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

abmk said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree with those. Were any of those a tough call for you. Like Djokovic vs Nadal, Sampras vs Borg, Nadal vs Sampras even, McEnroe vs Connors, Djokovic vs Federer. McEnroe above Connors does go against most peoples rankings, it does not mean it is wrong. I somewhat lean to Borg over Sampras, but it is very close. Are you ranking McEnroe over Connors strictly on singles or factoring in his doubles.

Courier over Murray is interesting too. I am not sure where I go there. Courier's peak was better, but Murray's longevity as a top/good player is tons better. And his achievements outside 1 less major, and I guess time at #1, are much better as well, particularly quality performances in slams.
 
bobcolbert said:
Hewitt and not Vilas ??
Click to expand...

Vilas won 2 actual slams (aka among the best 4 events of the year) and won the YEC in 74. could argue he was YE #1 in 77, but nothing more. I'd put Borg ahead though.
Hewitt won 2 slams, 2 YECs, was YE#1 for 2 years.. I'd just take hewitt anywhere else except clay. So yeah, Hewitt ahead of Vilas.
 
pierceforehands said:
I agree with those. Were any of those a tough call for you. Like Djokovic vs Nadal, Sampras vs Borg, Nadal vs Sampras even, McEnroe vs Connors, Djokovic vs Federer. McEnroe above Connors does go against most peoples rankings, it does not mean it is wrong. I somewhat lean to Borg over Sampras, but it is very close. Are you ranking McEnroe over Connors strictly on singles or factoring in his doubles.

Courier over Murray is interesting too. I am not sure where I go there. Courier's peak was better, but Murray's longevity as a top/good player is tons better. And his achievements outside 1 less major, and I guess time at #1, are much better as well, particularly quality performances in slams.
Click to expand...
sampras vs borg is close enough. Just goes to Sampras because of longevity.

Mac over Connors as Mac clearly better at prime. mac better prime wise on grass, faster HC, indoors. even red clay, his run in 84 better than Connors any year.
I'll give Connors har tru and longevity at USO/in general.

Courier vs Murray is close. I'd take Courier just over Murray because of higher prime/peak level.
 
abmk said:
sampras vs borg is close enough. Just goes to Sampras because of longevity.

Mac over Connors as Mac clearly better at prime. mac better prime wise on grass, faster HC, indoors. even red clay, his run in 84 better than Connors any year.
I'll give Connors har tru and longevity at USO/in general.

Courier vs Murray is close. I'd take Courier just over Murray because of higher prime/peak level.
Click to expand...

But in fairness if you are prioritizing peak play as you seem to be, shouldn't McEnroe probably be over Lendl too then?
 
bobcolbert said:
Hewitt and not Vilas ??
Click to expand...

I would definitely have Hewitt over Vilas. Both won 2 real slams, but Hewitt's were the 2 most prestigious events on different surfaces. Hewitt was twice YE#1, Vilas 0 times. Hewitt won the WTC twice, Vilas only one. Hewitt is clearly better than Vilas on every surface but clay, you aren't going to seriously argue Vilas is better than Hewitt on any of hard courts, indoors, or grass I am sure. Seems a pretty easy call.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
But in fairness if you are prioritizing peak play as you seem to be, shouldn't McEnroe probably be over Lendl too then? Thanks for your explanations though.
Click to expand...

Lendl has prime play on clay, slower HC and is quite close indoors to Mac, no?
peak year, Mac for sure. But extended prime over all surfaces, arguably Lendl. Lendl's better longevity is enough to just push him over Mac.
 
I guess I don't understand why list after list won't include someone who played before and during the Open Era. Just don't give the player any credit for anything before the open Era. Laver won 5 Grand Slams and 73 title overall in the Open Era. If he was younger and never played in the Shamateur Era and started in 1968, surely he would be in the Top 15. Newcombe won 6 in the Open Era as well. He was one of the very top players for several years. not including them just comes off as an excuse to not include players before you time and that way you can get in as many players from when you became a fan.
 
Last edited:
insideoutforehanders said:
I would definitely have Hewitt over Vilas. Both won 2 real slams, but Hewitt's were the 2 most prestigious events on different surfaces. Hewitt was twice YE#1, Vilas 0 times. Hewitt won the WTC twice, Vilas only one. Hewitt is clearly better than Vilas on every surface but clay, you aren't going to seriously argue Vilas is better than Hewitt on any of hard courts, indoors, or grass I am sure. Seems a pretty easy call.
Click to expand...
Vilas won much more tournaments (62 vs 30), more Grand Slams (4 vs 2 - even if I know the debate about real or not real slams, absurd debate for me), more majors if we include the Masters (5 vs 4), more matches ... And Despite the ATP's scandalous position, we know tha Vilas was number one. Vilas's results are much better than Hewitt's, even if Hewit was a great champion. It can be added, even if it is beyond the objective results, that Vilas has left his mark on the history of tennis much more than Hewitt.
 
abmk said:
Vilas won 2 actual slams (aka among the best 4 events of the year) and won the YEC in 74. could argue he was YE #1 in 77, but nothing more. I'd put Borg ahead though.
Hewitt won 2 slams, 2 YECs, was YE#1 for 2 years.. I'd just take hewitt anywhere else except clay. So yeah, Hewitt ahead of Vilas.
Click to expand...
Vilas won much more tournaments (62 vs 30), more Grand Slams (4 vs 2 - even if I know the debate about real or not real slams, absurd debate for me), more majors if we include the Masters (5 vs 4), more matches ... And Despite the ATP's scandalous position, we know tha Vilas was number one. Vilas's results are much better than Hewitt's, even if Hewit was a great champion. It can be added, even if it is beyond the objective results, that Vilas has left his mark on the history of tennis much more than Hewitt.
 
bobcolbert said:
Vilas won much more tournaments (62 vs 30), more Grand Slams (4 vs 2 - even if I know the debate about real or not real slams, absurd debate for me), more majors if we include the Masters (5 vs 4), more matches ... And Despite the ATP's scandalous position, we know tha Vilas was number one. Vilas's results are much better than Hewitt's, even if Hewit was a great champion. It can be added, even if it is beyond the objective results, that Vilas has left his mark on the history of tennis much more than Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Vilas considerably better than Hewitt overall...Connors over Mac based on singles only. Re: "prime" his 1974 was tremendous...more titles than Mac and better longevity.
 
jrepac said:
Vilas considerably better than Hewitt overall...Connors over Mac based on singles only. Re: "prime" his 1974 was tremendous...more titles than Mac and better longevity.
Click to expand...

74 is the most over-rated year probably.
74 AO was not a real slam and Connors played so many small tournaments on the Riordan tour avoiding the main competition.

was in trouble multiple times at Wim too.

76 Connors was probably better as a player.
 
abmk said:
74 is the most over-rated year probably.
74 AO was not a real slam and Connors played so many small tournaments on the Riordan tour avoiding the main competition.

was in trouble multiple times at Wim too.

76 Connors was probably better as a player.
Click to expand...

True in terms of level. Still you can't deny his record that year. ALL the best players played Wimbledon and the Open, and nobody was able to stop him. He didn't wind up playing them all, but none survived the draw, he did.
 
bobcolbert said:
Vilas won much more tournaments (62 vs 30), more Grand Slams (4 vs 2 - even if I know the debate about real or not real slams, absurd debate for me), more majors if we include the Masters (5 vs 4), more matches ... And Despite the ATP's scandalous position, we know tha Vilas was number one. Vilas's results are much better than Hewitt's, even if Hewit was a great champion. It can be added, even if it is beyond the objective results, that Vilas has left his mark on the history of tennis much more than Hewitt.
Click to expand...

On your last point, I am not sure what you base that one. I never, ever hear anyone talk about Vilas today, except on a site like this. Now granted barely anyone talks about Hewitt either but I hear him mentioned here and there by BBC, NBC, obviously Sky, ESPN, and never hear Vilas mentioned by any of those.

Anyway that is a flawed way to rank players. I would say Hingis had a much bigger impact on tennis in many ways than Court did, but obviously she would never rank higher. Likewise I would say Borg had a much better impact on tennis than Djokovic, but likewise no way he could rank higher at this point.
 
pierceforehands said:
True in terms of level. Still you can't deny his record that year. ALL the best players played Wimbledon and the Open, and nobody was able to stop him. He didn't wind up playing them all, but none survived the draw, he did.
Click to expand...

It helped Newk focussed his energy on the WCT tour and wasn't exactly sharp at Wim/USO.
 
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...


Almost the exact same list if we leave out Laver/Rosewall but I have Fedkovic as co-No.1's, Mac above Connors and Courier/Murray I flip-flop on.
 
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...
Federer at number 1 in 2025 is outdated if this was in 2015 then yes
 
If we're just talking open era and excluding those who played mostly in the pre-open era, I have:

1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Alcaraz
14. Murray
15. Courier

Sinner could crack this list by the end of this year though if we're being honest
 
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
Bjon Borg
Jimmy Connors
Ivan lendl
Andre Agassi
John mcenroe
Stefan edberg
Stan Wawrinka
Andy murray
Mats wilander
Boris becker
Guga
 
abmk said:
Vilas won 2 actual slams (aka among the best 4 events of the year) and won the YEC in 74. could argue he was YE #1 in 77, but nothing more. I'd put Borg ahead though.
Hewitt won 2 slams, 2 YECs, was YE#1 for 2 years.. I'd just take hewitt anywhere else except clay. So yeah, Hewitt ahead of Vilas.
Click to expand...
in Hewitt's place, i'd favor Vilas to win RG '04 and AO '06 (with his respective RG '75 and USO '77 forms), and i'd give him a small shot to catch Nadal at RG '06. in Vilas' place, i'd favor Hewitt to win USO '72, but no Wimblys (unless you think he would be a scab in '73), no YECs, and no YE #1s. i think Vilas would also manage to win more Masters in the first half of the season than how many ever era-adjusted big titles Hewitt would win on hard and carpet
 
1- Djokovic
2- Federer
3- Nadal
4- Borg
5- Sampras
6- Lendl
7- Agassi
8- Mac
9- Connors
10- Becker
11- Edberg
12- Wilander
13- Murray
14- Courier
15- Vilas

Nastase just misses the cut but he's up there. I don't include Newcombe and Laver although they have enough open era achievements because I don't like splitting careers in half but they would both make it for sure.


BorgTheGOAT said:
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Fed
4. Pete
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Mac
9. Becker
10. Edberg
11. Laver
12. Wilander
13. Newcombe
14. Courier
15. Murray
Click to expand...

Agassi? I assume you forgot and not that you wouldn't include him but where would you put him?
 
BauerAlmeida said:
1- Djokovic
2- Federer
3- Nadal
4- Borg
5- Sampras
6- Lendl
7- Agassi
8- Mac
9- Connors
10- Becker
11- Edberg
12- Wilander
13- Murray
14- Courier
15- Vilas

Nastase just misses the cut but he's up there. I don't include Newcombe and Laver although they have enough open era achievements because I don't like splitting careers in half but they would both make it for sure.




Agassi? I assume you forgot and not that you wouldn't include him but where would you put him?
Click to expand...
Damn you are right. Would put him right after Mac which pushes Murray out. Thanks I corrected it.
 
pierceforehands said:
True in terms of level. Still you can't deny his record that year. ALL the best players played Wimbledon and the Open, and nobody was able to stop him. He didn't wind up playing them all, but none survived the draw, he did.
Click to expand...
You play who shows up on the other side of the court, period.
 
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...
I agree on (almost) everything. Only 2 things: Jim courier basically disappeared after mid 90s so even though he won 1 more slam, i would put him below murray, which won ATP finals, more master 1000, double gold and won 2 slams beating nole in the final and i think federer and djokovic are interchangeable, but surely nadal stays at 3. What do you think?
 
Zeref123 said:
I agree on (almost) everything. Only 2 things: Jim courier basically disappeared after mid 90s so even though he won 1 more slam, i would put him below murray, which won ATP finals, more master 1000, double gold and won 2 slams beating nole in the final and i think federer and djokovic are interchangeable, but surely nadal stays at 3. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Murray > Courier is a fine take, my anti-Murray agenda is well known around here so any chance to knock him down is a chance I'll take ;)

I do think Nadal is definitely third of the Big 3 (though he does have his arguments) but I'm fine with Fed or Djok at one really, I like Fed and chose him but Djokovic has the numerical superiority most love and the strongest "traditional" case.
 
NatF said:
Murray > Courier is a fine take, my anti-Murray agenda is well known around here so any chance to knock him down is a chance I'll take ;)

I do think Nadal is definitely third of the Big 3 (though he does have his arguments) but I'm fine with Fed or Djok at one really, I like Fed and chose him but Djokovic has the numerical superiority most love and the strongest "traditional" case.
Click to expand...
Upon further thought Sampras has a descent case over Nadal. Just dominance-wise he was far more unbeatable
 
NatF said:
Murray > Courier is a fine take, my anti-Murray agenda is well known around here so any chance to knock him down is a chance I'll take ;)

I do think Nadal is definitely third of the Big 3 (though he does have his arguments) but I'm fine with Fed or Djok at one really, I like Fed and chose him but Djokovic has the numerical superiority most love and the strongest "traditional" case.
Click to expand...
Im new to the forum, so i wasnt aware of your anti-Murray agenda lol
 
I don't get how Wilander is consistently ranked below Edberg. The lack of Wimbys isn't enough. Wilander showed that an applied version of himself could produce dominance. Edberg never showed that. In fact, he's in a way the weakest ATG by dint of having no multi-slam years.

Borg's lack of a hard court slam leaves him out of the top-4, just the same as Sampras's lack of a French does. For the upper echelon you want to ask "At their peak could they play competitively against anyone who ever played on a given surface?" For Sampras, on clay the answer is "No", while for Borg it was "Yes" even though he couldn't get the hard court slam.
 
Goat Shank said:
I don't get how Wilander is consistently ranked below Edberg. The lack of Wimbys isn't enough. Wilander showed that an applied version of himself could produce dominance. Edberg never showed that. In fact, he's in a way the weakest ATG by dint of having no multi-slam years.

Borg's lack of a hard court slam leaves him out of the top-4, just the same as Sampras's lack of a French does. For the upper echelon you want to ask "At their peak could they play competitively against anyone who ever played on a given surface?" For Sampras, on clay the answer is "No", while for Borg it was "Yes" even though he couldn't get the hard court slam.
Click to expand...
OTOH, Edberg had 2 YE#1 and 72 weeks at #1 while Wilander had 1 YE#1 and 20 weeks at #1. Plus, Stefan won WTF, beating Lendl and Becker in the SF/F.
 
NatF said:
Djokovic has the numerical superiority most love and the strongest "traditional" case.
Click to expand...

I guess it's an age thing, but I'd say the "traditional" case isn't numerical superiority (which he has in abundance). I was watching tennis for over 20 years before Sampras broke Emerson's record, and I never felt that Wimbledon 2000 was a passing of the GOAT crown.

I'm always curious as to how people see the lineage of the greatest tennis player prior to Djokovic (assuming the Serb is indeed the GOAT)? And when do their respective reigns begin and end?
  1. Novak (? - 2025)
  2. Nadal? Does he ever get on this list the "traditional" way? (? - ?)
  3. Federer (2009? - ?)
  4. Sampras? Some would argue he was only ever a numerical record holder, and never the outright GOAT (2000? - 2009?)
  5. ??? Who before Pete? Borg? Laver? Emerson? Tilden?
 
King_olaf_the_hairy said:
I guess it's an age thing, but I'd say the "traditional" case isn't numerical superiority (which he has in abundance). I was watching tennis for over 20 years before Sampras broke Emerson's record, and I never felt that Wimbledon 2000 was a passing of the GOAT crown.

I'm always curious as to how people see the lineage of the greatest tennis player prior to Djokovic (assuming the Serb is indeed the GOAT)? And when do their respective reigns begin and end?
  1. Novak (? - 2025)
  2. Nadal? Does he ever get on this list the "traditional" way? (? - ?)
  3. Federer (2009? - ?)
  4. Sampras? Some would argue he was only ever a numerical record holder, and never the outright GOAT (2000? - 2009?)
  5. ??? Who before Pete? Borg? Laver? Emerson? Tilden?
Click to expand...
novak's reign i think is 2011-2016, in this time span he won 11 slams. if u want u can also say he had 2018-2023 but I perfer considering his prime.
roger 2004-2009, nadal never had a reign, sampras 1993-1999, before sampras in the 80s there were a lot of ATG competing for slams so nobody really had a reign, connors from 74-79(?)
 
Zeref123 said:
novak's reign i think is 2011-2016, in this time span he won 11 slams. if u want u can also say he had 2018-2023 but I perfer considering his prime.
roger 2004-2009, nadal never had a reign, sampras 1993-1999, before sampras in the 80s there were a lot of ATG competing for slams so nobody really had a reign, connors from 74-79(?)
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to their their peak years, I mean the point where (in some people's eyes) they began to be considered the GOAT.

To give a (hypothetical) example... Sampras becomes "the greatest" at the end of 1998 when he manages his sixth straight YE #1 and wins his 11th(?) slam. He then loses the title to Federer after Wimbledon 2009, when Rog overhauls Pete's slam count and has the career slam too.

Roger then loses the title to... Novak? Or Rafa? Let's say Novak, but when? When Djokovic wins slam #21? When Djokovic wins #23? When Djokovic manages his 311th week atop the rankings? Or some time before then?
 
Last edited:
King_olaf_the_hairy said:
I'm not referring to their their peak years, I mean the point where (in some people's eyes) they began to be considered the GOAT.

T o give a (hypothetical) example... Sampras becomes "the greatest" at the end of 1998 when he manages his sixth straight YE #1 and wins his 11th(?) slam. He then loses the title to Federer after Wimbledon 2009, when Rog overhauls Pete's slam count and has the career slam too.

Roger then loses the title to... Novak? Or Rafa? Let's say Novak, but when? When Djokovic wins slam #21? When Djokovic wins #23? When Djokovic manages his 311th week atop the rankings? Or some time before then?
Click to expand...
in the eyes of people, i think sampras became the goat either when he surpassed roy emerson winning his 13th slam in wimbledon 2000 or when he retired winning us open 2002. roger became the goat after winning wimbledon 2009 reaching 15 slams at almost 28 yo, rafa was considered by some the goat when he broke federer's record after winning AO 2022 and novak when he won rg 2023 and especially when he won olympcs gold in 2024. the 2024 olympics gold filled the last hole he had in his resume so many believe he is the GOAT
 
King_olaf_the_hairy said:
I guess it's an age thing, but I'd say the "traditional" case isn't numerical superiority (which he has in abundance). I was watching tennis for over 20 years before Sampras broke Emerson's record, and I never felt that Wimbledon 2000 was a passing of the GOAT crown.

I'm always curious as to how people see the lineage of the greatest tennis player prior to Djokovic (assuming the Serb is indeed the GOAT)? And when do their respective reigns begin and end?
  1. Novak (? - 2025)
  2. Nadal? Does he ever get on this list the "traditional" way? (? - ?)
  3. Federer (2009? - ?)
  4. Sampras? Some would argue he was only ever a numerical record holder, and never the outright GOAT (2000? - 2009?)
  5. ??? Who before Pete? Borg? Laver? Emerson? Tilden?
Click to expand...
Yeah slam counting wasn't really a thing until the 90's, so maybe traditional isn't the right word. The old timmers like Laver, Rosewall etc...tend to grade players on how well they played the game rather than just bean counting.

Ermerson was never really the guy, he stayed in the amateurs and didn't win a major in the Open Era (partly because he wasn't as good as Laver/Rosewall etc...but also because he was a bit old when it started). Before PETE it was Borg or Laver who was the guy IMO. I think 2009 is probably when most saw Fed overtake PETE, though I don't think Sampras was the consensus GOAT Fed was for a while and now probably Djokovic is. Nadal might have had a brief window in 2022 when he was seen as the guy but even now many consider Fed greater and Novak was always on his heels.
 
King_olaf_the_hairy said:
I guess it's an age thing, but I'd say the "traditional" case isn't numerical superiority (which he has in abundance). I was watching tennis for over 20 years before Sampras broke Emerson's record, and I never felt that Wimbledon 2000 was a passing of the GOAT crown.

I'm always curious as to how people see the lineage of the greatest tennis player prior to Djokovic (assuming the Serb is indeed the GOAT)? And when do their respective reigns begin and end?
  1. Novak (? - 2025)
  2. Nadal? Does he ever get on this list the "traditional" way? (? - ?)
  3. Federer (2009? - ?)
  4. Sampras? Some would argue he was only ever a numerical record holder, and never the outright GOAT (2000? - 2009?)
  5. ??? Who before Pete? Borg? Laver? Emerson? Tilden?
Click to expand...

It is pointless to look back at eras in retrospect with hindsight without witnessing the eras, so maybe I should not be talking of 90s and before because how can I say what I perceive of the hierarchy before Federer if I never was a part of those eras of 60s, 70s,80s and even 90s?

However since you ask how we view this, I would say I view it like this (all this is imaginary anyway)

During the 1970s - Laver must have been the GOAT due to his CYGS and stature even though Borg was dominating

During the 1980s - Laver must still have been a GOAT like figure if ask the guys but now Borg-Mcenroe all must be the cult figures along with others playing who are rising.....maybe Borg must have held a higher stature than his contemporaries but was he rated above Laver? Maybe not.

During the 1990s - Laver again must have been the GOAT like figure but now his influence must be even lesser... Did Sampras consider Borg or Laver greater? Definitely Laver... but did the public consider Laver above Sampras now? I don't know..

During the 2000s - Now I am sure nobody cared for the old geezer, he was presenting trophies every now and then but nobody considered him the GOAT anymore, heck most people did not even care for Sampras much... Sampras was acknowledged as the man who being chased but in reality as you said he was only a custodian of the numbers and it was a forgone conclusion that Federer would wipe him out.... and he did... the speed and inevitability of Federer's run in 00s made that clear long before he reached 15.

During the 2010s - Federer again was seen as the best ever in this full decade despite Nadal and Djoko chasing him, but gradually the BIG ONE of the 2000s now became the BIG THREE ...So Federer's stature did diminish a lot.

During the 2020s - Now Djokovic holds the title of the greatest because today's crowd only sees numbers. Federer and Nadal are seen as inferior to him.
 
Goat Shank said:
I don't get how Wilander is consistently ranked below Edberg. The lack of Wimbys isn't enough. Wilander showed that an applied version of himself could produce dominance. Edberg never showed that. In fact, he's in a way the weakest ATG by dint of having no multi-slam years.

Borg's lack of a hard court slam leaves him out of the top-4, just the same as Sampras's lack of a French does. For the upper echelon you want to ask "At their peak could they play competitively against anyone who ever played on a given surface?" For Sampras, on clay the answer is "No", while for Borg it was "Yes" even though he couldn't get the hard court slam.
Click to expand...
The Wilander thing is tricky.....Eddy actually has more titles, 2 Wimby's, 2 USOs...so I can see how some would slot him above Mats. Eddy more consistent (arguably). I think if Mats didn't go off the train tracks after '88, it would be much more clearly in his favor. FO and AO, of that era at least, were deemed less prestigious/important. I can see Borg being #4 or #5 (behind Sampras). Not winning the USO hurts him, BUT he was in several finals and lost to A level guys, not rookies, so no shame there. I do think Borg was a better all surface player than Pete, but just because he did not win the FO doesn't mean he couldn't play on the clay (same w/Connors for that matter)
 
Razer said:
It is pointless to look back at eras in retrospect with hindsight without witnessing the eras, so maybe I should not be talking of 90s and before because how can I say what I perceive of the hierarchy before Federer if I never was a part of those eras of 60s, 70s,80s and even 90s?

However since you ask how we view this, I would say I view it like this (all this is imaginary anyway)

During the 1970s - Laver must have been the GOAT due to his CYGS and stature even though Borg was dominating

During the 1980s - Laver must still have been a GOAT like figure if ask the guys but now Borg-Mcenroe all must be the cult figures along with others playing who are rising.....maybe Borg must have held a higher stature than his contemporaries but was he rated above Laver? Maybe not.

During the 1990s - Laver again must have been the GOAT like figure but now his influence must be even lesser... Did Sampras consider Borg or Laver greater? Definitely Laver... but did the public consider Laver above Sampras now? I don't know..

During the 2000s - Now I am sure nobody cared for the old geezer, he was presenting trophies every now and then but nobody considered him the GOAT anymore, heck most people did not even care for Sampras much... Sampras was acknowledged as the man who being chased but in reality as you said he was only a custodian of the numbers and it was a forgone conclusion that Federer would wipe him out.... and he did... the speed and inevitability of Federer's run in 00s made that clear long before he reached 15.

During the 2010s - Federer again was seen as the best ever in this full decade despite Nadal and Djoko chasing him, but gradually the BIG ONE of the 2000s now became the BIG THREE ...So Federer's stature did diminish a lot.

During the 2020s - Now Djokovic holds the title of the greatest because today's crowd only sees numbers. Federer and Nadal are seen as inferior to him.
Click to expand...
Recency bias is huge. While I put Djoko at the top of the heap, I really don't see him as world's better than Nadal or Fed, on any given day. Grand slams are only 1 part of the puzzle. Since the sport moved to GS events ALWAYS being played by the top guys, it's an easy way to assess them. But it's not the only thing, IMHO.
 
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ said:
All you need to know about Laver is that he won the grand slam in the open era. That’s better than courier.
Click to expand...
One would think, eh? I wish I had seen Laver in his prime. You can watch video snippets here and there, which are impressive, but never the same as seeing the player live.
 
jrepac said:
I think if Mats didn't go off the train tracks after '88, it would be much more clearly in his favor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is a big factor. Edberg was in the top 5 for nine straight years, (10th year at #7). Wilander was in the top 5 for six straight years (7th year at #7).

That extra three years seems pretty important.
 
buscemi said:
Yeah, this is a big factor. Edberg was in the top 5 for nine straight years, (10th year at #7). Wilander was in the top 5 for six straight years (7th year at #7).

That extra three years seems pretty important.
Click to expand...

Yes I think years maintaining a high ranking is important.

One reason I rank Shriver higher than many others in terms of greatness, especialy relative to other "best to not win a major" group, even though I can't stand her or her game, is she did maintain a high ranking (somewhere from #4 to #8) for such a long time. Moreso in comparision to say someone like Sukova, who has more prolific slam performances and wins, and IMO is more talented with a better game, but did not maintain a high ranking as consistently or for nearly as long.
 
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
920
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