Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

[granddog29]

I figured to start a new thread for two reasons. The other one was too long (over 3000 posts), and I wanted to make one seperate for men and women. Anyway this is for the men and mine would be:

Overall:

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Gonzales
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Vines
10. Budge

3-6 are all interchangeable. 9-12 with probably Lendl and Connors are as well.



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Wilding
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl
8. LaCoste
9. Wilander
10. Laver



Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Federer
4. Gonzales
5. Tilden
6. Borg
7. Becker
8. McEnroe
9. Vines
10. Budge



Would need more time to decide on my hard court and carpet rankings.

 

[forzamilan90]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Connors
10. Lendl

 

[kiki]

Pre open
1Laver
2Tilden
3Rosewall
4Gonzales
5Hoad
6Budge
7Perry
8Kramer
9Sedgman
10Cochet/Lacoste/Wilding/Crawford/Vines/Trabert

Open
1/Sampras
2/Borg
3/Federer
4/Connors/Lendl/Mac
7/Nadal
8/Agassi
9/Wilander
10/Becker/Newcombe/Edberg/Djokovic

 

[andreh]

Good. I'd like to see Edberg on the grass list, though. 4 grass slams.

 

[granddog29]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Connors
10. Lendl

How can you have Sampras over Borg. Just compare them by surface going form best to worst first of all:

Best surface for both- Sampras on grass = Borg on clay (I know I have Sampras as grass GOAT and Borg isnt the clay GOAT, but there is nobody on grass in history close to Nadal's level on clay)

2nd best surface- Borg on grass = Sampras on carpet

3rd best surface- Borg on carpet > Sampras overall on hard courts. Sampras on fast hard courts is atleast as strong, but on slow hard courts is much weaker than Borg on any of clay, grass, or carpet.

4th best surface- Borg on hard courts >>>> Sampras on clay.



Borg dominated the two polor opposite surfaces which is one of the hardest things ever to do in tennis, and really puts the shade on Sampras who was the furthest away from doing anything like this of anyone great. He would have atleast the 14 majors Sampras has had he played the Australian Open. Sampras's lack of a French Open is almost as big of a hole as Borgs lack of a U.S Open, or even bigger considering his record there is so poor and Borg atleast has 4 U.S Open finals.

Sampras's only real edge is all his time at #1, but given the rankings were considered bogus most of Borg's era with the usually inferior Connors somehow ranked higher, and Sampras ended many years at #1 collecting less points as Nadal had to be #2, it is hard to put too much stock in that.

 

[forzamilan90]

If Borg wanted to be higher regarded he shouldn't have given up on the sport at the age he did. Just cause he was awesome on clay and grass doesn't justify putting him top 3. Nadal and Sampras accomplishments are greater imo. I count whole careers and Borg is eclipsed by both of those guy's careers.

 

[Gizo]

I agree that Borg is greater than Sampras. Obviously there are strong arguments either way though.

It's not just a case of saying that Sampras is greater because he won 3 more grand slams, as no-one cared about the slam title count in Borg's heyday, so the 14 > 11 argument alone is irrelevant as it ignores the context of Borg's era.

Sampras obviously has the clear edge when it comes to longevity. I've always thought that his longevity has been underrated actually, and better than Agassi's which was artificially enhanced by him half-assing his career before 1998 with the exception of that late 1994-1995 period. The guy won slam titles as a teenager, during his 20s and during his 30s (the only other man to have achieved that is Rosewall).

There's no point going into too much detail with versatility as Borg has the clear edge there. He was a far better player on his weakest surface hard courts (with 3 US Open final appearances in 4 attempts from 1978-1981 and big titles at Montreal and Caesar's Palace) than Sampras was on clay. Also bear in mind that in his heyday hard courts were fast, and that weren't any big tournaments on slow hard courts which would have suited his game more.

When it comes to dominance, Borg was the best player from 1978-1980 and Sampras from 1993-1997, but the quality of Borg's prime years were better than Sampras's. I would rank both Borg's 1979 and 1980 seasons above any season that Sampras ever had. His 1978 season is also up there with any season that Sampras had. Sampras never had a multiple season stretch or dominated the sport as much Borg did from 1978-1980, and Borg's 1974-1981 was better than Sampras's 1993-2000. So advantage Borg there and overall.

 

[granddog29]

If Borg wanted to be higher regarded he shouldn't have given up on the sport at the age he did. Just cause he was awesome on clay and grass doesn't justify putting him top 3. Nadal and Sampras accomplishments are greater imo. I count whole careers and Borg is eclipsed by both of those guy's careers.

Nadal I could see arguments for putting above both Borg and Sampras or below both Borg and Sampras at this point. Or even below Borg but still over Sampras. He is more complicated on this topic.

However when it comes to just Borg and Sampras, I think Borg is the clear winner when you break their careers down. Sampras's only real edge is the 14 slams and time at #1, and that is only due to Borg not playing the Australian, and Sampras had alot of weakish performances for a #1 while at #1 while Borg was the real #1 for atleast 4 years straight anyway. Sampras year end #1s in 1995 and 1998 were both extremely lucky and based on other players injuries at year end as opposed to really being the best player.

 

[kiki]

Nadal I could see arguments for putting above both Borg and Sampras or below both Borg and Sampras at this point. Or even below Borg but still over Sampras. He is more complicated on this topic.

However when it comes to just Borg and Sampras, I think Borg is the clear winner when you break their careers down. Sampras's only real edge is the 14 slams and time at #1, and that is only due to Borg not playing the Australian, and Sampras had alot of weakish performances for a #1 while at #1 while Borg was the real #1 for atleast 4 years straight anyway. Sampras year end #1s in 1995 and 1998 were both extremely lucky and based on other players injuries at year end as opposed to really being the best player.

Can you tell me how Nadal is better than BOTH?
I just don' t think he is at their echelon yet

 

[Phoenix1983]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Rosewall
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl

 

[Phoenix1983]

However when it comes to just Borg and Sampras, I think Borg is the clear winner when you break their careers down. Sampras's only real edge is the 14 slams and time at #1, and that is only due to Borg not playing the Australian, and Sampras had alot of weakish performances for a #1 while at #1 while Borg was the real #1 for atleast 4 years straight anyway. Sampras year end #1s in 1995 and 1998 were both extremely lucky and based on other players injuries at year end as opposed to really being the best player.

Sampras' only weakness is clay. At the time he retired, he held most of the Open Era records;

- 14 slams
- 7 Wimbledons
- 6 straight years as No 1/ 285 wks as No 1
- 5 YECs
- only man to win slams in teens, twenties and thirties in Open Era

Plus, he dominated his main rival in Agassi; Borg, by contrast, was being overtaken by McEnroe on all surfaces bar clay when he retired.

Borg may have been stronger on his weakest surface than Sampras was on his, but he still didn't win a slam on that surface, and he generally struggled psychologically to cope with playing in the US Open (losing to lesser Americans like Stockton/Tanner). Even when the tournament was played on clay, he failed to win it.

Based on this, we can't say he would "definitely have won the AO" - who knows how he would have coped against Mac/Connors/Nastase/Gerulaitis/Tanner/all Aussie players, had everyone in his era regularly played at the AO.

Fact is, Borg was completely burnt out by his mid-20s and could no longer play a full schedule; hence he retired with ridiculous winning percentages, which he wouldn't have been able to keep up had he played a full career like others. Oh, and he wasn't world No 1 for "at least 4 years" - the most we can give him is three years (1978-1980), which is only half of Sampras' reign.

I even rate Nadal ahead of him now. And Sampras, certainly so.

 

[JAY1]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Rosewall
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl

You can't put Lendl above Connors?!

 

[JAY1]

Open era.
1 Federer
2 Borg * ( 16/17 )
3 Sampras
4 Connors * ( 12/13 )
5 Nadal
6 Lendl
7 Laver
8 McEnroe * ( 10 )
9 Agassi
10 Wilander

With Borg, Connors & Mcenroe there has to be an * next to their names, because if they would have had the mindest of today's players, ie; to focus on and play all the Grand Slams every year for their career's, I feel they would have all been ranked higher than what they are in my list.
Next to their names are the total numbers of Grand Slam singles titles i'm pretty sure they would have won.
Also with regard to Borg, I feel he was not readily allowed back in the game by the tennis authorities after his understandable break from tennis, so i've put him in for playing for 5 more years.
I know some of you are going to say "no what ifs!", but I feel this has to be taken into consideration.

 

[forzamilan90]

"no what ifs!"

 

[kiki]

I believe we could group them in the following brackets
Even if many players did well in different brackets, I just put them in one
1900-1920
Wilding
Doherty L
Brookes
Richards
Sears
Decugis
Doherty L
Mc Laughlin
Gore
Johnston

1920-40
Tildem
Budge
Perry
Cochet
Lacoste
Vines
Crawford
Von Cramm
Riggs
Borotra

1940-60
Gonzales
Hoad
Kramer
Sedgman
Trabert
Parker
Drobny
Seixas
Cooper
Patty or Schroeder or Segura

1960
Laver
Rosewall
Emerson
Santana
Fraser
Stolle
Roche
Gimeno
Pietrangeli
Mc Kinley
1970
Borg
Connors
Newk
Nastase
Vilas
Smith
Ashe
Kodes
Orantes
Panatta or Tanner or Gerulaitis
1980
Mc Enroe/Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Cash
Kriek/Noah/Gomez
Mecir
1990
Sampras
Agassi
Courier
Rafter
Bruguera
Stich
Kafelnikov
Chang
Ivanisevic
Krajicek/Korda/Moya
2000-2013
Fed
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Kuerten
Hewitt
Safin
Roddick
Ferrero
Del Potro

 

[Phoenix1983]

You can't put Lendl above Connors?!

I can, and I did. :twisted:

 

[JAY1]

"no what ifs!"

Says who?!
You have to take everything into consideration when making a judgement on who are the greatest players ever!
That's what we're all doing, making judgement's.
Players have it much easier these days than in the 60's/70's and even 80's.
Rackets and balls are much lighter, players have much more support... Physio's/stringers/medical advancement's etc etc etc
We have to take all this into consideration....

 

[JAY1]

I can, and I did. :twisted:

Justification please?

 

[borg number one]

Open era.
1 Federer
2 Borg * ( 16/17 )
3 Sampras
4 Connors * ( 12/13 )
5 Nadal
6 Lendl
7 Laver
8 McEnroe * ( 10 )
9 Agassi
10 Wilander

With Borg, Connors & Mcenroe there has to be an * next to their names, because if they would have had the mindest of today's players, ie; to focus on and play all the Grand Slams every year for their career's, I feel they would have all been ranked higher than what they are in my list.
Next to their names are the total numbers of Grand Slam singles titles i'm pretty sure they would have won.
Also with regard to Borg, I feel he was not readily allowed back in the game by the tennis authorities after his understandable break from tennis, so i've put him in for playing for 5 more years.
I know some of you are going to say "no what ifs!", but I feel this has to be taken into consideration.

Yet, "what if" Federer hadn't had to play Nadal in FO finals and "what if" Nadal had fewer injuries..what if the surfaces stayed fast..what if there were two clay majors...I hear such comments a LOT from many current fans, but when they are asked about past greats, the what if rule tends to be more strictly and more conveniently applied in analysis. I do think it's very reasonable to consider the AO factor when accounting for the major count of Borg, Connors, and McEnroe especially. Borg played the AO once when he was 17. It was never a top 10 tourney during his era. The WCT Finals and/or the Masters YEC (depending on the year) was the fourth biggest tournament of the year during the mid-1970's through the early 1980's.

 

[kiki]

It is absolutely and completely impossible to rate 1970/80 players without considering as majors the WCT/Masters instead of AO ( as Borgnumberone said, let´s choose between both which was the real 4 th best since WCT/Masters had a " great rivalry"), and of course it remains completely impossible to judg 1950´-60 players without the so called Pro Slams and powndering correctly in front of am slams...

 

[JAY1]

It is absolutely and completely impossible to rate 1970/80 players without considering as majors the WCT/Masters instead of AO ( as Borgnumberone said, let´s choose between both which was the real 4 th best since WCT/Masters had a " great rivalry"), and of course it remains completely impossible to judg 1950´-60 players without the so called Pro Slams and powndering correctly in front of am slams...

Completely Spot on Kiki!

 

[forzamilan90]

Says who?!
You have to take everything into consideration when making a judgement on who are the greatest players ever!
That's what we're all doing, making judgement's.
Players have it much easier these days than in the 60's/70's and even 80's.
Rackets and balls are much lighter, players have much more support... Physio's/stringers/medical advancement's etc etc etc
We have to take all this into consideration....

My comment was to you "feeling that they would have won more" There's absolutely no way you can prove that. It's a gut shot.

 

[JAY1]

Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a computer program that you could put in every single factor to do with tennis and come up with any list's you wanted ?!

 

[borg number one]

My comment was to you "feeling that they would have won more" There's absolutely no way you can prove that. It's a gut shot.

That's true forzamilan90. I agree that there's no way to prove how many AO's Borg, Connors, and/or McEnroe would have won had they played it every year like the players do today. Yet, they were only playing three majors a year, not four. That can be proven and requires no speculation at all. There was also no slow hard court major to contend for either. There was only one hard court major a year that those guys played. Even the U.S. Open has been slowed down in recent years. It's just a recognition of factors that some never even see, know of, and/or choose to disregard (subjectivity).

 

[JAY1]

That's true forzamilan90. I agree that there's no way to prove how many AO's Borg, Connors, and/or McEnroe would have won had they played it every year like the players do today. Yet, they were only playing three majors a year, not four. That can be proven and require no speculation at all. There was also no slow hard court major to contend for either. There was only one hard court major a year that those guys played. Even the U.S. Open has been slowed down in recent years. It's just a recognition of factors that some never even see, know of, and/or choose to disregard (subjectivity).

Explained in a much better and concise way than what I did.

 

[borg number one]

Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a computer program that you could put in every single factor to do with tennis and come up with any list's you wanted ?!

Yes, it would JAY1, but even with models/formulas/computers, you are still left with have "objective" criterion that must be weighted. How you weight different criterion then becomes "subjective" so around and around we would still go. I hear you though, I sure do wish that records/stats/matches/tournaments were more "accessible" throughout tennis history. Actually, it doesn't get much better than this forum in my opinion when it comes to getting such info. Thank you!

 

[NatF]

For former greats I think it's only right to include WCT/Masters as majors.

 

[Gizo]

For Borg, Connors, Mac etc, there's no need to play the what if game and talk about how many Australian Open or total slams titles they might have won. Afterall is ridiculous that their careers are so widely judged on modern criteria that didn't exist in their primes. The fact is that slam counting only became meaningful in the Sampras era, and these players didn't have crystal balls to predict the future.

Also for years as the best player in the world, it's important to look at quality as well as quantity. For instance Sampras finished as the year end no. 1 in 1998. However every single season that Borg had from 1974-1981 was superior to that. I would rank Borg's third best season, 1978, at least on a par with any season that Sampras ever compiled.

 

[90's Clay]

Overrall:

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

 

[BobbyOne]

I figured to start a new thread for two reasons. The other one was too long (over 3000 posts), and I wanted to make one seperate for men and women. Anyway this is for the men and mine would be:

Overall:

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Gonzales
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Tilden
9. Vines
10. Budge

3-6 are all interchangeable. 9-12 with probably Lendl and Connors are as well.



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Rosewall
4. Cochet
5. Wilding
6. Kuerten
7. Lendl
8. LaCoste
9. Wilander
10. Laver



Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Federer
4. Gonzales
5. Tilden
6. Borg
7. Becker
8. McEnroe
9. Vines
10. Budge



Would need more time to decide on my hard court and carpet rankings.

I rank Laver close behind Rosewall on clay . I also rank Rosewall close behind Laver on grass.

 

[BobbyOne]

I believe we could group them in the following brackets
Even if many players did well in different brackets, I just put them in one
1900-1920
Wilding
Doherty L
Brookes
Richards
Sears
Decugis
Doherty L
Mc Laughlin
Gore
Johnston

1920-40
Tildem
Budge
Perry
Cochet
Lacoste
Vines
Crawford
Von Cramm
Riggs
Borotra

1940-60
Gonzales
Hoad
Kramer
Sedgman
Trabert
Parker
Drobny
Seixas
Cooper
Patty or Schroeder or Segura

1960
Laver
Rosewall
Emerson
Santana
Fraser
Stolle
Roche
Gimeno
Pietrangeli
Mc Kinley
1970
Borg
Connors
Newk
Nastase
Vilas
Smith
Ashe
Kodes
Orantes
Panatta or Tanner or Gerulaitis
1980
Mc Enroe/Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Cash
Kriek/Noah/Gomez
Mecir
1990
Sampras
Agassi
Courier
Rafter
Bruguera
Stich
Kafelnikov
Chang
Ivanisevic
Krajicek/Korda/Moya
2000-2013
Fed
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Kuerten
Hewitt
Safin
Roddick
Ferrero
Del Potro

kiki, Thanks for these lists.

Segura was much better than Seixas, though.

 

[kiki]

kiki, Thanks for these lists.

Segura was much better than Seixas, though.

Could be right.Players like Nusslein,Segura,Kozeluh it is difficult to picture them because almost all their career were banned pros, and they have no record at the traditional events.

 

[BobbyOne]

Could be right.Players like Nusslein,Segura,Kozeluh it is difficult to picture them because almost all their career were banned pros, and they have no record at the traditional events.

You are right but we do have their records in pro majors and their matches against greats like Budge and Gonzalez.

 

[ARFED]

1-Laver, Federer (can`t decide)
3-Sampras
4-Gonzalez
5-Borg/Nadal (Nadal will shortly be ahead of Bjorn tough)
7-Rosewall
8-Lendl
9-Connors
10-Agassi/Mc Enroe

No pre ww2 players. Altough, Budge, Tilden, Vines, et al may have been amazing players the level of country club tennis played was a utter joke compared to modern tennis.

 

[swedenparty]

My Top 10:

1 )Magnus Norman
2) Sjieng Schaelken
3) Karol Kucera
4) Thomas Enqvist
5) Thomas Johansson
6) Joachim Johansson
7) Ernests Gulbis
8) Roger Federer
9) Dominik Hrbaty
10) Robin Soderling

 

[kiki]

To determine majors that count for number of titles I would propose this
1990-2013: 4 slams + WTF+ Miami ( biggest TMS, played in USA,called ATP championships, played on hard...)
1970-1989: 4 slams + WCT+Masters ( no WCT in 1970)
Preopen: 4 pro slams + 4 am slams poundered by 0,5: so it is the equivalent of 2 slams

Now we need a 6th tourney for 1970, well why not discussing which? Sidney? Rome? SA Open

Lets make an example with Newk:
Open era points: 2 W, 2 AO, 1 US, 1 WCT : 6 points
Preopen: 1 W, 1 US x 0,5 : 1 point
Newcombe has 7 points

Let's take Emmo:

Very easy: 12 am slams x 0,5 : 6 points ( below Newk, no matter HtH)

I think this is a easy and pragmatic way to solve it out

One final issue; what about losing a major final?
I would give 0, 5 points , except am slams which rate at 0,25

Let' s come back to Newk:

In amateurs he lost the 66 US F to Stolle: 0,25 p
In open era lost 69 W final and 76 AO final: 0,5+0,5:1p

So rhe totals for Newcombe are the following:
7 p as a champion + 1,25 p as finalist: 8,25

Qhat do you think? Which is the 6 major of 1970?

 

[kiki]

To determine majors that count for number of titles I would propose this
1990-2013: 4 slams + WTF+ Miami ( biggest TMS, played in USA,called ATP championships, played on hard...)
1970-1989: 4 slams + WCT+Masters ( no WCT in 1970)
Preopen: 4 pro slams + 4 am slams poundered by 0,5: so it is the equivalent of 2 slams

Now we need a 6th tourney for 1970, well why not discussing which? Sidney? Rome? SA Open

Lets make an example with Newk:
Open era points: 2 W, 2 AO, 1 US, 1 WCT : 6 points
Preopen: 1 W, 1 US x 0,5 : 1 point
Newcombe has 7 points

Let's take Emmo:

Very easy: 12 am slams x 0,5 : 6 points ( below Newk, no matter HtH)

I think this is a easy and pragmatic way to solve it out

One final issue; what about losing a major final?
I would give 0, 5 points , except am slams which rate at 0,25

Let' s come back to Newk:

In amateurs he lost the 66 US F to Stolle: 0,25 p
In open era lost 69 W final and 76 AO final: 0,5+0,5:1p

So rhe totals for Newcombe are the following:
7 p as a champion + 1,25 p as finalist: 8,25

Qhat do you think? Which is the 6 major of 1970?

Lets play a bit and see Borg ( who as all know just played open era)

As a champ: 6 RG, 5 W, 2 Masters, 1 Dallas: 14
As beaten finalist: 1 W, 2 Masters, 3 WCT Dallas,4 USO all of them x 0,5:5 additional points

So Bjorn totals 19 points ( in fact, bit more than Newk double!!!)

There are, of course other factors like years being n1, DC and TMS or equivalent wins, HtH agaunst top ten etc
And there is also another and decissive poundering factor which we All need to monitorise: strengths of eras
My rate factor is:
1950,1970,1980: 100%
1990,2010-.1930: 90%
2000,1960: 80%
From 1900 to 1930: 70%
In Emmo' s case, since he played in the 60, his totals are: 6 x 0,80: 5 points player
In Newk' s case, he played the 70 and 60, so that the points aquired in the 70 are worthy 100% but those he acquired in the 60 would be worthy just 80%

I know my sistem is not perfect but is easy, measured, direct and most important of all...IT IS FUN;-)

 

[kiki]

As for ladies:

1990-2013: 4 slams+ WTA Finals+Miami
1970-1990: 4 slams+VS/Toyota Championship+Avon Finals
Prior to 1970: 4 slams x 1,5 ( so to make it equivalent of 6 majors)

 

[kiki]

Ladies era ponderation:
1990,2000:100%
1950,1970,1980,2010-:90%
1960,1930-1950:80%
1900-1930:70%


Sincerely Yours

 

[forzamilan90]

Lets play a bit and see Borg ( who as all know just played open era)

As a champ: 6 RG, 5 W, 2 Masters, 1 Dallas: 14
As beaten finalist: 1 W, 2 Masters, 3 WCT Dallas,4 USO all of them x 0,5:5 additional points

So Bjorn totals 19 points ( in fact, bit more than Newk double!!!)

There are, of course other factors like years being n1, DC and TMS or equivalent wins, HtH agaunst top ten etc
And there is also another and decissive poundering factor which we All need to monitorise: strengths of eras
My rate factor is:
1950,1970,1980: 100%
1990,2010-.1930: 90%
2000,1960: 80%
From 1900 to 1930: 70%
In Emmo' s case, since he played in the 60, his totals are: 6 x 0,80: 5 points player
In Newk' s case, he played the 70 and 60, so that the points aquired in the 70 are worthy 100% but those he acquired in the 60 would be worthy just 80%

I know my sistem is not perfect but is easy, measured, direct and most important of all...IT IS FUN;-)

Can yiu funsize us with Federer and Sampras points?

 

[kiki]

Can yiu funsize us with Federer and Sampras points?

Don' have time now.....but it ain' t complicated, ain' t it?

 

[forzamilan90]

Don' have time now.....but it ain' t complicated, ain' t it?

Suppose not.

 

[kiki]

Suppose not.

The secret is in eras weightening
So if the weightening is wrong, it won' t work

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Its simply too difficult to compare eras objectively and determine the top 10 players of all time and then rank them. You can really only determine who is the best of a particular era, heck even that can be tough and may not have a clear cut answer. Ive heard Laver, Federer, Wilander, Courier and many others talk about how there is no such thing as the GOAT and there isin't any way to determine it. What is the criteria to begin with? Slam count? Overall title count? Number of years at No.1? Peak level of play? Consistency? Versatility? H2H against rivals? All of these taken into account?

I'm sorry but its simply too difficult to compare eras. Different conditions, technology, playing styles, rackets, levels of competition, tournaments, surfaces, slams, schedules, etc.

 

[kiki]

I fully agree
But we can choose which one we like

 

[Phoenix1983]

With his victory yesterday, Djokovic moves into my all-time top 5. I can't minimise the significance of holding all four slams at once, in the Open Era.

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

 

[NatF]

Yes for me Djokovic has just edged Nadal now, the fact he'll be adding his 5th YE #1 soon helps.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

With his victory yesterday, Djokovic moves into my all-time top 5. I can't minimise the significance of holding all four slams at once, in the Open Era.

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

For me Pancho above Sampras, as Pancho was a better version of Pete and was better than him on clay, personally will have Rosewall over Rafa but it can go both ways.

 

[NatF]

For me Pancho above Sampras, as Pancho was a better version of Pete and was better than him on clay, personally will have Rosewall over Rafa but it can go both ways.

For me I would switch Pancho and Sampras like you and then say any of the 4-9 spots could be switched without it being ridiculous depending on your criteria.

 

[Limpinhitter]

With his victory yesterday, Djokovic moves into my all-time top 5. I can't minimise the significance of holding all four slams at once, in the Open Era.

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

That's a Dkoker Slam!