What is the ATP all time greats Tiering System in the Open Era according to you ???

Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Open Era Tiers


Tier 1 : GOAT Tier
Members : Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Sampras

Tier 2 : Higher Tier ATGs who never were/are GOATs
Members : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl

Tier 3 : Lower Tier ATGs
Members : Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Newcombe

Tier 4 : Great players who are not ATGs but had high consistency
Members : Arthur Ashe, Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Vilas, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Rafter, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikova, Chang, Bruguera

Tier 5 : Lower Tier Greats who were not ATGs with less consistency
Members : Thiem, Roscoe Tanner, Medvedev, Cash, Noah, Muster, Stitch, Moya, Cilic, Krajicek, Korda

Tier 6 : Guys who were in the second week of slams a few times and either won a very undeserving fluke slam or were not slam worthy!
Members : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas, Thomas Johansson, Gaudio, Rios etc etc

Tier 7 : Journeymen
Members : Nick Kyrgios, Felix, Sinner etc etc ...

Tier 8 : Outside top 100, players who are no longer a threat to anyone, impotent !
Members : Mansour Bahrami ?

(Excluded Rod Laver, Rosewall and many others who careers fell before the Open era for obvious reasons)

For me..... This is how it is ... Do you agree or disagree ?
What is your list?
 
Last edited:
El_Yotamo said:
Ok this has been bothering me for quite a while, I dunno why even but it is. His name is Petros, not Peter which I've seen you write a lot. Sorry for the pedantry
Click to expand...

Ok.
Actual Peter is derived from Petros, same as Petra which is feminine name.
They are all same I think so ?
How is Peter bad ?
Anyway, have edited, removed peter
 
Last edited:
In no order:
  1. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
  2. Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
  3. Kramer, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi
  4. Budge, Vines, Perry, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Something like that. Maybe Hoad in their 4? Riggs, Murray, Courier etc...would be in 5.
 
PilotPete said:
Pete can't be in the GOAT tier, belongs in Tier 2 with Borg, and move all the other guys there to Tier 3.
Click to expand...

Pete is clearly a tier above Borg IMO

Reason :

Borg did dominate 2nd half of the 70s but quicckly Mac arrived then dominated 1st half of 80s, their H2Hs are 7-7, Borg lags in rankings to Connors, Mac and Lendl in those 70s and 80s decades, now we might say that ATP was unfair and all that, sounds good, but in reality what is official is offical.

Pete on the other hand was a RULER for a full decade !

286 weeks at 1, 14 Slams which was a big number in 90s and by 31 he had that number which is same as Big3's tally at that age, H2H over all rivals, 7 slams on Grass and 7 Slams on HCs in an era where players were finished by 30, ruled the tour finals as well. ....... He ruled 90s decade completely.

He has stood out enough to still merit a place with Big 3 even in 2021, can't say the same for Borg who is on par with Mcenroe.
 
NatF said:
In no order:
  1. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
  2. Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
  3. Kramer, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi
  4. Budge, Vines, Perry, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Something like that. Maybe Hoad in their 4? Riggs, Murray, Courier etc...would be in 5.
Click to expand...

Who is vines?
 
Rosstour said:
Tier 1 has to be Borg, PETE, Djok, Nadal.

Tier 2 is Lendl, Mac, Connors, Agassi.

Tier 3 is Federer, Vilas, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Courier.

Does this make TTW happy?
Click to expand...

Then John Mcenroe should also be in tier 1 like @NonP said 2 days back, because that time tour finals were 4th Slam instead of AO and Davis Cup was also quite powerful, John Mcenroe is the guy who dethroned Borg and then ruled for 5 years, how can Borg be higher tier than Mcenroe??
 
Tier 1 : GOAT Tier
Members : Djokovic and Sampras

Tier 2 : Higher Tier ATGs
Members : Federer, Nadal
 
Off the fly -- and I reserve the right to change it. I'm only "tiering" all-OE guys (but Newk), and I'm not implying that all players on the same tier had equivalent careers. The only active players I'll rate are Big 3 (can't climb to a higher tier), Murray and Stan (probably won't add much more.)

Tier 1: Big 3, plus Borg and Sampras (I could put Borg and Sampras down to their own Tier 2, as I think each of The Big 3 have surpassed both of them, but I think that they were special enough talents, as were their accomplishments.)

Tier 2: Lendl, Mac, Connors, Agassi

Tier 3: Newcombe (won 5 of 6 in OE), Becker, Edberg, Murray (giving him the benefit of the doubt from another discussion), Wilander

Tier 4: Ashe, Kuerten, Vilas, Courier, Nastase

Tier 5: Wawrinka, Rafter, Smith, Hewitt, Safin, probably Roddick...not a complete list
 
Federer Nadal and Djokovic are Tier one the greatest players to ever pick up a racquet.

No one else in the history of tennis is even remotely close to them.
 
NatF said:
In no order:
  1. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
  2. Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
  3. Kramer, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi
  4. Budge, Vines, Perry, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Something like that. Maybe Hoad in their 4? Riggs, Murray, Courier etc...would be in 5.
Click to expand...
Good list. I didn't try to "tier" the pre-OE guys, with a mini-exception for Newcombe.
If I did put them in, I'd probably slot them around where you did, but probably move Budge up one.
Where would you put Emerson?
 
Tier 1

Djokovic
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Borg

Tier 2

Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Agassi

Tier 3

Becker
Edberg
Wilander
 
Nole Slam said:
Tier 1

Djokovic
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Borg

Tier 2

Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Agassi

Tier 3

Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Click to expand...
Then again, the triple 20 kind of ruined the Tier 1 list. Sampras and Borg can be removed.
 
Sunny014 said:
Pete is clearly a tier above Borg IMO

Reason :

Borg did dominate 2nd half of the 70s but quicckly Mac arrived then dominated 1st half of 80s, their H2Hs are 7-7, Borg lags in rankings to Connors, Mac and Lendl in those 70s and 80s decades, now we might say that ATP was unfair and all that, sounds good, but in reality what is official is offical.

Pete on the other hand was a RULER for a full decade !

286 weeks at 1, 14 Slams which was a big number in 90s and by 31 he had that number which is same as Big3's tally at that age, H2H over all rivals, 7 slams on Grass and 7 Slams on HCs in an era where players were finished by 30, ruled the tour finals as well. ....... He ruled 90s decade completely.

He has stood out enough to still merit a place with Big 3 even in 2021, can't say the same for Borg who is on par with Mcenroe.
Click to expand...
At the age of 31 Fed had 17 slams.He had 14 slams at 27 :D
 
NatF said:
In no order:
  1. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
  2. Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
  3. Kramer, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi
  4. Budge, Vines, Perry, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Something like that. Maybe Hoad in their 4? Riggs, Murray, Courier etc...would be in 5.
Click to expand...
You are showing no respect for Spencer Gore, how dare you ? :D He was the inspiration for the past greats lol
 
pj80 said:
Tier 1 : GOAT Tier
Members : Djokovic and Sampras

Tier 2 : Higher Tier ATGs
Members : Federer, Nadal
Click to expand...
41oForzCckL._SR600%2C315_PIWhiteStrip%2CBottomLeft%2C0%2C35_SCLZZZZZZZ_FMpng_BG255%2C255%2C255.jpg
 
There is no system.
You can't compare eras intelligently.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Good list. I didn't try to "tier" the pre-OE guys, with a mini-exception for Newcombe.
If I did put them in, I'd probably slot them around where you did, but probably move Budge up one.
Where would you put Emerson?
Click to expand...

Don't rate Emerson that high because everything he did was in the amateurs. Would put him in tier five personally, I'd balk at anything higher than four though lol.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Off the fly -- and I reserve the right to change it. I'm only "tiering" all-OE guys (but Newk), and I'm not implying that all players on the same tier had equivalent careers. The only active players I'll rate are Big 3 (can't climb to a higher tier), Murray and Stan (probably won't add much more.)

Tier 1: Big 3, plus Borg and Sampras (I could put Borg and Sampras down to their own Tier 2, as I think each of The Big 3 have surpassed both of them, but I think that they were special enough talents, as were their accomplishments.)

Tier 2: Lendl, Mac, Connors, Agassi

Tier 3: Newcombe (won 5 of 6 in OE), Becker, Edberg, Murray (giving him the benefit of the doubt from another discussion), Wilander

Tier 4: Ashe, Kuerten, Vilas, Courier, Nastase

Tier 5: Wawrinka, Rafter, Smith, Hewitt, Safin, probably Roddick...not a complete list
Click to expand...

Murray 2 tiers above Wawrinka who has a winning H2H of 5-3 over Murray in Best of 5 Sets ????
Above Courier ???
 
NatF said:
Don't rate Emerson that high because everything he did was in the amateurs. Would p to me, as well, ut him in tier five personally, I'd balk at anything higher than four though lol.
Click to expand...
He presents a dilemma to me, as well, as he kicked butt while the tour was split. Still, I wonder if I underrate him a little. That's why I try to only do GOAT-type discussions with OE players, and even then...
 
Sunny014 said:
Murray 2 tiers above Wawrinka who has a winning H2H of 5-3 over Murray in Best of 5 Sets ????
Above Courier ???
Click to expand...
I hear you, and there are enough Murray discussions where I went into more explanation.
Reasonable people may disagree with where I grouped players, but Murray has so many achievements that Stan never had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
Open Era only
Tier 1 (GOATs): Big 3, Sampras, Borg
Tier 2 (Strong ATGs): Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi
Tier 3 (Weak ATGs): Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 (Sub ATGs): Courier, Vilas, Newcombe, Kuerten
Tier 5 (Strong slam winners): Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Stan, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Ashe, Muster, Nastase, Kafelnikov, Stich, Delpo, Bruguera
Tier 6 (Weaker slam winners): Cash, Krajicek, Panatta, Noah, Gerulaitis, Ferrero, Cilic, Moya, Gomez, Korda
Tier 7 (One slam wonders or strong non-slammers): Costa, Gaudio, Johansson, Nalbandian, Haas, Davydenko, Henman, Scud, Mecir, Tsonga

Probably missed some important names, but that would be my general ranking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RaulRamirez said:
He presents a dilemma to me, as well, as he kicked butt while the tour was split. Still, I wonder if I underrate him a little. That's why I try to only do GOAT-type discussions with OE players, and even then...
Click to expand...

That is wise. I like to mix in pre-OE players but it's probably folly. Even comparing within the OE is tough when the tour has changed so much.

With Emerson he was already surpassed by Laver in 1962 - hence the Grand Slam. When Laver went to the Pro tour Rosewall really cleaned his clock. It took a couple of years for Laver to truly peak in the Pro's IMO so the gap between Emerson and those guys is pretty big. He did score some wins over them when tennis was OE but they were all declining by then. I sort of see him as the Murray to the Big 3 of Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver. Though even then players like Sedgmen, Tarbert, Segura and of course Hoad were also arguably at least on his level or above (like Hoad). So it's quite tough.

From what I know of his game he was a great athlete so he may have been able to adapt to the Pro tours higher level himself. We'll just never know. Regardless I dont take his 12 majors at face value. He was basically competing on a tour where the top 2 and half the rest of the top 10 were missing.
 
Turing said:
Open Era only
Tier 1 (GOATs): Big 3, Sampras, Borg
Tier 2 (Strong ATGs): Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi
Tier 3 (Weak ATGs): Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 (Sub ATGs): Courier, Murray, Vilas, Newcombe, Kuerten
Tier 5 (Strong slam winners): Hewitt, Safin, Stan, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Ashe, Muster, Nastase, Kafelnikov, Stich, Delpo, Bruguera
Tier 6 (Weaker slam winners): Cash, Krajicek, Panatta, Noah, Gerulaitis, Ferrero, Cilic, Moya, Gomez, Korda
Tier 7 (One slam wonders or strong non-slammers): Costa, Gaudio, Johansson, Nalbandian, Haas, Davydenko, Henman, Scud, Mecir, Tsonga

Probably missed some important names, but that would be my general ranking.
Click to expand...

Nice list.

I would swap Murray with Safin in the tiers and put Borg in 2 and it looks perfect for me :p
 
Sunny014 said:
Nice list.

I would swap Murray with Safin in the tiers and put Borg in 2 and it looks perfect for me :p
Click to expand...
Safin unfortunately not a lot of longevity to get to the sub ATG tier (not his fault, of course, with all the injuries). Undoubtedly has a higher peak than Murray though.

Borg, when accounting for era differences, should be in the first tier IMO.
 
Turing said:
Safin unfortunately not a lot of longevity to get to the sub ATG tier (not his fault, of course, with all the injuries). Undoubtedly has a higher peak than Murray though.

Borg, when accounting for era differences, should be in the first tier IMO.
Click to expand...

Ok Safin's I agree, the guy is probably could have been weak ATG level if truly motivated but he ended up in 2 levels lower, fair enoug, but Murray himself is just a 3 slam winner, we cannot credit him for all those finals because thats like crediting Lendl with Sampras level tier for making more finals ??? Also Murray and Hewitt were both beaten in slams a total of 13 times by the eventual champion in various rounds, Hewitt was unlucky to face the champ 1 round earlier maybe but the number is same, also hewitt has 2 YE1s and 2 YECs as well, is it fair to put Murray ahead in Sub ATG?

Also regarding Borg, lets not forget that Mcenroe did beat him everywhere outside clay and sent him into sabattical/burnout, plus Borg's channel slams give him a lot of hype, but lets not forget that in a SNV era he would not have been successful in winning half of those wimbledons. So if we are givng him benefit of playing a tennis that could survive today then why not Lendl ??? I mean if you take into account the 3 slams then (excluding AO) and the YECs then Borg, Mac and Lendl would all be in the same vicinity. Also Mac has the greatest peak year of the 70s-90s period, also he is a better HC player, better carpets player, better grass courter too than Borg, so how can Mac be in a lower tier ???
 
NatF said:
In no order:
  1. Gonzalez, Laver, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
  2. Tilden, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras
  3. Kramer, Connors, Mac, Lendl, Agassi
  4. Budge, Vines, Perry, Newcombe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
Something like that. Maybe Hoad in their 4? Riggs, Murray, Courier etc...would be in 5.
Click to expand...
Very good all-time list.
 
Sunny014 said:
Ok Safin's I agree, the guy is probably could have been weak ATG level if truly motivated but he ended up in 2 levels lower, fair enoug, but Murray himself is just a 3 slam winner, we cannot credit him for all those finals because thats like crediting Lendl with Sampras level tier for making more finals ??? Also Murray and Hewitt were both beaten in slams a total of 13 times by the eventual champion in various rounds, Hewitt was unlucky to face the champ 1 round earlier maybe but the number is same, also hewitt has 2 YE1s and 2 YECs as well, is it fair to put Murray ahead in Sub ATG?
Click to expand...
That's a good point. Now that I think about it, Murray and Hewitt should be in the same tier roughly. I don't feel comfortable promoting Hewitt a tier so Murray should be demoted.
Sunny014 said:
Also regarding Borg, lets not forget that Mcenroe did beat him everywhere outside clay and sent him into sabattical/burnout, plus Borg's channel slams give him a lot of hype, but lets not forget that in a SNV era he would not have been successful in winning half of those wimbledons. So if we are givng him benefit of playing a tennis that could survive today then why not Lendl ??? I mean if you take into account the 3 slams then (excluding AO) and the YECs then Borg, Mac and Lendl would all be in the same vicinity. Also Mac has the greatest peak year of the 70s-90s period, also he is a better HC player, better carpets player, better grass courter too than Borg, so how can Mac be in a lower tier ???
Click to expand...
McEnroe didn't beat him everywhere. Borg never played him on clay and still led the h2h 7-4 before 1981, the year he was already starting to lose his love for the game and reduced his schedule. I don't get what you mean by SnV era, Borg already played in an era where SnV was the norm on grass and SnVed regularly himself. If you mean in the graphite era where the serve became more important, maybe he'd struggle a bit more but Borg still handled the best servers of his day and had a great serve of his own. As for Lendl, he's borderline in the first tier, but I had to dock him for his track record in slam finals and big matches. As for Mac, he may be better on hard and indoors, but he isn't better on grass and Borg was far better on clay (the gap between them on clay is a lot bigger than the gap on hard or carpet). And Mac just didn't achieve enough or have enough longevity to get in the first tier despite having one of the highest peaks ever.
 
Turing said:
That's a good point. Now that I think about it, Murray and Hewitt should be in the same tier roughly. I don't feel comfortable promoting Hewitt a tier so Murray should be demoted.

McEnroe didn't beat him everywhere. Borg never played him on clay and still led the h2h 7-4 before 1981, the year he was already starting to lose his love for the game and reduced his schedule. I don't get what you mean by SnV era, Borg already played in an era where SnV was the norm on grass and SnVed regularly himself. If you mean in the graphite era where the serve became more important, maybe he'd struggle a bit more but Borg still handled the best servers of his day and had a great serve of his own. As for Lendl, he's borderline in the first tier, but I had to dock him for his track record in slam finals and big matches. As for Mac, he may be better on hard and indoors, but he isn't better on grass and Borg was far better on clay (the gap between them on clay is a lot bigger than the gap on hard or carpet). And Mac just didn't achieve enough or have enough longevity to get in the first tier despite having one of the highest peaks ever.
Click to expand...

Yup, Hewitt has no business being in the Sub-ATG tier and probably Murray also shouldn't be though Murray might be closer to that tier than Hewitt.

As far as Mac, I agree, he too cannot be in tier 1, but lets not forget that Borg has 0 slams on HCs, his indoor record isn't flattering (the win% is clearly 5% below Mcenroe, 85 vs 80). Also Borg retiring at 26 refusing to work harder to adapt to graphite era should also be held against him. Someone like Federer can shift to a different racquet head in his 30s and still win slams but Borg cannot? A whooping 87% of his rivals in his career are younger to him and that means he did not face the older guys to take all those defeats. I know 11 slams vs 7 slams seems a big difference, but then if you factor in the Indoor championships and Davis Cups as well which were very significant back then, the gap narrows down a lot.

So In my humble opinion just like Hewitt's presence should prevent Murray from being in the Sub ATG tier, even Mcenroe's presence should raise some doubts on Borg's validity into the tier 1 meant for GOATs.

Sampras + Big 3 should be the Tier, yes Borg was the clay GOAT and a icon in the 70s, but then the guys in 80s also have had their presence and Mac did rule the 80-85 period, can that be ignored? Not sure.
 
Sunny014 said:
As far as Mac, I agree, he too cannot be in tier 1, but lets not forget that Borg has 0 slams on HCs
Click to expand...
Borg only got four tries at a HC slam and made the final three times, losing each time to a HC ATG. It's not fair to hold that against him when he had so few chances and such tough competition. Imagine if Fed only got to play RG from 2005-08 where he had to face Nadal every time. People would say he was a failure on clay, but because he did eventually win with a friendlier draw we look on him as a good clay courter. Borg should get the same treatment and the benefit of the doubt since he did still show strong levels on HC despite never ultimately winning. He easily could have won in the next two years against an older Connors or inexperienced Lendl.
Sunny014 said:
his indoor record isn't flattering (the win% is clearly 5% below Mcenroe, 85 vs 80)
Click to expand...
Huh? His indoor win % is top 5 all time, ahead of Sampras and Becker who were renowned indoor players. Just because Mac is an outlier doesn't mean Borg was bad. Just look at his 1980 YEC match against Lendl or his '79 and '80 YEC matches against Mac. Borg was a beast indoors and could hang with the very best. And considering that was a surface/environment that didn't suit his natural game, it's even more impressive how good he was. Ditto with grass.
Sunny014 said:
Also Borg retiring at 26 refusing to work harder to adapt to graphite era should also be held against him. Someone like Federer can shift to a different racquet head in his 30s and still win slams but Borg cannot? A whooping 87% of his rivals in his career are younger to him and that means he did not face the older guys to take all those defeats
Click to expand...
Retiring early certainly hurts his longevity, but he does make up for it somewhat since he was an early bloomer and was already a slam winner at barely 18. As for adapting, I don't think would have needed to. He was already ahead of his time with his technique and style and graphite would have only helped him. The type of game he was playing with wood would only be enhanced with more power and lighter rackets to swing.
Sunny014 said:
I know 11 slams vs 7 slams seems a big difference, but then if you factor in the Indoor championships and Davis Cups as well which were very significant back then, the gap narrows down a lot.
Click to expand...
Mac has things in his favor, but so does Borg. Borg had an absurd 3-year peak from 1978-80 that was more dominant than McEnroe's best stretch and surface versatility that still hasn't been matched. He won a slam for eight straight years. He was insanely efficient, winning 41% of the slams he entered (still the best % ever), meaning he hardly ever choked or underperformed. He also couldn't play '77 RG which was a prime opportunity that he almost certainly would have won. And if you're penalizing Borg for his lesser indoor achievements, you also have to dock Mac for his weakness on clay and losing slams where he was favored like '82 WB and USO and '83 USO. But even then, as I said above, Borg was still fantastic indoors unlike Mac on clay despite not having a game naturally suited to indoors like Mac did. So overall, the gap between them is too big I think.
 
Sunny014 said:
Open Era Tiers

Tier 8 : Outside top 100, players who are no longer a threat to anyone, impotent !
Members : Mansour Brahmani ?

(Excluded Rod Laver, Rosewall and many others who careers fell before the Open era for obvious reasons)

For me..... This is how it is ... Do you agree or disagree ?
What is your list?
Click to expand...
Objection: Rod Laver won 5 slams in the open era. 4 of them made a CYGS in 1969.
I did not know that Mansour Bahrami became a Brahmin, and that is why he might have changed his last name. How did he accomplish that?
You are accusing him of impotent. How did you know that?
 
Turing said:
Borg only got four tries at a HC slam and made the final three times, losing each time to a HC ATG. It's not fair to hold that against him when he had so few chances and such tough competition. Imagine if Fed only got to play RG from 2005-08 where he had to face Nadal every time. People would say he was a failure on clay, but because he did eventually win with a friendlier draw we look on him as a good clay courter. Borg should get the same treatment and the benefit of the doubt since he did still show strong levels on HC despite never ultimately winning. He easily could have won in the next two years against an older Connors or inexperienced Lendl.

Huh? His indoor win % is top 5 all time, ahead of Sampras and Becker who were renowned indoor players. Just because Mac is an outlier doesn't mean Borg was bad. Just look at his 1980 YEC match against Lendl or his '79 and '80 YEC matches against Mac. Borg was a beast indoors and could hang with the very best. And considering that was a surface/environment that didn't suit his natural game, it's even more impressive how good he was. Ditto with grass.

Retiring early certainly hurts his longevity, but he does make up for it somewhat since he was an early bloomer and was already a slam winner at barely 18. As for adapting, I don't think would have needed to. He was already ahead of his time with his technique and style and graphite would have only helped him. The type of game he was playing with wood would only be enhanced with more power and lighter rackets to swing.

Mac has things in his favor, but so does Borg. Borg had an absurd 3-year peak from 1978-80 that was more dominant than McEnroe's best stretch and surface versatility that still hasn't been matched. He won a slam for eight straight years. He was insanely efficient, winning 41% of the slams he entered (still the best % ever), meaning he hardly ever choked or underperformed. He also couldn't play '77 RG which was a prime opportunity that he almost certainly would have won. And if you're penalizing Borg for his lesser indoor achievements, you also have to dock Mac for his weakness on clay and losing slams where he was favored like '82 WB and USO and '83 USO. But even then, as I said above, Borg was still fantastic indoors unlike Mac on clay despite not having a game naturally suited to indoors like Mac did. So overall, the gap between them is too big I think.
Click to expand...

Borg > Mac on Clay
Mac > Borg on HCs
Mac > Borg on Indoor Carpets
Mac = Borg on Grass

Mac is ahead or same at best.

Mac has more weeks at 1
Mac has more titles
Mac is 7-7 on H2H

Borg has more slams but Mac has more year end titles, total of them Borg has 13 while Mac has 15 in total.

Borg has nothing over Mac ....... how can Borg be in a higher tier ?
 
Sudacafan said:
Objection: Rod Laver won 5 slams in the open era. 4 of them made a CYGS in 1969.
I did not know that Mansour Bahrami became a Brahmin, and that is why he might have changed his last name. How did he accomplish that?
You are accusing him of impotent. How did you know that?
Click to expand...

Lol, apologies for wrong surname, will edit it :D
 
Sunny014 said:
Open Era Tiers


Tier 1 : GOAT Tier
Members : Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Sampras

Tier 2 : Higher Tier ATGs who never were/are GOATs
Members : Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Agassi & Lendl

Tier 3 : Lower Tier ATGs
Members : Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Newcombe

Tier 4 : Great players who are not ATGs but had high consistency
Members : Arthur Ashe, Safin, Courier, Kuerten, Vilas, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, Rafter, Stanimal, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikova, Chang, Bruguera

Tier 5 : Lower Tier Greats who were not ATGs with less consistency
Members : Thiem, Roscoe Tanner, Medvedev, Cash, Noah, Muster, Stitch, Moya, Cilic, Krajicek, Korda

Tier 6 : Guys who were in the second week of slams a few times and either won a very undeserving fluke slam or were not slam worthy!
Members : Nalbandian, Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga, Zverev, Sissypas, Thomas Johansson, Gaudio, Rios etc etc

Tier 7 : Journeymen
Members : Nick Kyrgios, Felix, Sinner etc etc ...

Tier 8 : Outside top 100, players who are no longer a threat to anyone, impotent !
Members : Mansour Bahrami ?

(Excluded Rod Laver, Rosewall and many others who careers fell before the Open era for obvious reasons)

For me..... This is how it is ... Do you agree or disagree ?
What is your list?
Click to expand...
Still, Laver won 5 open era slams, Rosewall won 4 and reached 4 other finals. They should be in tier 3. All time, they would be tier 1 players.
 
Sunny014 said:
How is Sampras higher than Fedal ?
All of his records have been broken plus during his time slamless Marcelo Rios became 1 and even 1 slam wonder Korda came close to top spot I think so? or was he 3 ?
Click to expand...

It's just for laughs. I can't take any Goat stuff seriously.
 
Sunny014 said:
Borg > Mac on Clay
Mac > Borg on HCs
Mac > Borg on Indoor Carpets
Mac = Borg on Grass

Mac is ahead or same at best.

Mac has more weeks at 1
Mac has more titles
Mac is 7-7 on H2H

Borg has more slams but Mac has more year end titles, total of them Borg has 13 while Mac has 15 in total.

Borg has nothing over Mac ....... how can Borg be in a higher tier ?
Click to expand...
I've explained my reasoning enough. We'll just have to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Druss
Rating from strongest to weakest eras in the Open Era
Replies
36
Views
3K
Russeljones
Russeljones
M
Divide the womens Open Era greats into tiers
2
Replies
84
Views
2K
martinezownsclay
M
T
Where does Osaka rank all time in the open era? She's a weird case...
Replies
37
Views
1K
zvelf
zvelf
K
The Big 3 era is inflated due to lacking competition from outside Europe
4 5 6
Replies
299
Views
8K
Holmes
Holmes
NonP
Open Era ATGs' Win %s Against Fellow Slam Champions and Career H2Hs vs. the Top 10
Replies
14
Views
964
Gizo
G
Back
Top