What is your top 7 of open era
- Thread starter dgold44
- Start date
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Where is Laver?
1. Laver (2 CYGS)
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Djokovic
6. Borg
7. Lendl
Last edited:
Laver bridged eras so it actually doesn't give him a fair shack listing him in an open era only list
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Smells like troll in here..
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Given that Laver does not belong in the open era:
1) Roger Federer
2) Pete Sampras
3) Rafael Nadal
4) Björn Borg
5) Novak Djokovic
6) Jimmy Connors
7) Ivan Lendl
1) Roger Federer
2) Pete Sampras
3) Rafael Nadal
4) Björn Borg
5) Novak Djokovic
6) Jimmy Connors
7) Ivan Lendl
roger presley
Hall of Fame
Sampras
Edberg
Agassi
Mcenroe
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Edberg
Agassi
Mcenroe
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Lendl
Nadal
Edberg
McEnroe
Sampras
Federer
Lendl
Nadal
Edberg
McEnroe
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Sampras played in a stronger era. So his master/slams are valued more as it was harder to win, no?
lud
Hall of Fame
1.Laver
- no brainer here
2.Sampras
- it's tough between pete and rafa, but i'll go with pete cause he is better at 3 Majors
3.Nadal
- clear as day
4.Federer
- 17 GS,302 weeks its hard to beat, but his awful records ag. Nadal is reason why is he no.4,,no other champion has anything similiar like 11-23 versus main rival
5.Djokovic
- quite possibly he will be no.1 if he win RG and CYGS
6.Lendl
- dominance over decade
7.Agassi
- has everything
- no brainer here
2.Sampras
- it's tough between pete and rafa, but i'll go with pete cause he is better at 3 Majors
3.Nadal
- clear as day
4.Federer
- 17 GS,302 weeks its hard to beat, but his awful records ag. Nadal is reason why is he no.4,,no other champion has anything similiar like 11-23 versus main rival
5.Djokovic
- quite possibly he will be no.1 if he win RG and CYGS
6.Lendl
- dominance over decade
7.Agassi
- has everything
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
lud
Hall of Fame
Neither. Actually it is this way:
11-23 , 17-14( 2:9!!) and 1981-1986.
1) Sampras, won 14 slams in polarised conditions and in the toughest era as far as depth is concerned, 6 YE number 1s, 5 WTFs when the final was BO5, won all his major H2Hs. Won his era by a country mile and his H2Hs.
2) Laver, 2 GS. Enough said.
= 3) Federer, 17 slams but in homogenised era, weakest era iin history when he started, loses badly to Nadal on all surfaces even at his prime, which has to be taken into account.
= 3) Nadal, 14 slams albeit in homogenised era, owns Federer like a dog owns a bone, owns the FO but on the other side of that coin 14 is heavily skewed towards the FO. Gold medal winner too, but not as important as WTF.
= 3) Djokovik, 11 slams and counting, albeit in homogenised era, beat Nadal in three straight slam finals, beat Federer even when Fed was peaked and he was just starting out. 4 YE number 1s and counting. Dominates WTF these days.
6) Agassi, the only player who can claim all 4 majors, the WTF, the Olympics single gold and the Davis Cup. His problem is, got pawned by Sampras too much.
7) Toss up between McEnroe and Borg. I'll go with McEnroe only because he beat Borg in 3 of their 4 slam finals. Should have won the 84 FO being 2 sets up against Lendl, but otherwise totally dominated 84. If he worked harder he could have won more. Let his love affair with Tatum O'Neil get in the way of his career.
Honourable mentions to Lendl and Wilander.
2) Laver, 2 GS. Enough said.
= 3) Federer, 17 slams but in homogenised era, weakest era iin history when he started, loses badly to Nadal on all surfaces even at his prime, which has to be taken into account.
= 3) Nadal, 14 slams albeit in homogenised era, owns Federer like a dog owns a bone, owns the FO but on the other side of that coin 14 is heavily skewed towards the FO. Gold medal winner too, but not as important as WTF.
= 3) Djokovik, 11 slams and counting, albeit in homogenised era, beat Nadal in three straight slam finals, beat Federer even when Fed was peaked and he was just starting out. 4 YE number 1s and counting. Dominates WTF these days.
6) Agassi, the only player who can claim all 4 majors, the WTF, the Olympics single gold and the Davis Cup. His problem is, got pawned by Sampras too much.
7) Toss up between McEnroe and Borg. I'll go with McEnroe only because he beat Borg in 3 of their 4 slam finals. Should have won the 84 FO being 2 sets up against Lendl, but otherwise totally dominated 84. If he worked harder he could have won more. Let his love affair with Tatum O'Neil get in the way of his career.
Honourable mentions to Lendl and Wilander.
CYGS
Legend
Edberg belongs to 2nd tier, not top 7.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Anyone who has Djokovic ahead of Borg is out of their mind.
CYGS
Legend
I'd like to have a look at your list.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
CYGS
Legend
Coward.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Anyone who has Borg ahead of Djokovic is out of their mind.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You're out of your mind.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Nah, he won 9 slams in the strongest era tennis has seen. That puts him in tier 1.
CYGS
Legend
Still 2nd tier, and apparently, most people except you here agree.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
You're out of your mind.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
anything else to say copycat?
StannisTheMannis
Hall of Fame
Edberg on a list with those guys? LOL
KingKyrgios
Professional
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Djokovic
6. Agassi
7. Lendl
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Djokovic
6. Agassi
7. Lendl
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
No, but replying to you in a normal manner never brought anything good either.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
mattosgrant
Banned
1. Federer- duh at this point.
2. Sampras- tough to rank him over Nadal and Borg, those 3 could be in any order.
3. Nadal- rank him behind Sampras due to not enough time at #1. If he somehow wins another slam, even RG, I will rank him 2nd (unless Djokovic has surpassed a 15 slam Nadal by then which is very possible).
4. Borg- although I have been thinking of ranking him higher and might edit this post another time later to do so.
5. Djokovic- if he wins RG this year I move him to 3rd probably. Maybe even 2nd as his career is so much more complete than all the guys behind Federer, including Sampras, even with only 12 slams.
6. Connor- CLEARLY above Lendl and the others IMO.
7. Lendl- his career is just more complete than McEnroe and Agassi, even without Wimbledon.
2. Sampras- tough to rank him over Nadal and Borg, those 3 could be in any order.
3. Nadal- rank him behind Sampras due to not enough time at #1. If he somehow wins another slam, even RG, I will rank him 2nd (unless Djokovic has surpassed a 15 slam Nadal by then which is very possible).
4. Borg- although I have been thinking of ranking him higher and might edit this post another time later to do so.
5. Djokovic- if he wins RG this year I move him to 3rd probably. Maybe even 2nd as his career is so much more complete than all the guys behind Federer, including Sampras, even with only 12 slams.
6. Connor- CLEARLY above Lendl and the others IMO.
7. Lendl- his career is just more complete than McEnroe and Agassi, even without Wimbledon.
mattosgrant
Banned
Borg and Sampras above Federer? Are you sh1tting me? (and I am no Federer fan). I hope you aren't giving Borg credit for some phantom what ifs like many posters do. I can sort of accept the Australian Open situation but that is it. This "he quit at 25" nonsense, screw that bigtime!
mattosgrant
Banned
How can you possibly justify Lendl over Connors when Connors won 8 majors basically playing only 2 of 4 majors in his prime (unlike Lendl who played all 4 practically every year). Plus Connors did far better at the 2 biggest tournaments by far of the time- Wimbledon and the U.S Open, won slams on every surface, competed in a tougher era, and was still regularly beating Lendl at ages 30-32, only starting to lose frequently when he got even older than that. Plus any of the things Lendl excels in (slam finals/semis, time at #1, tournament titles) Connors does do so even that is no edge.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
"Given that Laver does not belong in the open era"
Laver: 1968 Wimbledon OPEN, 1969 OPEN grand slam (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US) ...... one major less than Lendl in Laver's last 2 years as world #1 ..... NOBODY in men's open tennis has equaled his 1969 feat of an OPEN grand slam.
Let's change that to: "If you consider Laver's open record only (great as it was), you're doing him an injustice by ignoring 1965-67, when he was also world #1 (in the pros).
mattosgrant
Banned
It is just easier to not count Laver, since it would be unfair to only evaluate a small portion of his career, even if it is a portion he achieved incredible things which would likely put him atleast top 7 Open Era already.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
He changed tennis more than anybody else has and he dominated in a strong era. Goat for me.
RF20Lennon
Legend
1. Federer
2. Nadal/Sampras (If Nadal wins one more slam he'll be ahead)
3. Borg/Djokovic (If Djokovic gets the French or another slam he'll be ahead)
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
2. Nadal/Sampras (If Nadal wins one more slam he'll be ahead)
3. Borg/Djokovic (If Djokovic gets the French or another slam he'll be ahead)
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
mattosgrant
Banned
Dominated? Connors spent way more time at #1 than him, he didn't win a U.S Open despite it being on 3 different surface (even his beloved clay for 3 years), and never won a hard court slam.
mattosgrant
Banned
I am really struggling why so many are putting Lendl over Connors. Sorry I don't see it, and I cant stand Connors who is a massive ****** IMO.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Honestly I agree with you and it is a bit of a toss up. And that's exactly what I did. I flipped a coin. But I guess it's fair to put Connors on top since he had the most titles.
mattosgrant
Banned
Also back then Wimbledon and the U.S Open were by far the 2 most important events. It wasn't like today at all where the 4 slams are virtually equal. Connors won those 7 times, Lendl only 3. Those evaluating all 4 slams as completely equal are really missing context of the times. Connors has a much bigger legacy at both the biggest events then, despite Lendl's 8 straight U.S Open finals. Most objective individuals still consider Connors the all time U.S Open GOAT even over Sampras or Federer (and probably Tilden who played at a time the defending champ got a bye to the finals). At Wimbledon, we all know Lendl never won there and Connors is a 2 time champion, but who also won and lost in some amazing duels there.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Probably because Lendl got to two Wimbledon Finals, although he never won it, and Connors never got to a French Final. Also, Lendl has like 5 Masters Cups and Connors only has 1. So both of them can be argued for or against but I went with Lendl.
mattosgrant
Banned
Connors has more than 1 WTC title I am pretty sure. It wasn't always at the end of the year in earlier part of the 70s.
Yes Connors doesn't have a RG final, but he didn't play it in his absolute prime years of 74-78 due to his ban in 74, and his boycott the following years in protest. He did win a slam on clay, beating Borg in the final. Green clay yes, but I would put that atleast on par with a Wimbledon final. Lendl could not win a major on grass, even not at the Australian Open on grass in numerous attempts. Connors reached 3 straight U.S Open finals on clay, beating Borg to win one.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
where are Bob and Mike Bryan and their 23/20 Slams?
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Well they didn't have much competition. Barely any top100 players play doubles now so
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Lendl has 5 Masters Cups and 2 WCT Finals. Connors has 1 Masters Cup and 2 WCT Finals. So Lendl wins that part of the argument. Also green clay and the red clay play so differently that you can't really go by that. Lendl couldn't win a major on grass and Connors couldn't win a major on red clay. That part is sort of a toss up. More people would probably give it to Connors though because he has 2 Wimbledons and it is the Holy Grail but I gave it to Lendl because of his end of the year championships.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
More time at #1, more Slam RUPs, more YEC titles
Similar threads
