Whats your Top 15 players of all time (Open era)

AlexATP

AlexATP

New User
Mine is
1.Novak Djokovic
2.Roger Federer
3.Rafael Nadal
4.Pete sampras
5.Bjon Borg
6.Jimmy Connors
7.Andre Agassi
8.Ivan lendl
9.John mcenroe
10.Stefan edberg
11.Andy murray
12.Mats wilander
13.Boris becker
14.Jim courier
15.Marat safin

put yours
 
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Nadal
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) Lendl
7) Connors
8) McEnroe
9) Agassi
10) Wilander
11) Becker
12) Edberg
13) Murray
14) Courier
15) Newcombe
 
Dan Lobb said:
What? No Laver?
Click to expand...
He’d definitely be in my list.

If I’m honest, I thought he was only part of the open era for a couple of years and had the bulk of his success beforehand.

Turns out he actually won a few slams in that period, so that’s my bad. He’d definitely be in that 5-8 range of my list.
 
Mine is

1) Novak
2)Fed
3)Rafa
4)Sampras
5)Bjorg
6)Agassi
7)Connors
8)McEnroe
9)Murray
10)Edberg
11)Lendl
12)Becker
13)Mats Wilander
14)Courier
15) J Newcombe

*I don’t know enough about Vilas/Nstase/Laver(in open era)/Rosewall in open era
 
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Nadal
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) Laver
7) Connors
8) EDIT - AGASSI
then Lendl and below go down one notch
9) McEnroe
10) Becker
11) Edberg
12) Murray
13) Wilander
14) Vilas
15) Newcombe
 
Last edited:
Very hard to make list post 5th but I will try

Djokovic
Nadal
Federer

Sampras

Borg

Lendl
Connors
Agassi
McEnroe

Edberg
Becker
Wilander

Murray
Courier
Vilas

(Skipping laver and Roswell and Sineraz)
 
EvonneFedererBorgster said:
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Nadal
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) Laver
7) Connors
8) Lendl
9) McEnroe
10) Becker
11) Edberg
12) Murray
13) Wilander
14) Vilas
15) Newcombe
Click to expand...
I like this but would put Edberg ahead of Becker, Wilander ahead of Murray and Newk in front of Vilas.
And Agassi right behind Mac
 
jrepac said:
I like this but would put Edberg ahead of Becker, Wilander ahead of Murray and Newk in front of Vilas.
And Agassi right behind Mac
Click to expand...

Edberg and Becker I go back and forth on all the time. Not only overall which should be higher, but ranking them by surface you could literally make a good argument for one to be ahead of the other on each surface, minus carpet where Becker unquestionably is ahead. But clay you could put Edberg or Becker ahead, grass Edberg or Becker ahead, hard courts Edberg or Becker ahead.

There is no planet Murray can be over Wilander IMHO. Murray does not win 7 majors in any era, including Wilander's. And I am a big Murray fan. That said I do like to see vastly different rankings and opinions so I still welcome that one, just can't ever agee on it, LOL!
 
martinezownsclay said:
But clay you could put Edberg or Becker ahead, grass Edberg or Becker ahead, hard courts Edberg or Becker ahead.
Click to expand...
I don't really see the case for Becker over Edberg on clay. Edberg won 3 clay titles, with 1 being a Masters Series title, made a French Open final by beating Becker in the SF, and had a higher winning percentage on clay than Becker, who had 0 clay titles.
 
buscemi said:
I don't really see the case for Becker over Edberg on clay. Edberg won 3 clay titles, with 1 being a Masters Series title, made a French Open final by beating Becker in the SF, and had a higher winning percentage on clay than Becker, who had 0 clay titles.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

Grass and hard courts you could argue either way though. Personally I have Edberg ahead on hard courts, despite 1 less hard court slam. Becker probably ahead on grass, despite 1 less grass slam, and a losing record vs Edberg in Wimbledon finals.
 
Of course Murray could have had 5+ Slams in a different time. He was RIGHT THERE with the Big 3, bagged three of his own as-is, and was held back at the Aussie only by Novak. This is pretty clear.
 
bigbadboaz said:
Of course Murray could have had 5+ Slams in a different time. He was RIGHT THERE with the Big 3, bagged three of his own as-is, and was held back at the Aussie only by Novak. This is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Murray was mostly in play at the Majors from 2008-2016. Let's time shift that to 1989-1997 as one example. Murray would have a tough time even matching his current haul of 3 Majors in that era, IMO.
 
bigbadboaz said:
Of course Murray could have had 5+ Slams in a different time. He was RIGHT THERE with the Big 3, bagged three of his own as-is, and was held back at the Aussie only by Novak. This is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

The theory if you remove not just 1, but 3 players, and what they win in THEIR era in that scenario, somehow translates to another, is absurd. And without the Big 3 it would be one of the weakest eras ever overall, as the depth as it was, was sorely lacking, with only Murray and Wawrinka as serious challengers with all of Del Potro's injuries. Without the Big 3 someone like Berdych probably wins 3 or 4 slams, and Wawrinka 7 or 8, with shows you what a terrible era it would now be, so what you could achieve without the Big 3 in that era, no way can translate to any other without also removing players from other eras, and then it just becomes pointless.

Like if you take out Nadal, Djokovic or Federer could win 6 or 7 French Opens, but nobody would say put in another era point blank either win 6 or 7 French Opens. So that logic not even working for just 1 person, it sure as hell aint mathing for removing 3 people.
 
I put Murray so high because he was so consistent in what has to be the most difficult era in history. He was so close, so many times to bagging more titles but the Big 3 were always there. Beating one is a career highlight, but having to deal with all three is crazy. I just thought Wilander seemed to get a bit lucky in 1982 with Borg long gone. Then his greatest successes came at the point where Lendl was his only consistent competitor. Mac + Conners were old. Mac was in his Hollywood Era. Boris + Stefan were always more his contemporaries but not much of a threat on clay and both prone to upsets at events outside of Wimbledon/grass.

I know Wilander nearly won a slam in 1988, which is always overshadowed by the coincidence of Steffi’s golden ‘88. But was he really ever going to win Wimbledon?

Maybe it was the way he fell so drastically in 1989 at the tender age of 24. He should have been competing alongside Pete and Andre in the early to mid 90s.
 
EvonneFedererBorgster said:
I put Murray so high because he was so consistent in what has to be the most difficult era in history. He was so close, so many times to bagging more titles but the Big 3 were always there. Beating one is a career highlight, but having to deal with all three is crazy. I just thought Wilander seemed to get a bit lucky in 1982 with Borg long gone. Then his greatest successes came at the point where Lendl was his only consistent competitor. Mac + Conners were old. Mac was in his Hollywood Era. Boris + Stefan were always more his contemporaries but not much of a threat on clay and both prone to upsets at events outside of Wimbledon/grass.

I know Wilander nearly won a slam in 1988, which is always overshadowed by the coincidence of Steffi’s golden ‘88. But was he really ever going to win Wimbledon?

Maybe it was the way he fell so drastically in 1989 at the tender age of 24. He should have been competing alongside Pete and Andre in the early to mid 90s.
Click to expand...

I see your points but I also am 100% certain Murray does not win 7 slams in Wilander's era, nor any era. I am fully confident in saying that. And when I say any era I don't mean another era "removing so and so", like talking about his own removing the Big 3. JMO And yeah no way on earth was Wilander winning Wimbledon in 88, so no way he was doing the Grand Slam despite winning 3 of the 4 (he was way closer to winning only 2 slams or even 1 than ever winning 4) but imagine Murray winning a Calendar Grand Slam in any year as well, LOL! Probably not even if he peaked in the current horific field, as I can't imagine grandpa Djokovic, Alcarez, Sinner, or someone random not stopping him at some point in a given year even today. So I wouldn't say that makes Wilander look bad in comparision to Murray at all, even in a hypothetical. The only thing I would say in Murray's favor is he would have a higher likelihood of maybe somehow eking out a Career Slam (with probably 1 at each, maybe 2 at one) in some random time (I don't think his odds to attain the Career Slam would be high at all mind you) than Wilander as Murray would be more likely to somehow sneak out a French Open with a great draw than Wilander ever would be to win a Wimbledon, but that is it.

What I am really curious about though is having Agassi outside the top 15 entirely. Was that a typo or did you mean that.
 
Ok. I will play along. I will also adjust for eras as well.

Open Era list:

Djokovic
Borg
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Newcombe
Murray
Courier
Vilas
 
martinezownsclay said:
The theory if you remove not just 1, but 3 players, and what they win in THEIR era in that scenario, somehow translates to another, is absurd. And without the Big 3 it would be one of the weakest eras ever overall, as the depth as it was, was sorely lacking, with only Murray and Wawrinka as serious challengers with all of Del Potro's injuries. Without the Big 3 someone like Berdych probably wins 3 or 4 slams, and Wawrinka 7 or 8, with shows you what a terrible era it would now be, so what you could achieve without the Big 3 in that era, no way can translate to any other without also removing players from other eras, and then it just becomes pointless.

Like if you take out Nadal, Djokovic or Federer could win 6 or 7 French Opens, but nobody would say put in another era point blank either win 6 or 7 French Opens. So that logic not even working for just 1 person, it sure as hell aint mathing for removing 3 people.
Click to expand...
Your showing no respect to HEWITT Roddick and Safin or Juan Carlos Ferrero
 
Steve500 said:
Your showing no respect to HEWITT Roddick and Safin or Juan Carlos Ferrero
Click to expand...

Hewitt was done after 2005 due to injuries. Ferrero was done after 2003 due to injuries. You mention Roddick but just removing Federer alone (not even Nadal and Djokovic, just Federer) and he probably wins 6 majors, which proves my point that it would now be an incredibly weak era removing the Big 3, which is what people are basing some prognosis on what Murray supposably should have won on.

PS- removing the top 3 in nearly any era, would turn nearly all eras into very weak ones overall in the big picture. That the top 3 of Murray's era are much better than the top 3 of nearly any other era, does not change that one iota.
 
Last edited:
buscemi said:
Murray was mostly in play at the Majors from 2008-2016. Let's time shift that to 1989-1997 as one example. Murray would have a tough time even matching his current haul of 3 Majors in that era, IMO.
Click to expand...
Grok is this true.

If Andy Murray were born in 1968, he would likely win 3–4 Grand Slams, with a best-case scenario of 4–6. His versatile all-court game, elite defense, and mental toughness would thrive against Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, and early Sampras/Agassi, particularly in 1989–91 before Sampras’s dominance. Likely targets include Wimbledon (1989–91), US Open (1989–90, 1994), and Australian Open (1990–91, 1996), with a possible French Open (1989–90). The 1989–1996 era’s less concentrated field and faster surfaces suit Murray’s style, allowing him to match or slightly surpass his real-life 3 slams, cementing him as a top-tier player in this hypothetical scenario.

Again another hot take gone down the drain.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Grok is this true.

If Andy Murray were born in 1968, he would likely win 3–4 Grand Slams, with a best-case scenario of 4–6. His versatile all-court game, elite defense, and mental toughness would thrive against Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, and early Sampras/Agassi, particularly in 1989–91 before Sampras’s dominance. Likely targets include Wimbledon (1989–91), US Open (1989–90, 1994), and Australian Open (1990–91, 1996), with a possible French Open (1989–90). The 1989–1996 era’s less concentrated field and faster surfaces suit Murray’s style, allowing him to match or slightly surpass his real-life 3 slams, cementing him as a top-tier player in this hypothetical scenario.

Again another hot take gone down the drain.
Click to expand...
Let's go through this hypothetical, with your parameter of Murray now born on May 15, 1968 instead of May 15, 1987:

Wimbledon 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he lost to Nadal, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 in the QF after coming back from 2 sets and a break down to beat Gasquet in the Round of 16. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Lendl or McEnroe; SF: Edberg; Final: Becker​
​
Wimbledon 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to Roddick in 4 sets in the SF. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Ivanišević or Lendl, SF: Becker; Final: Edberg​
​
Wimbledon 1991: This is Murray's 2010, when he lost to Nadal in the SF, 6-4, 7-6, 6-4. In 1991, he'd have to beat something like QF: Wheaton; SF: Becker; Final: Stich; or QF: Edberg; SF: Stich; Final: Becker​
​
U.S. Open 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he was straight setted by Federer in the final. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Agassi or Krickstein; SF: Lendl; Final: Becker​
​
U.S. Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he was straight setted by Čilić in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Becker or McEnroe; SF: Agassi; Final: Sampras​
​
U.S. Open 1994: This is Murray's 2013, when he was straight setted by Wawrinka in the QF, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. In 1994, he'd have to beat something like QF: Martin or Nováček; SF: Stich; Final: Agassi​
​
Australian Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to Verdasco in five sets in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Wilander or Noah; SF: Edberg; Final: Lendl​
​
Australian Open 1991: This is Murray's 2010, when he was straight setted by Federer in the final. In 1991, he'd have to beat something like QF: Patrick McEnroe or Edberg; SF: Lendl; Final: Becker​
​
Australian Open 1996: This is Murray's 2015, when he lost in four sets in the final to Djokovic. In 1996, he'd have to beat something like QF: Agassi or Woodforde; SF: Chang; Final: Becker​
​
French Open 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he lost in four sets in the third round to Almagro. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Becker or Chesnokov; SF: Edberg; Final: Chang​
​
French Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to González in four sets in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Muster or Svensson; SF: Agassi; Final: Gómez​

I feel good in my assessment that Murray would have a tough time matching his current haul of 3 Majors in this scenario.
 
Last edited:
buscemi said:
Let's go through this hypothetical, with your parameter of Murray now born on May 15, 1968 instead of May 15, 1987:

Wimbledon 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he lost to Nadal, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 in the QF after coming back from 2 sets and a break down to beat Gasquet in the Round of 16. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Lendl or McEnroe; SF: Edberg; Final: Becker​
​
Wimbledon 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to Roddick in 4 sets in the SF. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Ivanišević or Lendl, SF: Becker; Final: Edberg​
​
Wimbledon 1991: This is Murray's 2010, when he lost to Nadal in the SF, 6-4, 7-6, 6-4. In 1991, he'd have to beat something like QF: Wheaton; SF: Becker; Final: Stich; or QF: Edberg; SF: Stich; Final: Becker​
​
U.S. Open 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he was straight setted by Federer in the final. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Agassi or Krickstein; SF: Lendl; Final: Becker​
​
U.S. Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he was straight setted by Čilić in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Becker or McEnroe; SF: Agassi; Final: Sampras​
​
U.S. Open 1994: This is Murray's 2013, when he was straight setted by Wawrinka in the QF, 6-4, 6-3, 6-2. In 1994, he'd have to beat something like QF: Martin or Nováček; SF: Stich; Final: Agassi​
​
Australian Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to Verdasco in five sets in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Wilander or Noah; SF: Edberg; Final: Lendl​
​
Australian Open 1991: This is Murray's 2010, when he was straight setted by Federer in the final. In 1991, he'd have to beat something like QF: Patrick McEnroe or Edberg; SF: Lendl; Final: Becker​
​
Australian Open 1996: This is Murray's 2015, when he lost in four sets in the final to Djokovic. In 1996, he'd have to beat something like QF: Agassi or Woodforde; SF: Chang; Final: Becker​
​
French Open 1989: This is Murray's 2008, when he lost in four sets in the third round to Almagro. In 1989, he'd have to beat something like QF: Becker or Chesnokov; SF: Edberg; Final: Chang​
​
French Open 1990: This is Murray's 2009, when he lost to González in four sets in the Round of 16. In 1990, he'd have to beat something like QF: Muster or Svensson; SF: Agassi; Final: Gómez​

I feel good in my assessment that Murray would have a tough time matching his current haul of 3 Majors in this scenario.
Click to expand...
This is fine. Run this. I don't have time to fact check all the time. Murray with grok also comes with 3-4 slams.

You can give hypothetical wins to anyone if you are fair which you are not. Do your assessment for 40 slams Murray would play.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
This is fine. Run this. I don't have time to fact check all the time. Murray with grok also comes with 3-4 slams.

You can give hypothetical wins to anyone if you are fair which you are not.
Click to expand...
How am I being unfair? I took the scenario we both created, showed how Murray did in his initial timeline, and showed the players he would have needed to beat in his adjusted timeline to match his current total of 3 Majors. I'm not saying Murray wins no Majors in his adjusted timeline or even that Murray fails to match his current haul of 3 Majors. I'm just saying that he'd have a tough time doing so.

Just look at the first three Majors that Grok produced: Wimbledon from 1989-1991. In those years, Murray would have to beat both peak Becker and peak Edberg in addition to some third player like redlining Stich or 1989 Lendl. That's a tall order, especially on fast grass.
 
buscemi said:
How am I being unfair? I took the scenario we both created, showed how Murray did in his initial timeline, and showed the players he would have needed to beat in his adjusted timeline to match his current total of 3 Majors. I'm not saying Murray wins no Majors in his adjusted timeline or even that Murray fails to match his current haul of 3 Majors. I'm just saying that he'd have a tough time doing so.

Just look at the first three Majors that Grok produced: Wimbledon from 1989-1991. In those years, Murray would have to beat both peak Becker and peak Edberg in addition to some third player like redlining Stich or 1989 Lendl. That's a tall order, especially on fast grass.
Click to expand...
You are unfair by only counting 11 slams. Andy Murray is no joke. He made 25 or so semifinals and way more qf.

I would definitely not accept just his 11 best runs when many semis runs were great as well.
 
Murray is incredible on grass he was part of. Since nobody today played with fast grass , we can not assume he goes with 0. That is another big flaw.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
You are unfair by only counting 11 slams. Andy Murray is no joke. He made 25 or so semifinals and way more qf.

I would definitely not accept just his 11 best runs when many semis runs were great as well.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. I did what I did b/c this is what you posted as your result from Grok: "His versatile all-court game, elite defense, and mental toughness would thrive against Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, and early Sampras/Agassi, particularly in 1989–91 before Sampras’s dominance. Likely targets include Wimbledon (1989–91), US Open (1989–90, 1994), and Australian Open (1990–91, 1996), with a possible French Open (1989–90)."

That's why I went through those 11 Majors. They were listed as the "likely targets" in your result.
 
Last edited:
Pheasant said:
Ok. I will play along. I will also adjust for eras as well.

Open Era list:

Djokovic
Borg
Federer
Nadal
Sampras
Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Newcombe
Murray
Courier
Vilas
Click to expand...
Guessing that Connnors missing was an accident. Overall a pretty good list.

Just to be a contrirain, I am going to make mine a bit different than others.

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

6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe

9. Agassi

10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Laver
13. Wilander
14. Newcombe
15. Murray

Ashe, Rosewall, Vilas, Nastase, and Courier just missed it. They easily could have made it.

With Laver, I decided to just judge him form 1968 and ignore his earlier career. 5 grand slams and 72 titles have to count for something. just watching him play on video, you can tell he was the real deal.

I put spaces where I thought there was a more clear margin.
 
Last edited:
Hard Court said:
Guessing that Connnors missing was an accident. Overall a pretty good list.

Just to be a contrirain, I am going to make mine a bit different than others.

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

6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe

9. Agassi

10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Laver
13. Wilander
14. Newcombe
15. Murray

Ashe, Vilas, Nastase, and Courier just missed it. They easily could have made it.

With Laver, I decided to just judge him form 1968 and ignore his earlier career. 5 grand slams and 72 titles have to count for something. just watching him play on video, you can tell he was the real deal.

I put spaces where I thought there was a more clear margin.
Click to expand...
Oops. I meant to place Connors immediately after Lendl.

That’s a fun list that you posted. Borg is that massive “what if” scenario. 11 slams by age 25, despite skipping the AO nearly every year. 3 straight Channel Slams. The guy was unreal. Growing up, Borg was akin to Elvis Presley splashing onto the scene; at least where I grew up.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Edberg and Becker I go back and forth on all the time. Not only overall which should be higher, but ranking them by surface you could literally make a good argument for one to be ahead of the other on each surface, minus carpet where Becker unquestionably is ahead. But clay you could put Edberg or Becker ahead, grass Edberg or Becker ahead, hard courts Edberg or Becker ahead.

There is no planet Murray can be over Wilander IMHO. Murray does not win 7 majors in any era, including Wilander's. And I am a big Murray fan. That said I do like to see vastly different rankings and opinions so I still welcome that one, just can't ever agee on it, LOL!
Click to expand...
Yeah, Becker v. Eddy is hard. I can flip back and forth there. No way is Murray over Mats, and I'm a big fan as well.
 
Pheasant said:
Oops. I meant to place Connors immediately after Lendl.

That’s a fun list that you posted. Borg is that massive “what if” scenario. 11 slams by age 25, despite skipping the AO nearly every year. 3 straight Channel Slams. The guy was unreal. Growing up, Borg was akin to Elvis Presley splashing onto the scene; at least where I grew up.
Click to expand...
No you didn't...Freudian slip :D :D
 
jrepac said:
Yeah, Becker v. Eddy is hard. I can flip back and forth there. No way is Murray over Mats, and I'm a big fan as well.
Click to expand...

If someone were to say "I am not even sure if Wilander wins 3 slams playing when Murray did", I could agree with that. However what breaks it clearly in Wilander's favor is I know Murray would never win 7 slams in Wilander's era, nor any era. There might be times Murray would do better than Wilander, and vice versa, but there are no times in history Murray could win 7 slams. We already know there is a time Wilander could as he already did it, so case closed.

Becker and Edberg is defintely one of the best and most intersting debates ever. And their head to head makes it even moreso, I don't usually base my rankings much or any on head to heads but even so 25-10 for Becker, but 3-1 in slams for Edberg, is very interesting.
 
Pretty much agree. A lot of people look at Murray's runner up finishes and think he would have won all those matches if he just didn't have to play the immortal "Big 3'". That is assuming that he would have beaten they guys that Wilander beat and Wilander himself 7 times. A big assumption.
We also have to factor in the depth of the fields. Had he played during Wilander's time, he would have had a lot more difficult early and mid-round matches, and would not have reached the later rounds as much. Perhaps most importantly, we have no idea if Murray could handle net players. Could he consistently hit the passing shots and return of serves against skilled players at the net?

As for Becker and Edberg, I often don't put a ton of stock in the h2h. Though it does seem more fair in this case because the player were fairly close in age and played relatively similar styles. (i,,e one of them wouldn't had a huge advantage on a certain surface where a lot their matches took place on)

Obviously, Becker and Edberg are tied in GS's which seems fair since they played in mostly the same era.
Becker did have a slight edge in total tournaments won, 49-43
Becker had a slight edge in higher winning %. 76.9 to74.8 overall. 80.3 - 79.1 in Grand Slams.

Becker just seems a hair better.
 
Last edited:
1-3. The big 3. (Fed, djokovic, Nadal) No preference. All in their own world. On their own planet).

4. Sampras
5 Borg
6. Connors
7. Agassi
8. Lendl
9 mac
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Courier
13 sinner/alcaraz
15. Wawrinka/murray not sure.
 
  1. Federer
  2. Djokovic
  3. Nadal
  4. PETE
  5. Borg
  6. Lendl
  7. Connors
  8. Mac
  9. Agassi
  10. Becker
  11. Edberg
  12. Wilander
  13. Courier
  14. Murray
  15. Nastase
Not including guys like Newcombe, Laver, Rosewall etc...who weren't full open era. Obviously Newcombe won the majority of majors after the Open Era started but that's my rule and I'm sticking to it. Otherwise Laver and Rosewall would bump the last three down.
 
AlexATP said:
Mine is
1.Novak Djokovic
2.Roger Federer
3.Rafael Nadal
4.Pete sampras
5.Bjon Borg
6.Jimmy Connors
7.Andre Agassi
8.Ivan lendl
9.John mcenroe
10.Stefan edberg
11.Andy murray
12.Mats wilander
13.Boris becker
14.Jim courier
15.Marat safin

put yours
Click to expand...
1. Roger Federer
2. Novak Djokovic
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Ivan Lendl
8. John McEnroe
9. Andre Agassi
10. Stefan Edberg
11. Boris Becker
12. Mats Wilander
13. Jim Courier
14. Gustavo Kuerten
15. Lleyton Hewitt
 
Actually, if the players are only Open Era, this cannot be an All-Time list....a contradiction in terms.

The title of this thread should be changed.
 
purely open era:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. Mac
8. Connors
9. Agassi
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Courier
14. Murray
15. Hewitt
 
NatF said:
  1. Federer
  2. Djokovic
  3. Nadal
  4. PETE
  5. Borg
  6. Lendl
  7. Connors
  8. Mac
  9. Agassi
  10. Becker
  11. Edberg
  12. Wilander
  13. Courier
  14. Murray
  15. Nastase
Not including guys like Newcombe, Laver, Rosewall etc...who weren't full open era. Obviously Newcombe won the majority of majors after the Open Era started but that's my rule and I'm sticking to it. Otherwise Laver and Rosewall would bump the last three down.
Click to expand...
:giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Year end Top 5 players at same tournaments.. 1980-2010
Replies
21
Views
3K
Nadal_Power
N
leeroy85
GOAT Open Era data for Perspective
Replies
20
Views
2K
Steve132
S
akv89
Match Wins and Records in Majors
Replies
0
Views
919
akv89
akv89
M
Top 10 of All Time - Rivalries
Replies
26
Views
3K
edmondsm
edmondsm
TheMaestro1990
Tournament of Peaks
2 3
Replies
111
Views
6K
JohnYandell
J
Back
Top