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

[buscemi]

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.

Yeah, Shriver vs. Sukova is tough. As you note, Pam had more consistency. That said, after her 1978 U.S. Open final, she won a total of one set in her eight Major SFs, and that was in a loss to Mandlíková when she was breadsticked in the third set at Wimbledon in 1981. In most of those SFs, she was completely crushed.

OTOH, Sukova made four Majors finals and played pretty well in two other Major SFs she lost: 1986 French SF vs. Navratilova, where she was 3 points away from winning + 1990 Australian Open SF, where she was up a break on Graf in the third set before losing 6-4.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Yeah, Shriver vs. Sukova is tough. As you note, Pam had more consistency. That said, after her 1978 U.S. Open final, she won a total of one set in her eight Major SFs, and that was in a loss to Mandlíková when she was breadsticked in the third set at Wimbledon in 1981. In most of those SFs, she was completely crushed.

OTOH, Sukova made four Majors finals and played pretty well in two other Major SFs she lost: 1986 French SF vs. Navratilova, where she was 3 points away from winning + 1990 Australian Open SF, where she was up a break on Graf in the third set before losing 6-4.

Yes, on the other hand Shriver owns the H2H with Sukova. It is a very hard comparision. Sukova definitely had a better game to threaten the best players (minus Graf) than Shriver did.

 

[Razer]

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.

In the end Slams decide everything. The other tournaments are just fillers to maintain the seeding or preparatory tournaments.... the real deal is Slams.

If Nadal had maintained the Slams lead over his other rivals then nobody would care if he was a 1 trick pony, his Slams lead would have meant that he won.

In the end it is all about slams when we talk of on court greatness, of course overall greatness is more than that.... Popularity, Brand Value, Cultural impact, Peak Dominance all play a role there too...

 

[pierceforehands]

I would rate Sukova higher than Shriver simply since she has a game that I would see her being a contender in most eras. Not a huge likely many slam winner sort of contender, but she wasn't that in her own, but a sometimes top 5 player who was a second tier contender to win slams, what she was in her own, and I think there are many eras she might sneak out a slam or two, despite ultimately winning 0 in her own. I don't feel that way about Shriver, I see the only era her being effective is probably her own. In later eras with graphite advancing, grass and carpet both being reduced on tour, and the baseline game taking over, I see her being borderline useless, her results post 88 even indicate that to a large extent. That is even before the significantly slowed court conditions, when things would get even worse for her. Contrasted to Sukova who even made a US Open final in 93, probably aided by the Seles stabbing and general collapse of the womens game in a lot of ways around then, but even so. This was when both Shriver and Sukova were CLEARLY past their primes (in fairness to Shriver, but this applies to Sukova as well despite her surprise late career US Open final), despite not being super old, but Shriver was lucky to win the odd match in singles anymore, and Sukova was still often a seed in slams as late as 96 as I recall. Then earlier eras where the racquets were even less advanced, and would not be able to rely on the sheer power of her serve or penetration of her volleys as much, she also would not be nearly as successful as her own time.

So comparing their careers in the era both played in, relatively the same one, it is a close call between them. Imagining how their games translate to other eras besides just their own, it is Sukova in a landslide.

 

[Judge Holden]

IMO tiers are more suitable for this type of discussion than rankings. No Rosewall, Laver, Sinner, Alcaraz.

Tier 0:
Djokovic
Federer

Tier 1:
mythical peak Safin
Sampras
Borg
Nadal

Tier 2:
McEnroe
Lendl
Connors

Tier 3:
Edberg
Becker
Murray
Wilander
Agassi

Tier 4:
del Potro
Courier
Nastase
Newcombe
Vilas
Stich
Hewitt
Kuerten
Wawrinka
Rafter

Tier 5:
Medvedev
Thiem
Ivanisevic
Krajicek
Muster
Roddick
Bruguera
Zverev
...

 

[bigbadboaz]

There's no justification for separating Nadal from Fed and Djokovic. The clay/FO argument fell apart once he achieved at least a double at ALL GS events.

 

[TheFifthSet]

IMO tiers are more suitable for this type of discussion than rankings. No Rosewall, Laver, Sinner, Alcaraz.

Tier 0:
Djokovic
Federer

Tier 1:
mythical peak Safin
Sampras
Borg
Nadal

Tier 2:
McEnroe
Lendl
Connors

Tier 3:
Edberg
Becker
Murray
Wilander
Agassi

Tier 4:
del Potro
Courier
Nastase
Newcombe
Vilas
Stich
Hewitt
Kuerten
Wawrinka
Rafter

Tier 5:
Medvedev
Thiem
Ivanisevic
Krajicek
Muster
Roddick
Bruguera
Zverev
...

Nice list, very ambitious! I think Tier 0 oughta be more inclusive though. Also as a blossoming Krajicek fanboy there's something that feels wrong about him and Delpo/Stich being a tier apart -- especially if Safin gets such a distinct "Peak Play" boost D: (Krajicek was unplayable on fast courts at his best).

 

[Third Serve]

Federer
Djokovic
Nadal
Sampras
Borg
Connors
Lendl
McEnroe
Agassi
Edberg
Becker
Wilander
Murray
Courier
Vilas

Some are pretty close together, basically a tie.

If you want to throw in partial careers of the players who had substantial pre-OE resumes, Laver and Rosewall would certainly show up on this list on the strength of their OE records alone. In fact the CYGS was in the OE.

 

[Judge Holden]

Nice list, very ambitious! I think Tier 0 oughta be more inclusive though. Also as a blossoming Krajicek fanboy there's something that feels wrong about him and Delpo/Stich being a tier apart -- especially if Safin gets such a distinct "Peak Play" boost D: (Krajicek was unplayable on fast courts at his best).

There's a good argument to get rid of T0 altogether, I think, and have Federer and Nolak at the top of T1, but those two have the best combination of consistency, prime, peak, and versatility.

Mythical peak Safin was more of a joke than anything else as he's Reddit's all time favorite...that era had snake-bitten top players with Nalbandian, Coria, Haas, and him.

I need to watch more of Krajicek, fair enough, especially indoors. Recently watched him play Muster in Rome 96 F and he held his own very well on old-school clay. His peak level was very high in a deep era. That being said Stich is one of the most technically impressive players I've ever seen.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Okay, I disapprove of this, but here is my list based largely on the choices of the players themselves, and based on grass play (a clay surface would give drastically different results).

That makes sense, because I never played against any of these.

1. and 2. Hoad/Federer

3. and 4. and 5. Vines/Budge/Gonzales

6. and 7 and 8 and 9. and 10. Tilden/Sedgman/Laver/Sampras/Djokovic

11. and 12. and 13. 14. and 15. Rosewall/Newcombe/ Connors/McEnroe/Nadal

Too early to judge Alcarez or Sinner. Time will tell.

 

[Holmes]

15. Paradorn Srichaphan
14. John McEnroe
13. A-Rod (too many good memories lol)
12. Bjorn Borg
11. Boris Becker
10. Tim Henman
9. Pat Rafter
8. Stefan Edberg
7. Ivan Lendl
6. Jim Courier
5. Andre Agassi
4. Rafael Nadal
3. PETE Sampras
2. Novak Djokovic
1. Roger Federer

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

PARADORN

 

[Vincent-C]

There's no justification for separating Nadal from Fed and Djokovic. The clay/FO argument fell apart once he achieved at least a double at ALL GS events.

Zero YECs, only two Wimbledons.. meh.

 

[Vincent-C]

wrong forum.

 

[Holmes]

PARADORN

He made so much possible.

 

[gamelovergold]

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.

Novak is 24 slam winner and fedrer is 20.
4 slams are no joke.
Fedrer can definetly fight with nadal for 2nd place .
Nadal 22 and novak 24 are close but novak is so ahead in other metrics that it is futile even to compare .
So fedrer nadal rivalry still goes as who was #2 player
((((Talking about whole career ))))

 

[gamelovergold]

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

That gold medal was as good as any slam.
Nadal having gold medal and novak and roger not having while Sir andy murray having 2 gold was absurd .
Novak gold was a hollywood movie which took 20 years to released.

 

[Rosstour]

Novak is 24 slam winner and fedrer is 20.
4 slams are no joke.
Fedrer can definetly fight with nadal for 2nd place .
Nadal 22 and novak 24 are close but novak is so ahead in other metrics that it is futile even to compare .
So fedrer nadal rivalry still goes as who was #2 player
((((Talking about whole career ))))

4 Slams is certainly a significant margin, I think Novak’s biggest claim over Fed is the additional French titles and the wins over Nadal.

And Fed has some things Novak never will. Very likely to finish with more crowns at Wimbledon and the US, with streaks of 5x in a row at both. 237 consecutive weeks at #1. And the H2H doesn’t look bad for Fed especially considering the age gap.

Who is more accomplished overall, that is settled. But the fashion in which Fed got the bulk of his wins is enough to narrow that gap some. Maybe not entirely but some.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Sadly the late-career record of choking (and against Novak specifically) seals it. You can debate resume accomplishments in the absence of serious intangibles, but at the end of the day "greatness", more than anything, is about coming through in the biggest moments.

 

[jrepac]

4 Slams is certainly a significant margin, I think Novak’s biggest claim over Fed is the additional French titles and the wins over Nadal.

And Fed has some things Novak never will. Very likely to finish with more crowns at Wimbledon and the US, with streaks of 5x in a row at both. 237 consecutive weeks at #1. And the H2H doesn’t look bad for Fed especially considering the age gap.

Who is more accomplished overall, that is settled. But the fashion in which Fed got the bulk of his wins is enough to narrow that gap some. Maybe not entirely but some.

I think Novak is comfortabaly the GOAT at this point. But he's not miles and miles ahead of Fed and Nadal, but just enough. I still like Fed overall, just based on his playing style. But Nadal was a competitive force of nature, not seen since Connors. Honestly, I don't think Novak is winning any more slams. He'd have to be very lucky, which is possible, mind you. Situation in which Carlos or Sinner (or both) are knocked out of his way. Asking him to beat both, back to back, is perhaps too tall of an order.

 

[jrepac]

15. Paradorn Srichaphan
14. John McEnroe
13. A-Rod (too many good memories lol)
12. Bjorn Borg
11. Boris Becker
10. Tim Henman
9. Pat Rafter
8. Stefan Edberg
7. Ivan Lendl
6. Jim Courier
5. Andre Agassi
4. Rafael Nadal
3. PETE Sampras
2. Novak Djokovic
1. Roger Federer

that's an unusual ranking, to say the least...

 

[Rosstour]

I think Novak is comfortabaly the GOAT at this point. But he's not miles and miles ahead of Fed and Nadal, but just enough.

I think Fed and Djoko are miles ahead of Nadal.

His time at #1 just doesn’t measure up to them. More Slams than Fed yea, but not enough of them on hard courts to consider him a true rival to them when he has so much less time at #1 and zero WTF titles.

 

[gamelovergold]

I think Fed and Djoko are miles ahead of Nadal.

His time at #1 just doesn’t measure up to them. More Slams than Fed yea, but not enough of them on hard courts to consider him a true rival to them when he has so much less time at #1 and zero WTF titles.

As far as you can push fedrer can challenge Nadal for 2nd place . Nadal 2 slam lead but fedrer more weeks at no 1. Atp finals . You can argue for fedrer against nadal but fedrer vs novak is not to be considered as 4 slam lead is too big.
Imagine if Carlos is on 8 slam and Sinner is on 4 will you compare other things .

 

[NatF]

As far as you can push fedrer can challenge Nadal for 2nd place . Nadal 2 slam lead but fedrer more weeks at no 1. Atp finals . You can argue for fedrer against nadal but fedrer vs novak is not to be considered as 4 slam lead is too big.
Imagine if Carlos is on 8 slam and Sinner is on 4 will you compare other things .

The relative difference between 20 and 24, is much smaller than 4 and 8. It would be like if Carlos was on 6/7 and didn't have the luxury of padding his resume in a terrible era versus Sinner on 8 who did.

 

[Rosstour]

As far as you can push fedrer can challenge Nadal for 2nd place . Nadal 2 slam lead but fedrer more weeks at no 1. Atp finals . You can argue for fedrer against nadal but fedrer vs novak is not to be considered as 4 slam lead is too big.
Imagine if Carlos is on 8 slam and Sinner is on 4 will you compare other things .

8 is double 4, if Roger had 12 to Novak’s 24 then no, no case to be made.

Roger’s case rests on the dominance and consistency he showed from 2004-2009, and for this Fedfans can lean on the consecutive weeks at #1, or the 5x consecutive Wimbledons or the 5x consecutive US. Those are records Novak will never reach, even if he wins still more Slams. And if he doesn’t, then Fed still has more total crowns at the most prestigious Slam, and either the second or third, depending on how you look at it.

Rafa’s case over Roger is total Slam count and refuse to discuss distribution, and H2H. But time at #1 kills Rafa’s case IMO as does the distribution.

Novak’s case is pretty clear, the weakness of it (if there is one) is that since it rests on # of titles and not necessarily peak level of play, the fact that he only holds the record at one Slam hurts him a bit on the distribution front—and the guy he’s behind at Wimbledon AND USO is the dude he’s supposed to be universally better than. That muddies the waters just a bit for me.

 

[Rosstour]

Sadly the late-career record of choking (and against Novak specifically) seals it. You can debate resume accomplishments in the absence of serious intangibles, but at the end of the day "greatness", more than anything, is about coming through in the biggest moments.

The fact that even as an older player he was still in these matches enough to choke them is a statement in itself.

Novak is at the same age as Wimbledon19 Fed, is he choking now vs Sinner and Alcaraz?

 

[Zeref123]

I think Fed and Djoko are miles ahead of Nadal.

His time at #1 just doesn’t measure up to them. More Slams than Fed yea, but not enough of them on hard courts to consider him a true rival to them when he has so much less time at #1 and zero WTF titles.

not miles ahead but surely both are better than nadal. federer has more consecutive weeks as n 1 than nadal has in his whole career

 

[jrepac]

I think Fed and Djoko are miles ahead of Nadal.

His time at #1 just doesn’t measure up to them. More Slams than Fed yea, but not enough of them on hard courts to consider him a true rival to them when he has so much less time at #1 and zero WTF titles.

Nadal has 4 USOs, same as Djoko. Djoko just has a ton of AOs, unlike Rafa. Sure, less time at #1, very true. This too, pushes Djoko to the head of the line. Competitively speaking, I never felt that much separated them. On any given day, one of them could win when facing the other. Never a lock.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

I don't know where this "Djokovic is the GOAT and it's settled" crap came from. If that's what YOU personally think, then so be it. But the truth is, in tennis, there is NO objective way to determine who's "The GOAT" nor whom is "the most accomplished". It's cute that the ATP Tour and All 4 Slams got their acts together around the early 90s, and that the M1000 events finally got their act together in the early 2000s (in terms of having a consistent schedule of events, and most being mandatory for players)...but that simply wasn't the case for years and years. Also, just as it pertains to the records of Fedalovic, those have to each be taken into CONTEXT. Rafa had a foot condition he could do nothing about, knee and wrist and foot injuries that cost him several Slams (through having to WD or missing them entirely). Fed started winning big later than the other two (as far as not being a teen sensation)...but also played at a top of the game level longer, in terms of age (1 point away from winning the Sunshine Double at age 37, and of course 40-15 at 2019 Wimby). Novak started "peaking" later than the other two, and thus got a few breaks with the other two getting older/injured...and some really lame duck Slam opponents from 2018-onwards (Kevin Anderson coming off a 26-24 fifth set SF vs Isner in 2018; Nick friggin' Kyrgios in the 2022 Wimby Final; a pathetic version of Medvedev at the 2023 USO F, etc). That Double Golden M1000 that Djokovic has is an awesome record that I think will be very hard for another player to accomplish

And for the "Slams are everything" group, Wimbledon and USO were the big 2 in the 70s and 80s. Nobody non-Australian really bothered with the Aussie Open, and the French was only played by top players depending on what year it was. The pro tennis world was a minefield of lawsuits, bickering tennis authority bodies, and pissed off top players. So basing it solely on # of Slams is a bit myopic and one-note

Also, all-time greats who played in the 70s and 80s like Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, Wilander, etc played on a completely different tour than even Sampras, Agassi, Chang, etc did in the 90s (who played a different tour than the Big 4 did in the mid-2000s and 2010s). This all should be taken into account when determining who's the "most accomplished". The lists are gonna be subjective anyways, but its impossible to compare even weeks at #1 for Borg or Connors in the 70s and early 80s, to Fedalovic in the 2000s and 2010s. Way different formulas being used to calculate who is #1 and for how long

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Nadal has 4 USOs, same as Djoko. Djoko just has a ton of AOs, unlike Rafa. Sure, less time at #1, very true. This too, pushes Djoko to the head of the line. Competitively speaking, I never felt that much separated them. On any given day, one of them could win when facing the other. Never a lock.

and that's with Nadal missing the 2020, 2021, and 2023 USO's with injury. People really underestimate Nadal's USO record. 5 Finals from 2010-2019, 4 titles and a SF that he WD'ed from in 2018. The man has 6 HC Slams, 10 or 11 M1000s on HC, an Olympic Gold in Singles and Doubles (both on HCs), etc...yet you would think he only ever made it to the Finals of a HC Slam 3 times in his career or something lol....especially listening to some of these folks like Rosstour

I'm not a Djoko fan personally, but I'd be stupid if I said he wasn't a terrific clay court player. He doesn't have the ton of Roland Garros titles like Rafa, but he won many clay events and went toe-to-toe with Rafa in classic matches on the surface for 15 years. He never skipped the European clay season entirely or weaseled his way outta matches on clay with Rafa with some of his infamous "injuries". He and Rafa's greatest matches I think are on clay. Why tennis fans who aren't Nadal fans can't give him the same credit on HC's is pathetic IMO

 

[bigbadboaz]

The fact that even as an older player he was still in these matches enough to choke them is a statement in itself.

Novak is at the same age as Wimbledon19 Fed, is he choking now vs Sinner and Alcaraz?

Yes, and that's why if he'd closed 2019 he'd have a clear case. 21 with a crowning win over both his main rivals at an advanced age, hard to argue with even if Novak still got to 24 later on.

But he didn't get it done. You cannot be in his position historically, on the precipice of that win, and not get over the line. Not in this discussion. Do we really think Sampras would have done anything but thunder down an unreturnable at 40-15? This has become the signature flaw in Fed's overall profile.

Re: Novak - you need to get clear on the difference between choking and simply being outplayed at a late age. It's not similar.

 

[mike danny]

Sadly the late-career record of choking (and against Novak specifically) seals it. You can debate resume accomplishments in the absence of serious intangibles, but at the end of the day "greatness", more than anything, is about coming through in the biggest moments.

You could argue Novak having the age advantage gave him a mental boost too. These things are closely related

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has 4 USOs, same as Djoko. Djoko just has a ton of AOs, unlike Rafa. Sure, less time at #1, very true. This too, pushes Djoko to the head of the line. Competitively speaking, I never felt that much separated them. On any given day, one of them could win when facing the other. Never a lock.

It’s not quite how it panned out. Only on grass that is the case.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, and that's why if he'd closed 2019 he'd have a clear case. 21 with a crowning win over both his main rivals at an advanced age, hard to argue with even if Novak still got to 24 later on.

But he didn't get it done. You cannot be in his position historically, on the precipice of that win, and not get over the line. Not in this discussion. Do we really think Sampras would have done anything but thunder down an unreturnable at 40-15? This has become the signature flaw in Fed's overall profile.

Re: Novak - you need to get clear on the difference between choking and simply being outplayed at a late age. It's not similar.

Give me a break with this Sampras nonsense. He was long retired at 38.

And Novak not even being in a position to choke is the whole point. Goes to show how special Fed’s level was at 38. That he showed mental weakness is not unusual at that age and there is no other frame of reference for him.

 

[gamelovergold]

Give me a break with this Sampras nonsense. He was long retired at 38.

And Novak not even being in a position to choke is the whole point. Goes to show how special Fed’s level was at 38. That he showed mental weakness is not unusual at that age and there is no other frame of reference for him.

Clearly Fedrer was within a point away from winning in 2019.
I am surprised that you are forgetting huge age diffrence between Novak and Sinner or alcaraz.
Fedrer novak was 6 year gap .
Here it is 14 years and 16 years.
Give any player to novak who is only 6 year younger and he will still win .

 

[Rosstour]

Yes, and that's why if he'd closed 2019 he'd have a clear case. 21 with a crowning win over both his main rivals at an advanced age, hard to argue with even if Novak still got to 24 later on.

But he didn't get it done. You cannot be in his position historically, on the precipice of that win, and not get over the line. Not in this discussion. Do we really think Sampras would have done anything but thunder down an unreturnable at 40-15? This has become the signature flaw in Fed's overall profile.

Re: Novak - you need to get clear on the difference between choking and simply being outplayed at a late age. It's not similar.

1. Would have been nice if he did it, but I don’t think it changes the narrative.

2. Sampras would have farted and lit up a cigar in his recliner at 38

3. Yes and that’s why I asked. Novak isn’t even in a position to choke, because Sinner blows him off the court whenever they meet

 

[bigbadboaz]

Give me a break with this Sampras nonsense. He was long retired at 38.

2. Sampras would have farted and lit up a cigar in his recliner at 38

Both of you go back to my original post. Clearly, I am not bringing Sampras up as a contender here, but highlighting the intangible Fed simply does not have. Incidentally, the main rival here does.

If you can't properly follow the discussion, the smartass replies are a poor look.

3. Yes and that’s why I asked. Novak isn’t even in a position to choke, because Sinner blows him off the court whenever they meet

One very clear explanation later, continuing to miss the point.

 

[mike danny]

Both of you go back to my original post. Clearly, I am not bringing Sampras up as a contender here, but highlighting the intangible Fed simply does not have.

If you can't properly follow the discussion, the smartass replies are a poor look.



One very clear explanation later, continuing to miss the point.

You’re saying Fed is mentally weaker than Pete because the latter didn’t have the former’s longevity

 

[SriVan90]

Top 10 Tennis Players of Open Era

1) Novak Djokovic
2) Roger Federer
3) Rafael Nadal
4) Pete Sampras
5) Bjorn Borg
6) John McEnroe
7) Jimmy Connors
8) Ivan Lendl
9) Andre Agassi
10) Boris Becker

 

[Dan Lobb]

Top 10 Tennis Players of Open Era

1) Novak Djokovic
2) Roger Federer
3) Rafael Nadal
4) Pete Sampras
5) Bjorn Borg
6) John McEnroe
7) Jimmy Connors
8) Ivan Lendl
9) Andre Agassi
10) Boris Becker

Laver? Newcombe? Rosewall?

 

[Rosstour]

Top 10 Tennis Players of Open Era

1) Novak Djokovic
2) Roger Federer
3) Rafael Nadal
4) Pete Sampras
5) Bjorn Borg
6) John McEnroe
7) Jimmy Connors
8) Ivan Lendl
9) Andre Agassi
10) Boris Becker

I would have Fed and Djoko being 1/1A in that order. Flip PETE and Borg. Murray at 10. Laver over Lendl, maybe

 

[SriVan90]

I would have Fed and Djoko being 1/1A in that order. Flip PETE and Borg. Murray at 10. Laver over Lendl, maybe

Laver played mostly in pre open era so didn't include him. Pete was better than Borg in my opinion. i am a federer fan but Djokovic has better numbers and game.

 

[SriVan90]

Laver? Newcombe? Rosewall?

only included players who started their career in open era

 

[Rosstour]

Laver played mostly in pre open era so didn't include him. Pete was better than Borg in my opinion. i am a federer fan but Djokovic has better numbers and game.

I think Fed had better game but Djoko better timing and probably longevity (although Fed made a Slam F in his age38 year and Djoko has yet to). Hence better numbers for Djoko.

And I agree on laver.

Pete and Borg were both what ifs. Gone too soon. But Pete couldn’t play on clay. All of Borg’s channel slams weigh on my rankings pretty heavily. Also think Borg had more competition. Sampras feasted on bums in so many of his Finals

 

[SriVan90]

I think Fed had better game but Djoko better timing and probably longevity (although Fed made a Slam F in his age38 year and Djoko has yet to). Hence better numbers for Djoko.

And I agree on laver.

Pete and Borg were both what ifs. Gone too soon. But Pete couldn’t play on clay. All of Borg’s channel slams weigh on my rankings pretty heavily. Also think Borg had more competition. Sampras feasted on bums in so many of his Finals

Federer gifted Djokovic 2019 Wimbledon, if he managed to win that i would have given unanimous support to Federer for defeating nadal and djokovic back to back at that age. Sampras dominated everyone in his era, Borg struggled later against McEnroe.