Top10 Tennis Players Ever - Top 10 Greatest Of All Times - Best Players of each Era - Top10 GOATs -

[Bruno Santiago]

Choosing the Top10 GOATs in the present Golden Era, with Nadal challenging Federer's Grand Slam mark and Djokovic threatening Maestro's #1 Weeks, is already very exciting. Would Murray, Wawrinka or Hewitt fit in? How about bringing into the equation Sampras, Agassi, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker - Open Era Greats - and the old-timers Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Pancho, Trebert wouldn't it be rather difficult to choose only 10? Now imagine discovering tennis in an Era when Grand Slam were not so important, shattered by WWI-II; Eras when Henshaw dazzle crossing courts, Decugis got real dirty, Doherty Brothers ruled, the 4 Mousquetaires led by Lacoste and Borotra, Bill Tilden traversed the land along with Vines, Richards, Perry, Budge on tours where they faced each other dozens of times... Rankings, Titles, H2H confrontations, style and specialized opinions (notable Kramer defined Vines one echelons above Tilden, Laver, Borg yet we haven't quite heard about him till recently), all may count as definers of the Top10 Greatest Of All Times list.

 

[Lew II]

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Years as #1 from this page:

Gonzales 6 + 2 as co-#1
W. Renshaw / Tilden 6 + 1
Sampras 6
Laver 5 + 2
Djokovic 5 + 1
Federer 5
Kramer 4 + 2
L. Doherty / Budge 4 + 1
Rosewall 3 + 3
Larned 3 + 2
Borg / Nadal 3 + 1
Cochet / Connors / McEnroe / Lendl 3

 

[Third Serve]

Good idea. I’m sure this topic hasn’t been talked about before.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

My personal opinion amalgamated with empirical data from numbers/excel sheets, ATP crude data, blessed wiki, forgotten websites, plus tons of hours watching great players interviews, tennis commentators opinions, pundits of statistical indexes, few biographies and 20yrs+ of tennis articles, all led me to the following humble ranking list. I would go for the following ranking (far from the truth and wide opened to debate):

#0 Roi Louis XII de France (notable mention)

#1 Laver
#2 Federer
#3 Nadal
#4 Djokovic
#5 Tilden
#6 Sampras
#7 Doherty
#8 Pancho
#9 Lacoste
#10 Budge

*Infinite sorrow for letting Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi; Rosewall, Emerson; Borotra, Cochet; Sears, Renshaw, Larned, Decugis; Vines, Perry; fall short of that list.

Eager to hear other names on that list and a different sorting of placements.

 

[JaoSousa]

My personal opinion amalgamated with empirical data from numbers/excel sheets, ATP crude data, blessed wiki, forgotten websites, plus tons of hours watching great players interviews, tennis commentators opinions, pundits of statistical indexes, few biographies and 20yrs+ of tennis articles, all led me to the following humble ranking list. I would go for the following ranking (far from the truth and wide opened to debate):

#0 Roi Louis XII de France (notable mention)

#1 Laver
#2 Federer
#3 Nadal
#4 Djokovic
#5 Tilden
#6 Sampras
#7 Doherty
#8 Pancho
#9 Lacoste
#10 Budge

*Infinite sorrow for letting Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi; Rosewall, Emerson; Borotra, Cochet; Sears, Renshaw, Larned, Decugis; Vines, Perry; fall short of that list.

Eager to hear other names on that list and a different sorting of placements.

Could you tell me who Doherty is. I have never heard of him.

 

[NatF]

1. Pancho
2. Federer
3. Laver
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Borg
10. Kramer

Something like that for me, I could put 6-9 in any order really - likewise with 1-3.

 

[Third Serve]

I don't really think there's a way to figure out who the GOAT is because it's pretty near impossible to compare different eras. So this list is my estimation, not what I know for sure.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic (before this US Open, I would have had him equal with Nadal)
5. Sampras
6. Rosewall
7. Borg
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. Agassi

 

[Mainad]

Could you tell me who Doherty is. I have never heard of him.

I presume the OP is referring to Laurence Doherty, a British player in the pre World War 1 era who won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, the only other player to accomplish this apart from Borg and Federer. His older brother Reginald won Wimbledon 4 times in a row.

The Doherty Brothers

 

[Bruno Santiago]

I don't really think there's a way to figure out who the GOAT is because it's pretty near impossible to compare different eras. So this list is my estimation, not what I know for sure.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic (before this US Open, I would have had him equal with Nadal)
5. Sampras
6. Rosewall
7. Borg
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. Agassi

Very nice choice. Borg, Sampras, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe were all considered GOATs in their respective times, still remember. Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and more recently Hewitt and Murray all made part of the discussion (Top10s), but never really challenged the status quo (GOATs).

Agassi was such a great player though, he faced Connors, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Hewitt, Federer and even Nadal! What a career really, no wonder many people place him in Top10 of all times.

 

[lud]

1. Arazi
2. Schalken
3. Vinciguerra
4. Popp
5. Carlsen
6. Youzhny
7. Russell
8. Verkerk
9. Zivojinovic
10. Labadze

 

[Bruno Santiago]

I presume the OP is referring to Laurence Doherty, a British player in the pre World War 1 era who won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, the only other player to accomplish this apart from Borg and Federer. His older brother Reginald won Wimbledon 4 times in a row.

The Doherty Brothers

Exactly, thank you Mainad. I am also not sure which one was the best, since the olympic gold earned by Laurence was by w/o from Reginald, the elder brother. The 1900 olympics were in France, and Decugis, although still very young, did not played - despite being on the draws. All considered, his versatility in clay, grass and hard (wood) made me rank him slightly ahead of Decugis, Reginald, Larned, Henshaw and Sears and among the 10 all time greats.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Could you tell me who Doherty is. I have never heard of him.

Guess it has already been answered JaoSousa, but yes, Reginald and Laurence Doherty were among of the greats from the Pre-WWI Era (1974~1914). They went to be forgotten after the war though, but lately historians and tennis pundits have recall them as great players from the dawn of modern tennis.

Unfortunately unlike NFL (Football), Cricket, Football (Soccer) or Baseball, tennis has 5 Eras completely cut apart from each other. Press of the Pre-WWII Era (1918~1939) was very disdainful about the old players from Pre-WWI Era. Same happened during the Amateur Era (1945~1968), when the Pre-WWII giants of the sport were virtually forgotten.

And that is also the case today. Tennis world tend to revere all Open Era (1969~) greats but little is done to the memory of the past giants. LaverCup and 2019 Laver celebrations were a good step in making peace with the past. But there is still some obstacles to surpass before remembering Tilden, Nusslein and VonCramm - perhaps the most controversial ones.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

1. Arazi
2. Schalken
3. Vinciguerra
4. Popp
5. Carlsen
6. Youzhny
7. Russell
8. Verkerk
9. Zivojinovic
10. Labadze

Youzhny 6th, you "cannot be serious", he should be at least #3!!! 。。。 lol

 

[Bruno Santiago]

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Years as #1 from this page:

Gonzales 6 + 2 as co-#1
W. Renshaw / Tilden 6 + 1
Sampras 6
Laver 5 + 2
Djokovic 5 + 1
Federer 5
Kramer 4 + 2
L. Doherty / Budge 4 + 1
Rosewall 3 + 3
Larned 3 + 2
Borg / Nadal 3 + 1
Cochet / Connors / McEnroe / Lendl 3

Nice collections. Who among them would fit in your Top10? - no pairing - ;D

 

[Bruno Santiago]

1. Pancho
2. Federer
3. Laver
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Borg
10. Kramer

Something like that for me, I could put 6-9 in any order really - likewise with 1-3.

Nice to see Kramer and Borg over there. Any specific reason for not including Emerson? (not judging, just curious)

Saw many people putting Pancho ahead of Laver too. Very good listing!

 

[NatF]

Nice to see Kramer and Borg over there. Any specific reason for not including Emerson? (not judging, just curious)

Saw many people putting Pancho ahead of Laver too. Very good listing!

Emerson won all his major titles as an amateur, for me I don't think he's necessarily on the level of even guys like Murray and Courier let alone near the top 10 all time.

 

[JaoSousa]

Thanks

 

[DSH]

 

[Third Serve]

Emerson won all his major titles as an amateur, for me I don't think he's necessarily on the level of even guys like Murray and Courier let alone near the top 10 all time.

That being said, even if someone did win all their Major titles as an amateur, it doesn't say much about his overall level. Maybe Emerson was at a disadvantage because his prime years didn't overlap in the Open Era and his wins are counted as lesser. Maybe he was actually a really good player but it's too hard to compare with today's era.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Emerson won all his major titles as an amateur, for me I don't think he's necessarily on the level of even guys like Murray and Courier let alone near the top 10 all time.

Good point, thought the same.

I try not look much into that criteria since I came to understand the term "Amateur" did not carry the same meaning of today. In many cases amateurs then simply meant they did not lived of tournament's prize money, which is similar to what Top10 players do nowadays - which pay the bills out of sponsorships.

Still, Emerson did not win much after Open Era had begun, which makes the case for him perhaps not being at the same level as the actual Slam-banned pros.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

That being said, even if someone did win all their Major titles as an amateur, it doesn't say much about his overall level. Maybe Emerson was at a disadvantage because his prime years didn't overlap in the Open Era and his wins are counted as lesser. Maybe he was actually a really good player but it's too hard to compare with today's era.

Also true. I believed I've heard some sayings about his level in the 60s being pretty comparable to those of Laver and Rosewall. Impossible to know for sure.

 

[thrust]

I don't really think there's a way to figure out who the GOAT is because it's pretty near impossible to compare different eras. So this list is my estimation, not what I know for sure.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic (before this US Open, I would have had him equal with Nadal)
5. Sampras
6. Rosewall
7. Borg
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. Agassi

Sampras won one important clay tournament, the Italian. Rosewall had much tougher competition throughout his career, yet won 2 official French at RG and 4 French Pro titles at RG. He also won 8 grass court majors and 9 indoor on wood, beating the likes of Laver, Gonzalez, Hoad, Emerson, Newcombe, Roach etc.. Therefore, IMHO he should be ranked above Pete. Otherwise, a good list.

 

[toby55555]

I presume the OP is referring to Laurence Doherty, a British player in the pre World War 1 era who won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, the only other player to accomplish this apart from Borg and Federer. His older brother Reginald won Wimbledon 4 times in a row.

The Doherty Brothers

Reigning champion up until 1922 only had to play one match ie the Final so slightly different challenge to that which later players faced.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Sampras won one important clay tournament, the Italian. Rosewall had much tougher competition throughout his career, yet won 2 official French at RG and 4 French Pro titles at RG. He also won 8 grass court majors and 9 indoor on wood, beating the likes of Laver, Gonzalez, Hoad, Emerson, Newcombe, Roach etc.. Therefore, IMHO he should be ranked above Pete. Otherwise, a good list.

Wow, great remarks thrust. You might have nailed it indeed! Can’t really argue against facts. Thanks! [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106] Curious, what would be your Top10 list? Close calls, but any guess would be fairly defendable though and hardly wrong.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Reigning champion up until 1922 only had to play one match ie the Final so slightly different challenge to that which later players faced.

Well noticed TobyFive5s. That’s a relevant difference right there, you are totally right.

In any case Grand Slams were never praised that much until post WWII. Even Tilden and Vines (both labeled GOATs by contemporaries) preferred to go on H2H Tours rather than focus exclusively on Slam titles.

Let alone there were only 3 acknowledgeable GS ([emoji631][emoji632][emoji636]) at the time and that restrictions were imposed to foreigners up to ~1925 at least.

Beyond Welsh, Birmingham, Cincy, Newport n alikes, Olympics and Championships (irrelevant/extinct nowadays) were a good mean to capture the big picture of the time.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

 

[thrust]

Also true. I believed I've heard some sayings about his level in the 60s being pretty comparable to those of Laver and Rosewall. Impossible to know for sure.

Emerson's level was comparable to Laver's before Rod joined the pro tour. It took Laver nearly two years to reach the level of Rosewall, then slightly pass him in 65. Roy was 2 years younger than Rosewall, yet lost to Ken in the 71 AO in three sets, 4-4-4. Ken was 36 then. Chances are that if Roy had joined the pro tour with Rod, he could have reached his level. Instead, he took the easy way out by staying on the amateur tour.

 

[Nolie]

Do not know how anyone above can possibly put Federer, Nadal or Djokovic before Borg. By just a tick over age 25 by the time he had played his last slam he had won 11 Federe 8, Nadal10), won the "channel slam"3 times (federer once, Nadal twice), won 3 slams without dropping a set (Federer twice, Nadal twice), dominated the two vastly different surfaces of grass and clay. He is Federer and Nadal in one. Whereas Federer dominates on grass he cannot on clay. Nadal dominates on clay but cannot on grass. Borg dominated both. Playing Wimbledon in the era of the serve/volleyers. Something these modern guys have not had to encounter. In among those victories for Federer and Nadal were Aussie Opens which of course Borg only went to once when he was a teenager. The great mystery if Borg had played Aussie what would the story be?

 

[6august]

Emerson won all his major titles as an amateur, for me I don't think he's necessarily on the level of even guys like Murray and Courier let alone near the top 10 all time.

But he has proven that he could beat Laver.

 

[JackGates]

If we take all players from all eras across all surfaces and all of them trained with modern technology, I think Fed would win, because he is closest to complete package overall. All of his skills he has from are 8-10 on a scale. Volley, fitness, stamina, technique, creativity talent, adaptability, mental toughenss. No surface or any types of players seem to trouble Fed.

I think that would give him slight edge and would come a bit on top versus all greats training with modern rackets on all surfaces.
I haven't seen anyone with greater technique and talent plus also having very high level fitness and the mind and not getting injured.

Who do you think apart from Fed is such a jack of all trades, I can't think of anyone. Maybe Laver?

 

[Nolie]

If we take all players from all eras across all surfaces and all of them trained with modern technology, I think Fed would win, because he is closest to complete package overall. All of his skills he has from are 8-10 on a scale. Volley, fitness, stamina, technique, creativity talent, adaptability, mental toughenss. No surface or any types of players seem to trouble Fed.

I think that would give him slight edge and would come a bit on top versus all greats training with modern rackets on all surfaces.
I haven't seen anyone with greater technique and talent plus also having very high level fitness and the mind and not getting injured.

Who do you think apart from Fed is such a jack of all trades, I can't think of anyone. Maybe Laver?

"No surface or any types of players seem to trouble Fed.". Have you not heard of clay and Nadal?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

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

 

[ForehandCross]

Repeat after me:

The big 3 have inflated resumes.
The big 3 have inflated resumes.
The big 3 have inflated resumes.

 

[Nolie]

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

I somewhat agree about Djokovic being above Federer and Nadal. The whole topic however is a highly subjective. I grew up during the Borg era and, as it now, Wimbledon was the hallowed crown of tennis. If you did not win W then you were not rated as highly. Look at Lendl. Brilliant player did most everything except win Wimbledon. He played Wimbledon in the era of the serve-volleyers. These players do not exist anymore. Baseliners only these days. Lendl buttered up against Pat Cash who was raised on grass. A baseliner who did not know how to play a net rusher on grass. Nadal, Federer, Djokovic have never had to play a pure grass serve-volleyer with a big serve - a la Borg versus Roscoe Tanner- Tanner with an almost unplayable serve on grass. The last great serve-volleyer was Patrick Rafter and even with his great grass game succumbed to someone with an unbeatable serve on grass. When and if Nick Kyrgios can pull his head in and concentrate - watch out. Theoretically he should be unbeatable on grass. He knocked off Nadal there the other year. Took it to him last year and could have/should have won that but let Nadal's antics - eg making K wait to receive the serve , when he had no right to- get the better of him.

 

[stringertom]

The eloquence and soundly reasoned and thorough argument that you have proposed here is ...well.. dumbfounding. Dumb being the operative word.

Nice to see a new user with so much tact and manners.

Ignore button hit.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I somewhat agree about Djokovic being above Federer and Nadal. The whole topic however is a highly subjective. I grew up during the Borg era and, as it now, Wimbledon was the hallowed crown of tennis. If you did not win W then you were not rated as highly. Look at Lendl. Brilliant player did most everything except win Wimbledon. He played Wimbledon in the era of the serve-volleyers. These players do not exist anymore. Baseliners only these days. Lendl buttered up against Pat Cash who was raised on grass. A baseliner who did not know how to play a net rusher on grass. Nadal, Federer, Djokovic have never had to play a pure grass serve-volleyer with a big serve - a la Borg versus Roscoe Tanner- Tanner with an almost unplayable serve on grass. The last great serve-volleyer was Patrick Rafter and even with his great grass game succumbed to someone with an unbeatable serve on grass. When and if Nick Kyrgios can pull his head in and concentrate - watch out. Theoretically he should be unbeatable on grass. He knocked off Nadal there the other year. Took it to him last year and could have/should have won that but let Nadal's antics - eg making K wait to receive the serve , when he had no right to- get the better of him.

Theoretically Nick Kyrgios should already be GOAT based on “talent.”
I don’t see him winning anything without a MAJOR attitude adjustment.

 

[The Guru]

Repeat after me:

The big 3 have inflated resumes.
The big 3 have inflated resumes.
The big 3 have inflated resumes.

Both true and untrue. They have benefitted from homogenization and modern training/health which has prolonged their careers but they also all had to face each other their hole careers. In general, for tennis I find it extremely difficult to compare across eras given all the change tennis has gone through. In other (team) sports you can fall back on impact stats which are universal. Making your team x points better per game/possession is the same amount of positive play in all eras. I also think tennis has undergone more changes than most other goals. Shifting priorities/tournaments. Shifting technology/court-speed/style/rules. It's just so much to account for. I think a list including all eras is essentially meaningless. Open Era only is tough but maybe doable. Greatest might not equal best though too because so much of it depends on the perceived value of the tournaments that they're playing. Someone who wins 50 masters 7 WTFs and 15 slams would probably be better at tennis than the Big 3 but he'd be rated worse. The GOAT conversation is the hardest for me to rap my head around. I have long lists in basketball/football that I feel very comfortable with and I can't even get myself to settle on an OE top 10 let alone all time.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

"No surface or any types of players seem to trouble Fed.". Have you not heard of clay and Nadal?

Let alone Novak in the green... (or anywhere else in Finals).


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Both true and untrue. They have benefitted from homogenization and modern training/health which has prolonged their careers but they also all had to face each other their hole careers. In general, for tennis I find it extremely difficult to compare across eras given all the change tennis has gone through. In other (team) sports you can fall back on impact stats which are universal. Making your team x points better per game/possession is the same amount of positive play in all eras. I also think tennis has undergone more changes than most other goals. Shifting priorities/tournaments. Shifting technology/court-speed/style/rules. It's just so much to account for. I think a list including all eras is essentially meaningless. Open Era only is tough but maybe doable. Greatest might not equal best though too because so much of it depends on the perceived value of the tournaments that they're playing. Someone who wins 50 masters 7 WTFs and 15 slams would probably be better at tennis than the Big 3 but he'd be rated worse. The GOAT conversation is the hardest for me to rap my head around. I have long lists in basketball/football that I feel very comfortable with and I can't even get myself to settle on an OE top 10 let alone all time.

Open Era is objectively feasible. In Tennis you may care about 4 criteria: 3 tangible, one intangible.

Tennis is a sport about:

A- Titles - mostly Grand Slams and Overall (Finals/Masters/other);

B- Rankings - #1 and Top10 (weeks/seasons);

C- Confronts - H2H for same era (all variables counted) or win/loss vs. peers;

D- Fame - an intangible measure used mostly for Pre-War (1925-1939) and Pre-Slam Eras (1877-1925); since Slams were somewhat less prized than tours in the first case and were blatantly forbidden for foreigners in the second.

Accordingly, Open Era should not present any hardship in terms of historical hierarchy, being ranked as follows:

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

10# place is a close call between Boris, Edberg, Wilander, arguably even Murray and Hewitt.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

[Bruno Santiago]

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

[emoji106][emoji106] Hard to disagree!!


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

[Bruno Santiago]

If we take all players from all eras across all surfaces and all of them trained with modern technology, I think Fed would win, because he is closest to complete package overall. All of his skills he has from are 8-10 on a scale. Volley, fitness, stamina, technique, creativity talent, adaptability, mental toughenss. No surface or any types of players seem to trouble Fed.

I think that would give him slight edge and would come a bit on top versus all greats training with modern rackets on all surfaces.
I haven't seen anyone with greater technique and talent plus also having very high level fitness and the mind and not getting injured.

Who do you think apart from Fed is such a jack of all trades, I can't think of anyone. Maybe Laver?

Look despite his thing with Kramer and everything else, Bill Tilde was an outstanding a player in GOAT terms.

His presence on court could trouble any British grass specialist or any French dirt musketeer, anytime throughout his career.

If it wasn’t by the WWII, Donald Budge May Have been considered the GOAT without a doubt too.

Laver has achieved what any player has ever accomplished 2xGrandSlam, and yet he was prevented from playing GS from 24-31 years of age (take that out of Fed he wd Br stuck with “only” 8 GS).

But, well, technically the most complete player of our era should be, undoubtedly, Novak Djokovic, since he was the only one to have won the All 4 Grand Slam.

Having said that, Nadal is arguably the 3rd best hard court player after Sampras, and Federer the 3rd best clay player since Kuerten.

Notable mentions may go to Renshaw, L.Doherty, R.Doherty, Sears, Decugis, Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra, Perry, Vines, Richards, Pancho, Emerson, Rosewall, Crawford; all greats, nevertheless, due to restrictions in prizing, transportation and permission the full extend of their career potential were somewhat restrained.

Any of them should have an argument for making the All Time Top 10 though.


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

[King No1e]

Emerson won all his major titles as an amateur, for me I don't think he's necessarily on the level of even guys like Murray and Courier let alone near the top 10 all time.

Emerson was the real weak era champ

 

[King No1e]

1. fedr

 

[AceRoddick]

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Novak

 

[BeatlesFan]

Good idea. I’m sure this topic hasn’t been talked about before.

 

[AceRoddick]

My fave player is smashing rackets goat, does it count?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Top 9 all time are obvious (in whatever order).

10th place is debatable between the likes of Vines, Budge, Kramer, Connors and Lendl.

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Top 9 all time are obvious (in whatever order).

10th place is debatable between the likes of Vines, Budge, Kramer, Connors and Lendl.

Top 9? Interesting. In which exact order would you place them? Very curious. Tks!


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

 

[Bruno Santiago]

Has it? (References plz)


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk