles against Fed and Djokovic in their prime) 3) greater career achievements than anyone except Fed.
 
1. Federer (slightly ahead of Nadal)
2. Nadal (will overtake Federer with 2 more slams)
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Agassi
7. Djokovic (rising)
8. Connors
9. McEnroe
10. Becker
 
TMF said:
Placing Nadal above Federer is like placing Serena above Graf.

Nice try.
Click to expand...

Honestly it's no worse than placing Borg above Nadal like you do imo.

I would put Federer above Nadal, but it's more justifiable to put Nadal on top than to put Borg above him imo. Consensus opinion doesn't make something wrong or right, but out of interest I can pretty much guarantee you media would be more likely to rank Nadal above Federer than Borg above Nadal. So I don't get why that's seen as some outrageous move whereas yours isn't.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Honestly it's no worse than placing Borg above Nadal like you do imo.

I would put Federer above Nadal, but it's more justifiable to put Nadal on top than to put Borg above him imo. Consensus opinion doesn't make something wrong or right, but out of interest I can pretty much guarantee you media would be more likely to rank Nadal above Federer than Borg above Nadal. So I don't get why that's seen as some outrageous move whereas yours isn't.
Click to expand...

Borg and Nadal are probably more interchangeable than Nadal and Federer at this point.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Honestly it's no worse than placing Borg above Nadal like you do imo.

I would put Federer above Nadal, but it's more justifiable to put Nadal on top than to put Borg above him imo. Consensus opinion doesn't make something wrong or right, but out of interest I can pretty much guarantee you media would be more likely to rank Nadal above Federer than Borg above Nadal. So I don't get why that's seen as some outrageous move whereas yours isn't.
Click to expand...

Federer is better than Nadal at 3/4 Slams, better at 7/9 Masters + the WTF. How can somebody be the best in the history of tennis when he is not the best in his own era with twise as much weeks as number 2. Fun fact, Nadal has less weeks as number 1 than both Federer and Djokovic(soon).
 
Grgisme said:
LOL

No. Both rotations are unacceptable
Click to expand...

Borg has probably 4 years at #1, more titles (not all are recognized by the ATP) and similar numbers of majors considering the relative importance of the Masters in those years. He also dominated 2 polar opposite surfaces.

He's arguably the best player to ever play - though not the greatest.
 
Everything NatF just said... can't agree with it more.

"He's arguably the best player to ever play - though not the greatest."

Sad but true.

I don't equate the achievements of this era exactly to the achievements of Borg's era. Borg produced a greater stretch of dominance than Sampras or Nadal BTW.
 
I always felt that Mcenroe was able to go toe to toe with Borg and eventually in a way get the better of him so maybe that clouds my judgement.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Everything NatF just said... can't agree with it more.

"He's arguably the best player to ever play - though not the greatest."

Sad but true.

I don't equate the achievements of this era exactly to the achievements of Borg's era. Borg produced a greater stretch of dominance than Sampras or Nadal BTW.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I left out the fact he had a peak period of winning tournaments and matches with similar levels of dominance to Federer. Successive seasons with winning 90+% of his matches.
 
It's boring by achievements, so this is by their level of play.

1.Federer
2.Safin
3.Nadal
4.Djokovic
5.Hewitt
6.Murray
7.Agassi
8.Sampras
9.Borg
10.Lendl

It's logical to assume that the level of play is higher after each generation.
 
jg153040 said:
It's boring by achievements, so this is by their level of play.

1.Federer
2.Safin
3.Nadal
4.Djokovic
5.Hewitt
6.Murray
7.Agassi
8.Sampras
9.Borg
10.Lendl

It's logical to assume that the level of play is higher after each generation.
Click to expand...

Where's Gulbis or Istomin?!?!
 
jg153040 said:
It's boring by achievements, so this is by their level of play.

1.Federer
2.Safin
3.Nadal
4.Djokovic
5.Hewitt
6.Murray
7.Agassi
8.Sampras
9.Borg
10.Lendl

It's logical to assume that the level of play is higher after each generation.
Click to expand...

I have bolded examples of earlier generation players being ranked above those from the next...

You must do this on purpose surely? :lol:
 
Fact is, Borg's retirement hurts him a lot. It's staggering—utterly staggering—what he achieved by 25, though.

Yes, he fell short at the US Open and that's a problem, though he was denied by two of the great USO champions in McEnroe (4 titles) and Connors (5 titles).

McEnroe provided great resistance against Borg but didn't start crushing him like Nadal crushed Federer. The difference is that Federer kept going and Borg retired, otherwise Borg would have accomplishments similar to Federer IMO, but we can't just hand him those imaginary titles. Still, just based on what he actually did achieve and the context of his time, #2 is realistic as is #3-4.
 
jg153040 said:
It's boring by achievements, so this is by their level of play.

1.Federer
2.Safin
3.Nadal
4.Djokovic
5.Hewitt
6.Murray
7.Agassi
8.Sampras
9.Borg
10.Lendl

It's logical to assume that the level of play is higher after each generation.
Click to expand...

This list is confusing because it feels like you're accounting for a general (but not always linear) slow evolution of general playing ability, but giving a pass for improving racket and string tech. In the most brutal terms, Borg or Lendl can't ever dream of being in that top 10—they'd be massacred by Steve Darcis.
 
What about highest level of play by surface?

Mine:

1. Nadal on clay

2. Federer on grass

3. Sampras on grass

4. Federer on fast HC

5. Novak on slow HC

6. Borg on clay

7. Sampras on fast HC

8. Borg on grass.

9. Federer on slow HC

10. Agassi on slow HC
 
Players who displayed impressive peak levels of play with good regularity on a surface...

Nadal on clay
Borg on clay
Sampras on grass
Federer on grass
McEnroe indoors
Federer on fast HC
Novak on slow HC
McEnroe on grass
Becker indoors
Lendl indoors
Sampras indoors
Agassi on slow HC
 
125downthemiddle said:
What about highest level of play by surface?

Mine:

1. Nadal on clay

2. Federer on grass

3. Sampras on grass

4. Federer on fast HC

5. Novak on slow HC

6. Borg on clay

7. Sampras on fast HC

8. Borg on grass.

9. Federer on slow HC

10. Agassi on slow HC
Click to expand...

That's actually a really good list.
Just about spot on IMO.
 
TMF said:
Placing Nadal above Federer is like placing Serena above Graf.

Nice try.
Click to expand...

Except we have no real sample sizes of the Serena-Graf rivalry. We DO however, have a decade of Nadal ABUSING Federer 5 ways from Sunday on the tennis court
 
90's Clay said:
Except we have no real sample sizes of the Serena-Graf rivalry. We DO however, have a decade of Nadal ABUSING Federer 5 ways from Sunday on the tennis court
Click to expand...

Federer compare to Nadal:
17 Slams to 14
302 weeks at #1 to 141
5 YE #1 to 3
6 WTF to 0
84 title to 65


Graf compare to Serena:
22 slams to 19
377 weeks at #1 to 234
8 YE #1 to 4
107 titles to 65

There's a huge gap that separate these players, which is about 1 tier. Serena compare to Chris Evert is debatable as to Nadal compare to Sampras and Borg. However, Federer and Graf stands alone at the top.

Capiche?
 
125downthemiddle said:
What about highest level of play by surface?

Mine:

1. Nadal on clay

2. Federer on grass

3. Sampras on grass

4. Federer on fast HC

5. Novak on slow HC

6. Borg on clay

7. Sampras on fast HC

8. Borg on grass.

9. Federer on slow HC

10. Agassi on slow HC
Click to expand...

borg on clay that low is absolutely ridiculous IMO ...especially below novak on slow HC ...

I might it put it at #1 or #2 ....
 
Yeah. Borg on clay is certainly above Novak on slow HC and Federer on fast HC. The rest is debatable except for #1 being Nadal on clay. I think that's way too obvious. Borg is not #1, but he's no lower than #4 and could debatably be #2
 
Last edited:
Nathaniel_Near said:
Players who displayed impressive peak levels of play with good regularity on a surface...

Nadal on clay
Borg on clay
Sampras on grass
Federer on grass
McEnroe indoors
Federer on fast HC
Novak on slow HC
McEnroe on grass
Becker indoors
Lendl indoors
Sampras indoors
Agassi on slow HC
Click to expand...

I like this list, I really do. I also agree with placing Sampras over Federer on grass in terms of peak level. However, I'm interested in why "Federer indoors" didn't make the list. I don't disagree that's he's not on it. I'm just wondering what your reasons were for leaving him off. Or is there even a particular order to this? I assumed there was (with Nadal on clay being at the "reading" top and all).
 
Last edited:
Steve0904 said:
I like this list, I really do. I also agree with placing Sampras over Federer on grass in terms of peak level. However, I'm interested in why "Federer indoors" didn't make the list. I don't disagree that's he's not on it. I'm just wondering what your reasons were for leaving him off. Or is there even a particular order to this? I assumed there was (with Nadal on clay being at the "reading" top and all).
Click to expand...

Perhaps as Federer only won 4 YEC indoors? He also hasn't dominated the fall masters - partly due to not playing them often.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Everything NatF just said... can't agree with it more.

"He's arguably the best player to ever play - though not the greatest."

Sad but true.

I don't equate the achievements of this era exactly to the achievements of Borg's era. Borg produced a greater stretch of dominance than Sampras or Nadal BTW.
Click to expand...

That bold part brings back memories of a recent legendary thread. :lol:
 
NatF said:
Perhaps as Federer only won 4 YEC indoors? He also hasn't dominated the fall masters - partly due to not playing them often.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have many of the same reasons as you. I just want to know what NN's opinion is, as to what he's valuing the most and such.
 
Steve0904 said:
Yeah. Borg on clay is certainly above Novak on slow HC and Federer on fast HC. The rest is debatable except for #1 being Nadal on clay. I think that's way too obvious. Borg is not #1, but he's no lower than #4 and could debatably be #2
Click to expand...

We know he's the most accomplished on a surface out of any players, but even Nadal on clay at #1 is very debatable if we're strictly talking about highest level of play on a surface ...
 
Steve0904 said:
I like this list, I really do. I also agree with placing Sampras over Federer on grass in terms of peak level. However, I'm interested in why "Federer indoors" didn't make the list. I don't disagree that's he's not on it. I'm just wondering what your reasons were for leaving him off. Or is there even a particular order to this? I assumed there was (with Nadal on clay being at the "reading" top and all).
Click to expand...

I missed this. My list wasn't in any exact order to be honest... except for the order that things came to my head, so there might be a loose correlation there.


Federer indoors didn't come to mind because ... well it just didn't, but he is great indoors. Sampras has similar figures for titles won indoors so either I should add Federer to the list or remove Sampras.. but Sampras left us with memorable battles with another behemoth of indoor conditions, Becker, so maybe that had more of an initial impact on me when trying to come up with the list. I think also a part of me probably said well Federer has been mentioned twice already and that's quite enough. It was a quick ad-libbed list, basically.

http://tennis28.com/titles/career.html (not quite up to date)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Who are top 10 of the Open Era per surface
2
Replies
81
Views
10K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
L
Brad Gilbert's Top 10 of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
609
Limpinhitter
L
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
1
Views
415
Charlemagne
Charlemagne
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
305
Limpinhitter
L
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
407
Limpinhitter
L
Back
Top