Who are top 10 of the Open Era per surface

[ripitup]

Who are the 10 best players of the Open Era per surface. Here are mine:

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Nadal
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Laver (just his Open Era performances)
10. Newcombe



Hard Courts:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal (close to passing Agassi and McEnroe though)
9. Courier
10. Becker



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Laver (Open Era performances only)





Grass:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Venus
5. Court
6. King
7. Goolagong
8. Evert
9. Henin
10. Davenport or Mauresmo


Clay:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Henin
4. Court
5. Seles
6. Serena Williams
7. Sanchez Vicario
8. Navratilova
9. Sabatini
10. Hingis, Martinez, or Pierce


Hard Courts:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Seles
5. Navatilova
6. Henin
7. Clijsters
8. Hingis
9. Davenport
10. Azarenka

 

[timnz]

Who are the 10 best players of the Open Era per surface. Here are mine:

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Nadal
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Laver (just his Open Era performances)
10. Newcombe



Hard Courts:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal (close to passing Agassi and McEnroe though)
9. Courier
10. Becker



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Laver (Open Era performances only)





Grass:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Venus
5. Court
6. King
7. Goolagong
8. Evert
9. Henin
10. Davenport or Mauresmo


Clay:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Henin
4. Court
5. Seles
6. Serena Williams
7. Sanchez Vicario
8. Navratilova
9. Sabatini
10. Hingis, Martinez, or Pierce


Hard Courts:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Seles
5. Navatilova
6. Henin
7. Clijsters
8. Hingis
9. Davenport
10. Azarenka

Connors vs Lendl on hard courts? This is a hard one to call. Lendl has 5 hard court majors to Connors 3. On the other hand Connors has 44 official titles on hard (12 of them indoor) whereas has 30 official titles on hard (9 of them Indoor)

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal is not above Edberg in grass. How is Laver (open era ) better than Fed on clay ?

Federer has better records at Wimbledon than Sampras, he is number 1 there without a question. Federer played at grass better than Sampras who won most points just with serve.

Federer has way better records over Sampras on hard courts, it is not even a comparison.

 

[Fedinkum]

Your men list is very fair, but I agreed with tennisaddict, Edberg has to be higher on grass.

 

[granddog29]

Women:

Hard Courts (only starting in 1978 )- 1. Rena, 2. Graf, 3. Nav, 4. Seles, 5. Evert, 6. Hingm, 7. Hen, 8. Dav, 9. Clij, 10. Pova

Clay: 1. Henin, 2. Evert, 3. Graf, 4. Seles, 5. Court, 6. Sanchez, 7. Richey, 8. Jones, 9. Rena, 10. Nav.

Grass: 1. Nav, 2. Rena, 3. Graf, 4. Court, 5. Venus, 6. King, 7. Evert, 8. Goolagong, 9. Davenport, 10. Mauresmo

Carpet (up until 2002 or so): 1. Nav, 2. Graf, 3. Hingis and Davenport, 5. Evert, 6. Goolagong, 7. King and Court.



Dont really care as much about the men, but will do them anyway.

Grass: 1. Sampras, 2. Borg (over Federer due to way tougher competition), 3. Federer, 4. McEnroe (over Becker due to way tougher competition), 5. Becker, 6. Nadal, 7. Connors (over Edberg due to way tougher competition), 8. Laver, 9. Edberg, 10. Newcombe

Hard Courts (only since 1977): 1. Sampras, 2. Federer, 3. Djokovic (will move to #1 on my list if he reaches 8 hard court majors), 4. Lendl, 5. Connors, 6. Agassi, 7. McEnroe, 8. Nadal (will move to 4th on my list if he wins another 2 hard court majors and a WTF), 9. Becker, 10. Edberg

Clay: 1. Nadal, 2 Borg, 3. Lendl, 4. Kuerten, 5. Vilas (above Wilander due to way tougher clay era), 6. Wilander, 7. Courier (above Muster due to total ownage head to head), 8. Muster, 9. Bruguera (below Muster due to total ownage head to head), 10. Ferrero or Laver (Laver was best clay courter in World 2 years in Open Era 1969 and the year he crushed FO winner Kodes at Rome final, Ferrero probably was too both 2002 and 2003 despite losing 2002 French, so tough call between them)

Carpet (only up until 2002): 1. Sampras, 2. Becker, 3. McEnroe, 4. Lendl, 5. Borg, 6. Connors, 7. Laver, 8. Newcombe, 9. Nastase, 10. Smith

 

[granddog29]

Your men list is very fair, but I agreed with tennisaddict, Edberg has to be higher on grass.

Why should Edberg be over Nadal who reached the finals of 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, in addition to winning 2. Edberg never did that, although he has 2 Wimbledon titles. Nadal also played in 2 of the greatest Wimbledon finals ever against Federer, the so called grass GOAT on Planet TW, winning one and losing one barely. Edberg never faced a rival on grass of Federer's level, Becker was his biggest, and Federer > Becker on grass.

Why should Edberg even be over Connors for that matter. Edberg being given credit for his Australian Opens on grass? Well Connors won both the Australian and U.S Open on grass, despite that he only had 3 combined chances at either. Connors was in more Wimbledon finals than Edberg as well (5 to 3).

Come to think of it Connors could be above Nadal too, especialy with Nadal's embarssing performances at the last 2 Wimbledons while still being highly ranked, and definitely has to be over Edberg.

 

[MrFlip]

Why is it whenever lists are made that Federer is excluded from being in the top 10 on clay? The guy made 4 straight finals, lost to the best claycourter of all time and won one. He would have won 2 RG titles if it weren't for Nadal in 05 stopping him.

Fed = 5 Finals, 1 Win, 2 SF. Might not look good but when you find out who he lost to each time you have to reconsider.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Why is it whenever lists are made that Federer is excluded from being in the top 10 on clay? The guy made 4 straight finals, lost to the best claycourter of all time and won one. He would have won if it weren't for Nadal in 05 stopping him.

Fed = 5 Finals, 1 Win, 2 SF. Might not look good but when you find out who he lost to each time you have to reconsider.

Agreed, Federer would be multi RG champion if he didn't have the misfortune of running into Nadal, who's not only clay GOAT but a bad match up as well.

 

[granddog29]

Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, are way better than Federer on clay without question.

Most put Vilas and Muster higher since they won like 40+ titles on clay vs a mere 10 for Federer. All 3 have 1 French Open. Vilas and Muster also won a greater variety of Masters titles. Federer's FO finals are not enough of a case, only a 2nd French would have been.

Courier and Bruguera not only won 2 French Opens, they defended the title making it even more impressive.

Laver was the Worlds best clay courter in both 1969 and 1972. Federer never was, even the year he won the French nobody considered him a better clay courter than Nadal at that point.

Ferrero has won all the biggest clay titles- French, Monte Carlo, and Rome, while Federer has only won the French. Ferrero was also the clear guy to beat on clay, and just as Federer was denied by Nadal, was denied atleast a couple more French Opens by Kuerten, and a couple more likely by a prime ending injury too.

Nastase, Kodes, would have strong cases to be better than Federer on clay too.


Federer has only 1 French Open title, hasnt won any clay Masters outside of Hamburg/Madrid, and has only 10 clay titles. There is ample reason to put alot of people over him, even just in modern times.

Federer fans arguing he should be higher due to Nadal is funny. Federer fans never argue Nadal should be higher due to what he would have won on grass without Federer. According to them as well the clay field today is the all time sewer low, while the grass field is supposably some amazing stock of all time grass legends, yet Federer should be elevated due to clay competition, and Nadal on grass pushed down because of it. Such twisted standards.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I fail to see how Sampras could be considered a greater hard court player than Federer.

Federer is equal on US Opens but won 5 consecutively (compared to 2 for Sampras), more Aussie Opens and more WTFs.

His combined hard-court majors winning percentage is higher, as is his M1000 level hard court percentages. He also has 15 M1000 level titles on hard court versus 10 for Sampras (including carpet).

 

[Bobby Jr]

Why should Edberg be over Nadal who reached the finals of 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, in addition to winning 2. Edberg never did that, although he has 2 Wimbledon titles...

Because Edberg also won two Australian Opens on grass. He has 4 grass court majors to Nadal's 2.

There is no contest, Edberg is the greater grass court player at this point in time.

I know the argument that follows will basically be that Nadal didn't have the chance to win the AO on grass so the numbers can't be compared... but then he's had more chances on high bouncing hard courts at the AO which ought to suit him even better and has so far only won 1 title there.

If the argument goes that he had no chance to win the AO on grass therefore Edbergs extras there come with an asterisk next to them then you must also negate Rod Laver's calendar slams for the same reason (not to mention Wilander's 1st AO as well). Is that your position?

 

[MrFlip]

Who are the 10 best players of the Open Era per surface. Here are mine:

Grass:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Nadal
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Laver (just his Open Era performances)
10. Newcombe



Hard Courts:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic = He will win another US and an AO or two more
3. Sampras
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal (close to passing Agassi and McEnroe though)
9. Courier
10. Becker



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Federer I would like to see anyone else beat Nadal on clay courts. If Fed coudln't how will most of the others on this list be able to?
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Laver (Open Era performances only)





Grass:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Venus
5. Court
6. King
7. Goolagong
8. Evert
9. Henin
10. Davenport or Mauresmo


Clay:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Henin
4. Court
5. Seles
6. Serena Williams
7. Sanchez Vicario
8. Navratilova
9. Sabatini
10. Hingis, Martinez, or Pierce


Hard Courts:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Seles
5. Navatilova
6. Henin
7. Clijsters
8. Hingis
9. Davenport
10. Azarenka

sdfinsiofnswfsfsfs

 

[Hops]

HC slams (finals)

9 (11) Federer
7 (11) Sampras
6 (10) Agassi
5 (11) Lendl
5 (9) Djokovic

 

[90's Clay]

Top 10 is difficult to gauge.

Best player per surface open era IMO

Slow Hards- Agassi or Djokovic
Grass- Sampras
Fast Hards- Sampras
Clay- Nadal
Indoors- Federer or Sampras or Becker. They are all awfully close. I would probably give the edge to the former since they are just much better indoor quality players at the time than there has been the last 10 years

 

[The_Begum_of_Bhopal]

Open Era only

Hard:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Aggasi
4. Lendl
6. Djokovic
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Nadal
10. Edberg

Grass:
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Edberg
7. Connors
8. Nadal
9. Laver
10. Newcombe

Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Kuerten
6. Courier
7. Federer
8. Bruguera
9. Muster
10. Vilas

 

[tennisaddict]

Novak will be better than Sampras on hard when he is done.

The OP is a joke putting Sampras above Fed on Hard.

 

[90's Clay]

Novak will be better than Sampras on hard when he is done.

The OP is a joke putting Sampras above Fed on Hard.

Not unless Novak does something at the USO. 1 USO doesn't cut it. Sampras has 2 AO's and 5 USO's

 

[granddog29]

Top 10 is difficult to gauge.

Best player per surface open era IMO

Slow Hards- Agassi or Djokovic
Grass- Sampras
Fast Hards- Sampras
Clay- Nadal
Indoors- Federer or Sampras or Becker. They are all awfully close. I would probably give the edge to the former since they are just much better indoor quality players at the time than there has been the last 10 years

Indoors is not a surface. Only carpet is and Federer has barely even played on carpet, so there is no way he can be ranked.

An indoor hard court is just another form of fast hard court (or these days slow hard court really).

 

[timnz]

Top 10 is difficult to gauge.

Best player per surface open era IMO

Slow Hards- Agassi or Djokovic
Grass- Sampras
Fast Hards- Sampras
Clay- Nadal
Indoors- Federer or Sampras or Becker. They are all awfully close. I would probably give the edge to the former since they are just much better indoor quality players at the time than there has been the last 10 years

Indoors - Lendl and McEnroe are over Becker (7 and 8 major indoor titles respectively vs 5 for Becker - I have included both WCT finals and Grand Slam cup, along with the Masters to even out the opportunities).

 

[tennisaddict]

Not unless Novak does something at the USO. 1 USO doesn't cut it. Sampras has 2 AO's and 5 USO's

Novak will end up with 6 AO and 3 USO, a clear 2 majors ahead of Sampras. And winning all this in the era of GOAT and 2 other great hard courters is damn impressive. There are great number of hard courters in this era as compared to other surfaces, making it all the more creditable.

 

[BobbyOne]

Who are the 10 best players of the Open Era per surface. Here are mine:

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Nadal
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Laver (just his Open Era performances)
10. Newcombe



Hard Courts:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal (close to passing Agassi and McEnroe though)
9. Courier
10. Becker



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Laver (Open Era performances only)





Grass:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Venus
5. Court
6. King
7. Goolagong
8. Evert
9. Henin
10. Davenport or Mauresmo


Clay:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Henin
4. Court
5. Seles
6. Serena Williams
7. Sanchez Vicario
8. Navratilova
9. Sabatini
10. Hingis, Martinez, or Pierce


Hard Courts:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Seles
5. Navatilova
6. Henin
7. Clijsters
8. Hingis
9. Davenport
10. Azarenka

Since you include Laver for clay performance you also could include Rosewall who had at least the same open era record.

 

[tennisaddict]

Look at some delusional fans

Fed having wins over a clear clay GOAT on clay and having 5 finals, 2 semi finals, masters wins does not count much.

Fed is not a grass GOAT either according to them. However Nadal is great in grass even when losing 2 finals against Fed.

 

[90's Clay]

Look at some delusional fans

Fed having wins over a clear clay GOAT on clay and having 5 finals, 2 semi finals, masters wins does not count much.

Fed is not a grass GOAT either according to them. However Nadal is great in grass even when losing 2 finals against Fed.

Fed is among the Grass GOATs. Who said he wasn't? He certainly in the conversation with Sampras, Pancho, and Laver.

If you're going to use the "djokovic played in a tough Hardcourt era" than we can say Fed had a WEAKER grass court era to play in (Which is obvious) along with playing in a WEAKER clay field today in terms of depth of field.

Neither grass or clay has been a quality field since the 90s. Only hardcourt has been solid

 

[timnz]

Novak will end up with 6 AO and 3 USO, a clear 2 majors ahead of Sampras. And winning all this in the era of GOAT and 2 other great hard courters is damn impressive. There are great number of hard courters in this era as compared to other surfaces, making it all the more creditable.

Players can only be rated on what they have done not what they will potentially do.

 

[granddog29]

Look at some delusional fans

Fed having wins over a clear clay GOAT on clay and having 5 finals, 2 semi finals, masters wins does not count much.

Fed is not a grass GOAT either according to them. However Nadal is great in grass even when losing 2 finals against Fed.

The delusional ones are the Federer fans who rank Federer the same or higher on clay as Nadal on grass.

Nadal has 5 Wimbledon finals like Federer. Nadal is a mulitple Wimbledon Champion, while Federer is not. Nadal played in 2 of the all time greatest Wimbledon finals against the so called grass great Federer, winning 1 of them, while Federer could not even come close to beating Nadal at the French.

Only a Federer fan would dispute Nadal on grass > Federer on clay (while Nadal on clay > Federer on grass as well).

 

[tennisaddict]

The delusional ones are the Federer fans who rank Federer the same or higher on clay as Nadal on grass.

Nadal has 5 Wimbledon finals like Federer. Nadal is a mulitple Wimbledon Champion, while Federer is not. Nadal played in 2 of the all time greatest Wimbledon finals against the so called grass great Federer, winning 1 of them, while Federer could not even come close to beating Nadal at the French.

Only a Federer fan would dispute Nadal on grass > Federer on clay (while Nadal on clay > Federer on grass as well).

Now, you are changing arguments..

Looks back at your earlier posts justifying why Fed is not top 10 in clay and why Nadal is placed where he is on grass.

After Rafa's 8th FO, it is accepted that his achievements are greater than Federer's on grass, though marginally. Fed has 7 Wim + 1 final. And Wimbledon is valued more than FO historically.

 

[tennisaddict]

The delusional ones are the Federer fans who rank Federer the same or higher on clay as Nadal on grass.

Nadal has 5 Wimbledon finals like Federer. Nadal is a mulitple Wimbledon Champion, while Federer is not. Nadal played in 2 of the all time greatest Wimbledon finals against the so called grass great Federer, winning 1 of them, while Federer could not even come close to beating Nadal at the French.

Only a Federer fan would dispute Nadal on grass > Federer on clay (while Nadal on clay > Federer on grass as well).

Choosing Fed over other 1 or 2 FO winners is pathetic way to drum down Fed's achievements..Except for a couple on the clay list, no one is giving a bagel to Nadal on clay or winning sets in Nadal's prime.

Similarly Nadal over Edberg on grass ? Laughable.

 

[granddog29]

Novak will end up with 6 AO and 3 USO, a clear 2 majors ahead of Sampras. And winning all this in the era of GOAT and 2 other great hard courters is damn impressive. There are great number of hard courters in this era as compared to other surfaces, making it all the more creditable.

If Novak ends up with 6 AO and 3 USO he is clearly above both Federer and Sampras on hard courts. All Novak's extra slam finals on hard courts, almost certainly higher # of Masters titles, and playing in a way tougher hard court era than Federer, Federer would have NO case against Djokovic on hard courts if he reaches 9 hard court majors like Federer. Then on the other side, Novak being better than Federer on both hard courts and clay (he is likely to pass Federer on clay), and being better than Sampras on both hard courts and clay, will also forever destroy the last Federer fan final future refuge in the Federer vs Nadal debate (being better on 2 of the 3 surfaces automatically equals better) out of the water too. So dont get too excited about your own baseless, Nadal and Murray hating based, and unlikely to happen anyway prediction.

 

[bullfan]

Now, you are changing arguments..

Looks back at your earlier posts justifying why Fed is not top 10 in clay and why Nadal is placed where he is on grass.

After Rafa's 8th FO, it is accepted that his achievements are greater than Federer's on grass, though marginally. Fed has 7 Wim + 1 final. And Wimbledon is valued more than FO historically.

A GS is a grand slam. I dispute grass being ranked higher because its played the least. Wimbledon is considered prestigious, but it is played on a surface players play on not more than twice a year. Clay allows players time to adapt and practice, so it should be easier. And if one uses the grass is harder, then why does Borg have 3, Rafa 2, and Fed only 1!

 

[Goosehead]

not only does Federer have a better record on grass than Sampras.

also Federer beat Sampras on grass too..at Wimbledon lets not forget,

and Federer has the best grass ct win % in the open era probably.

folk who put Sampras>Federer are just haters who are ugly on the inside..just don't even look at me. :twisted:

 

[tennisaddict]

If Novak ends up with 6 AO and 3 USO he is clearly above both Federer and Sampras on hard courts. All Novak's extra slam finals on hard courts, almost certainly higher # of Masters titles, and playing in a way tougher hard court era than Federer, Federer would have NO case against Djokovic on hard courts if he reaches 9 hard court majors like Federer. Then on the other side, Novak being better than Federer on both hard courts and clay (he is likely to pass Federer on clay), and being better than Sampras on both hard courts and clay, will also forever destroy the last Federer fan final future refuge in the Federer vs Nadal debate (being better on 2 of the 3 surfaces automatically equals better) out of the water too. So dont get too excited about your own baseless, Nadal and Murray hating based, and unlikely to happen anyway prediction.

First of, with just 2 more hard court wins, Novak will be better than Sampras. Even if he gets up to 9 hard court majors, Fed would still be the greatest. Can we apply the ******* H2H logic with Fed-Novak now ?

 

[tennisaddict]

A GS is a grand slam. I dispute grass being ranked higher because its played the least. Wimbledon is considered prestigious, but it is played on a surface players play on not more than twice a year. Clay allows players time to adapt and practice, so it should be easier. And if one uses the grass is harder, then why does Borg have 3, Rafa 2, and Fed only 1!

Yes, that makes it harder to achieve the win at Wimbledon. You just have 1 prep tournament and a week between FO and Wimbledon. You have a full 2-3 months prep for FO.

 

[ultradr]

Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander, are way better than Federer on clay without question.

Hmm,... Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander ?

On the paper, yes, they are better. But Federer competed the undisputed
clay GOAT with immortal record.

The thing is, if Federer played in 70's - 90's, he would have excelled at
French and Australian Open. Probably not as successful as now at fast
Wimbledon and US Open.

We should have more surfaces hinges on 2003 - 2004 changes on grass and hard courts:
they are dramatically different surfaces.

slow hard courts: #1 Federer
slow grass courts: #1 Federer

Fast hard courts: #1 Sampras
Fast grass courts: #1 Sampras

 

[granddog29]

Hmm,... Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander ?

On the paper, yes, they are better.

No they are plain better. Kuerten whooped peak Federer at the French Open when he had a grandpa hip and was years past his prime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKGHmIxMCY

End of discussion already. Sorry dont embarass yourself by even trying to compare Federer to those guys on clay. Try and stick to making a case for Federer against the guys most of us have bottom top 10 over Federer like Muster.

 

[fatichar]

Only a Federer fan would dispute Nadal on grass > Federer on clay (while Nadal on clay > Federer on grass as well).

I am a Fed respecting Nadal fan.

I consider Fed on clay > Nadal on grass

And

Nadal on clay > Federer on grass

Let me give them points to make it clear

Nadal Clay : 9.5
Fed Grass : 8.5
Nadal grass : 7
Fed clay : 7.5

 

[fatichar]

After Rafa's 8th FO, it is accepted that his achievements are greater than Federer's on grass, though *marginally*. Fed has 7 Wim + 1 final. And Wimbledon is valued more than FO historically.

You are the first person I found who thinks clay Nadal is only marginally better than grass Fed.

Fed has lost to who all at Wimby?

Nadal
Berd
Tsonga
Stakovsky
And donno whom prior to his first title

And Nadal at FO?

Soderling

How many times Fed won Wimby without loosing a set? I think none. Even 20 yr old first time finalist Nadal took a set off him.

And Nadal won FO twice without dropping a set. Remember 1-3-0!
Also straight setted his only conquerer Sod the very next year, giving credibility to the claim that his loss was due to injury.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Men only.

Grass:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. McEnroe
5. Becker
6. Newcombe (Open Era only)
7. Edberg
8. Laver (Open Era only)
9. Connors
10. Nadal

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Federer

Hard:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Agassi
4. Djokovic
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Connors
8. Nadal
9. Wilander
10. Rafter

 

[tennisaddict]

You are the first person I found who thinks clay Nadal is only marginally better than grass Fed.

Fed has lost to who all at Wimby?

Nadal
Berd
Tsonga
Stakovsky
And donno whom prior to his first title

And Nadal at FO?

Soderling

How many times Fed won Wimby without loosing a set? I think none. Even 20 yr old first time finalist Nadal took a set off him.

And Nadal won FO twice without dropping a set. Remember 1-3-0!
Also straight setted his only conquerer Sod the very next year, giving credibility to the claim that his loss was due to injury.

Nadal has lost sets to much lower ranked players at FO. Wait till Rafa is 32 to see who all he loses at FO.

 

[ibbi]

Grass:-

01. Sampras
02. Borg
03. Federer
04. McEnroe
05. Becker
06. Newcombe
07. Edberg
08. Connors
09. Laver

Last spot is open, I'd be tempted to narrow it down to Nadal, Wilander, Rosewall, and Ivanisevic.

01. Navratilova
02. Court
03. King
04. Graf
05. Goolagong
06. Evert
07. Venus
08. Serena
09. Mandlíkova
10. Uhhhhh, Virginia Wade.

I'm bored. I'll do the rest some other time

 

[jean pierre]

Open Era only

Hard:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Aggasi
4. Lendl
6. Djokovic
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Nadal
10. Edberg

Grass:
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Edberg
7. Connors
8. Nadal
9. Laver
10. Newcombe

Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Kuerten
6. Courier
7. Federer
8. Bruguera
9. Muster
10. Vilas

Courier, Bruguera, Federer, Muster better than Vilas on clay ??

 

[Matthew Bance]

hard:
1. Federer,
2. Djokovic
3. Jimmy Connors
4. Pete Sampras
5. Andre Agassi
6. Ivan Lendl
7. John McEnroe
8. Rafael Nadal
9. Andy Murray
10. Lyton Hewitt and andy Roddick


grass
1. Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rod laver
5. Boris Becker
6. Stefan Edberg
7. John McEnroe
8. Andy Murray
9. Rafael Nadal
10. Goran Ivanisevic

clay
1. Rafael Nadal
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Gustavo Kuerten
4. Ivan Lendl
5. Roger Federer
6. mats wilander
7. Jim courier
8. guerlimo vilas
9. Thomas muster
10. Michael chang

 

[granddog29]

Courier, Bruguera, Federer, Muster better than Vilas on clay ??

Federer isnt, but the rest all could be. Muster dominated clay for 2 years. Vilas never dominated clay. Courier and Bruguera defended a French Open title. Vilas could only win one his whole career (and with Borg absent).

 

[tennis_pro]

Sampras better than Federer on HC based on what?

Every single HC stat Fed is better than Sampras - more majors, more finals, more consecutive wins, more streaks (10 AO SF in a row!), more finals/sems, better winning %, more WTF's, better record against rivals at least until 2012. Seriously, there is no argument for Pete at this stage made by a non-nostalgic fan.

The same applies to grass - and also Federer beat Sampras in their only grass meeting.

 

[FedererWinsWimbledon2014]

Funny how people don't rank Roger on clay.

He had the clay GOAT in his era otherwise we are looking at 6 Roland Garros titles

 

[Thriller]

Funny how people don't rank Roger on clay.

He had the clay GOAT in his era otherwise we are looking at 6 Roland Garros titles

He is still paying dearly for getting beaten and bagelled by Patrick Rafter :shock: at the French Open. That is almost an instantaneous disqualification from the GOAT on Clay debate.

But seriously ....

Federer didn't ever play Nadal close enough at the French Open for it to be a clear cut case that he would have beaten the genuine clay court specialists that existed back in the day. Playing really well to reach the final in 2008, he got absolutely thrashed when he got there.

Someone has already pointed out Federer's 2004 performance vs an aging, wounded Kuerten. No excuses for that.

Can you really be sure that Federer would have fared any better against Thomas Muster, another great fighting lefty who would have pummelled that backhand just as mercilessly as Nadal?

My money would be on Muster.

And in any case you cannot have it both ways. If 17 is always greater than 14 or 13 then anyone with more than 1 FO is always greater than Federer on clay.

 

[TMF]

Funny how people don't rank Roger on clay.

He had the clay GOAT in his era otherwise we are looking at 6 Roland Garros titles

He's easily in the top 10. Only Nadal, Borg, Lendl have made at least 5 FO finals.

 

[chandu612]

Who are the 10 best players of the Open Era per surface. Here are mine:

Grass:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe
6. Nadal
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Laver (just his Open Era performances)
10. Newcombe



Hard Courts:

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal (close to passing Agassi and McEnroe though)
9. Courier
10. Becker



Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Kuerten
5. Wilander
6. Vilas
7. Muster
8. Courier
9. Bruguera
10. Laver (Open Era performances only)

Nadal the only player in all the three lists. Damn that is some Goat stuff

 

[chandu612]

He is still paying dearly for getting beaten and bagelled by Patrick Rafter :shock: at the French Open. That is almost an instantaneous disqualification from the GOAT on Clay debate.

But seriously ....

Federer didn't ever play Nadal close enough at the French Open for it to be a clear cut case that he would have beaten the genuine clay court specialists that existed back in the day. Playing really well to reach the final in 2008, he got absolutely thrashed when he got there.

Someone has already pointed out Federer's 2004 performance vs an aging, wounded Kuerten. No excuses for that.

Can you really be sure that Federer would have fared any better against Thomas Muster, another great fighting lefty who would have pummelled that backhand just as mercilessly as Nadal?

My money would be on Muster.

And in any case you cannot have it both ways. If 17 is always greater than 14 or 13 then anyone with more than 1 FO is always greater than Federer on clay.

SPOT ON......

 

[chandu612]

He's easily in the top 10. Only Nadal, Borg, Lendl have made at least 5 FO finals.

And how do you rate Nadal on grass with 5 finals?..yup thats what I thought

 

[TMF]

And how do you rate Nadal on grass with 5 finals?..yup thats what I thought

Did I ever rated him outside of the top 10? No.

Just because Nadal fans lowball Federer doesn't mean I should lowball Nadal either, if that what you expect from every Federer fan then you are wrong.