Year end #1 excluding ATGs from the ranking

[junkieballer]

Year end #1 excluding ATGs:

Spoiler

1968 Ashe
1969 Roche
1970 Ashe
1971 Newcombe
1972 Nastase
1973 Nastase
1974 Newcombe
1975 Vilas
1976 Nastase
1977 Vilas
1978 Vilas
1979 Gerulaitis
1980 Vilas
1981 Clerc
1982 Vilas
1983 Noah
1984 Gomez
1985 Noah
1986 Noah
1987 Mecir
1988 Carlsson
1989 Chang
1990 Gomez
1991 Courier
1992 Courier
1993 Stich
1994 Bruguera
1995 Muster
1996 Chang
1997 Rafter
1998 Rios
1999 Kafelnikov
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt
2003 Roddick
2004 Roddick
2005 Roddick
2006 Davydenko
2007 Davydenko
2008 Murray
2009 Murray
2010 Murray
2011 Murray
2012 Murray
2013 Ferrer
2014 Wawrinka
2015 Murray
2016 Murray
2017 Dimitrov
2018 Zverev
2019 Thiem
2020 Thiem
2021 Medvedev
2022 Ruud
2023 Medvedev
2024 Zverev
2025 Zverev

Total:

Murray 7
Vilas 5
Nastase, Noah, Roddick, Zverev 3
Ashe, Newcombe, Gomez, Chang, Courier, Hewitt, Davydenko, Thiem, Medvedev 2
Roche, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Mecir, Carlsson, Stich, Bruguera, Muster, Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrer, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Ruud 1

 

[junkieballer]

combined with this:

Best players outside ATGs since 2000

No "Big 3" is a huge what-if anyway, to the point that it's almost irrelevant to discuss. We can discuss what would happen if ONE particular player wasn't around, but 3? Especially the 3 that dominated that era is totally pointless. It's like asking who would win the slams without the top 20 at...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Murray 14-17 Slams and 7 year end #1s
Courier 7-8 Slams and 2 year end #1s
Vilas 6-7 Slams and 5 year end #1s
Newcombe 4-5 Slams and 2 year end #1s
Nastase 3-4 Slams and 3 year end #1s

Murray is by far the best non-ATG, and an actual ATG for me.

 

[Rosstour]

combined with this:

Best players outside ATGs since 2000

No "Big 3" is a huge what-if anyway, to the point that it's almost irrelevant to discuss. We can discuss what would happen if ONE particular player wasn't around, but 3? Especially the 3 that dominated that era is totally pointless. It's like asking who would win the slams without the top 20 at...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Murray 14-17 Slams and 7 year end #1s
Courier 7-8 Slams and 2 year end #1s
Vilas 6-7 Slams and 5 year end #1s
Newcombe 4-5 Slams and 2 year end #1s
Nastase 3-4 Slams and 3 year end #1s

Murray is by far the best non-ATG, and an actual ATG for me.

Agree

Dunno why people can’t see it

 

[Drighiz]

Medvedev, Zverev and Ruud still have years to play though. I feel like perhaps a more accurate representation of what you are trying to show would be seeing the peak ELO reached by a player in their career? It's very possible that Sir Andy reached an ELO similar to the Big 3, and much higher than the rest, which would corroborate your point right away.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

So you agree Murray is not an ATG. Great.

 

[Vito Andolini]

This is a very slippery slope and I don't wanna walk on it and risk breaking my hip like Andeh.

 

[junkieballer]

Medvedev, Zverev and Ruud still have years to play though. I feel like perhaps a more accurate representation of what you are trying to show would be seeing the peak ELO reached by a player in their career? It's very possible that Sir Andy reached an ELO similar to the Big 3, and much higher than the rest, which would corroborate your point right away.

Nadal 2552
Federer 2550
Murray 2500
Vilas 2431
Nastase 2363
Courier 2330
Newcombe 2327

In peak ELO Murray is closer to Nadal and Federer than he is to others.

 

[junkieballer]

So you agree Murray is not an ATG. Great.

I think he is, although not 100% sure, but in this thread I am assuming that he is not.

If he is not ATG he is certainly the best among non-ATGs, the numbers don't lie.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I think he is, although not 100% sure, but in this thread I am assuming that he is not.

If he is not ATG he is certainly the best among non-ATGs, the numbers don't lie.

Courier is the best non-ATG.

 

[SonnyT]

Year end #1 excluding ATGs:

Spoiler

1968 Ashe
1969 Roche
1970 Ashe
1971 Newcombe
1972 Nastase
1973 Nastase
1974 Newcombe
1975 Vilas
1976 Nastase
1977 Vilas
1978 Vilas
1979 Gerulaitis
1980 Vilas
1981 Clerc
1982 Vilas
1983 Noah
1984 Gomez
1985 Noah
1986 Noah
1987 Mecir
1988 Carlsson
1989 Chang
1990 Gomez
1991 Courier
1992 Courier
1993 Stich
1994 Bruguera
1995 Muster
1996 Chang
1997 Rafter
1998 Rios
1999 Kafelnikov
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt
2003 Roddick
2004 Roddick
2005 Roddick
2006 Davydenko
2007 Davydenko
2008 Murray
2009 Murray
2010 Murray
2011 Murray
2012 Murray
2013 Ferrer
2014 Wawrinka
2015 Murray
2016 Murray
2017 Dimitrov
2018 Zverev
2019 Thiem
2020 Thiem
2021 Medvedev
2022 Ruud
2023 Medvedev
2024 Zverev
2025 Zverev

Total:

Murray 7
Vilas 5
Nastase, Noah, Roddick, Zverev 3
Ashe, Newcombe, Gomez, Chang, Courier, Hewitt, Davydenko, Thiem, Medvedev 2
Roche, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Mecir, Carlsson, Stich, Bruguera, Muster, Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrer, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Ruud 1

Where's Roddick? He must have at least 10!

 

[Kralingen]

Congratulations Andy on your 15 extra Slams and 6 extra YE #1s. Murray fans still fighting this battle in 2026, even he has given up and accepted it… let sleeping dogs lie

 

[junkieballer]

Where's Roddick? He must have at least 10!

Roddick 3 (2003, 2004 2005)

 

[junkieballer]

Zverev is the only with 3+ years who has never won a Slam. It could even be 4 years, since he is #3 behind Sincaraz in the 2026 Race.

 

[junkieballer]

Courier is the best non-ATG.

You are too focused on peak.

If Courier's peak is 7, Murray's is 6.5.
If Murray's longevity is 7, Courier's is 4.

Murray 6.5 + 7 = 13.5
Courier 7 + 4 = 11

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You are too focused on peak.

If Courier's peak is 7, Murray's is 6.5.
If Murray's longevity is 7, Courier's is 4.

Murray 6.5 + 7 = 13.5
Courier 7 + 4 = 11

4>3
58>41
1>1(if you consider competition)

 

[junkieballer]

4>3
58>41
1>1(if you consider competition)

Weeks in top4 of the ranking: Murray 407, Courier 142.

In peak they are close, in longevity they are not.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Weeks in top4 of the ranking: Murray 407, Courier 142.

In peak they are close, in longevity they are not.

In the most important categories Courier leads. Nobody knows or cares about weeks in top4.

 

[junkieballer]

In the most important categories Courier leads. Nobody knows or cares about weeks in top4.

When comparing GOAT contenders those are the most important categories, but when comparing other players other stats also count.

It's like saying a 250 title is irrelevant achievement for Djokovic, but could be a lifetime achievement for Benneteau

 

[ErnestoVillanuevaCagliate]

Nadal 2552
Federer 2550
Murray 2500
Vilas 2431
Nastase 2363
Courier 2330
Newcombe 2327

In peak ELO Murray is closer to Nadal and Federer than he is to others.

As long as i see in that list Nadal ahead of Federer and Murray, i knew that rating isnt serious.

Cant you see that that rating is based purely in clay??

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

When comparing GOAT contenders those are the most important categories, but when comparing other players other stats also count.

It's like saying a 250 title is irrelevant achievement for Djokovic, but could be a lifetime achievement for Benneteau

A player leads the three most important categories he is ahead end of story.

 

[junkieballer]

A player leads the three most important categories he is ahead end of story.

In year end #1 they are tied.

So if Murray had

500 weeks in top2
30 Slam finals
50 big titles

you would still put him below Courier?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In year end #1 they are tied.

So if Murray had

500 weeks in top2
30 Slam finals
50 big titles

you would still put him below Courier?

500 weeks in top 2 but less weeks in No.1 and 30 slam finals but only 3 slams shows me that this player was never dominating his era but always played the most second fiddle. 50 big titles but only 3 slams would mean something like 40+ masters at least so it is a nonsense hypothetical.
I would put Courier definitely above, but it is also an extreme like asking would a guy with 4 slams but 30 Masters, 3 YECs, 150 weeks at No.1 be an ATG? Certain cases will never happen.

 

[junkieballer]

500 weeks in top 2 but less weeks in No.1 and 30 slam finals but only 3 slams shows me that this player was never dominating his era but always played the most second fiddle. 50 big titles but only 3 slams would mean something like 40+ masters at least so it is a nonsense hypothetical.
I would put Courier definitely above, but it is also an extreme like asking would a guy with 4 slams but 30 Masters, 3 YECs, 150 weeks at No.1 be an ATG? Certain cases will never happen.

It can happen, it's a giga Zverev LOL

 

[RS]

500 weeks in top 2 but less weeks in No.1 and 30 slam finals but only 3 slams shows me that this player was never dominating his era but always played the most second fiddle. 50 big titles but only 3 slams would mean something like 40+ masters at least so it is a nonsense hypothetical.
I would put Courier definitely above, but it is also an extreme like asking would a guy with 4 slams but 30 Masters, 3 YECs, 150 weeks at No.1 be an ATG? Certain cases will never happen.

Interesting example.

The last 3 categories are more in line with double digit slam winners but the slam count falls 1 or 2 short of the threshold on TTW for a ATG. Personally I would consider this a ATG myself.

 

[Razer]

Congratulations Andy on your 15 extra Slams and 6 extra YE #1s. Murray fans still fighting this battle in 2026, even he has given up and accepted it… let sleeping dogs lie

Murray was and will always remain an abject loser against ATGs, a weaponless pusher like Hewitt, no better..

 

[Mainad]

Murray was and will always remain an abject loser against ATGs, a weaponless pusher like Hewitt, no better..

Yep, 12 big titles won against ATGs (2 Slams, a WTF, an Olympics and 8 Masters) but, in your book, he's just an abject loser against them. I guess you just keep on having to tell that to yourself to make you believe it.

 

[Razer]

Yep, 12 big titles won against ATGs (2 Slams, a WTF, an Olympics and 8 Masters) but, in your book, he's just an abject loser against them. I guess you just keep on having to tell that to yourself to make you believe it.

I only rate Slams, so yes he is that, no different from Hewitt. They are not ATGs

 

[junkieballer]

I only rate Slams, so yes he is that, no different from Hewitt. They are not ATGs

He won 2 Slams beating ATGs, Hewitt 1

 

[Mainad]

I only rate Slams, so yes he is that, no different from Hewitt. They are not ATGs

Still beat all 3 of the ATGs of his era at the Slams so, even by that metric, he may be overall a loser but an abject one wouldn't ever beat them at all and certainly not in 2 Slam finals.

 

[Razer]

Still beat all 3 of the ATGs of his era at the Slams so, even by that metric, he may be overall a loser but an abject one wouldn't ever beat them at all and certainly not in 2 Slam finals.

Ok he is not that bad, he is a great player too but the OP is pure troll and his motive in creating these threads is to elicit reactions like mine from normal posters on Murray. Thats what you need to understand. You are barking up the wrong tree because even I know Murray is not an abject loser, but these threads are pure rage bait you know... we need to blame the OP for posting fake manipulated stats.

 

[GabeT]

Year end #1 excluding ATGs:

Spoiler

1968 Ashe
1969 Roche
1970 Ashe
1971 Newcombe
1972 Nastase
1973 Nastase
1974 Newcombe
1975 Vilas
1976 Nastase
1977 Vilas
1978 Vilas
1979 Gerulaitis
1980 Vilas
1981 Clerc
1982 Vilas
1983 Noah
1984 Gomez
1985 Noah
1986 Noah
1987 Mecir
1988 Carlsson
1989 Chang
1990 Gomez
1991 Courier
1992 Courier
1993 Stich
1994 Bruguera
1995 Muster
1996 Chang
1997 Rafter
1998 Rios
1999 Kafelnikov
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt
2003 Roddick
2004 Roddick
2005 Roddick
2006 Davydenko
2007 Davydenko
2008 Murray
2009 Murray
2010 Murray
2011 Murray
2012 Murray
2013 Ferrer
2014 Wawrinka
2015 Murray
2016 Murray
2017 Dimitrov
2018 Zverev
2019 Thiem
2020 Thiem
2021 Medvedev
2022 Ruud
2023 Medvedev
2024 Zverev
2025 Zverev

Total:

Murray 7
Vilas 5
Nastase, Noah, Roddick, Zverev 3
Ashe, Newcombe, Gomez, Chang, Courier, Hewitt, Davydenko, Thiem, Medvedev 2
Roche, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Mecir, Carlsson, Stich, Bruguera, Muster, Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrer, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Ruud 1

What was your ATG definition? Six slams?

 

[Mainad]

Ok he is not that bad, he is a great player too but the OP is pure troll and his motive in creating these threads is to elicit reactions like mine from normal posters on Murray. Thats what you need to understand. You are barking up the wrong tree because even I know Murray is not an abject loser, but these threads are pure rage bait you know... we need to blame the OP for posting fake manipulated stats.

Well, we don't need to take threads like this too seriously when the OP is very likely just trolling.

 

[junkieballer]

What was your ATG definition? Six slams?

Sinner, Alcaraz, Big3, Sampras, Borg, Edberg, Becker,Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Laver, Rosewall

 

[GabeT]

Murray is by far the best non-ATG, and an actual ATG for me.

It’s funny how some posters will claim we can’t judge Federer or Nadal’s results against Novak unless we somehow imagine what results would be had they been born at another time. Yet they completely reject that option for a player like Murray, who had to face all the Big 3 (something that, by definition, none of the Big 3 had to do)

 

[junkieballer]

It’s funny how some posters will claim we can’t judge Federer or Nadal’s results against Novak unless we somehow imagine what results would be had they been born at another time. Yet they completely reject that option for a player like Murray, who had to face all the Big 3 (something that, by definition, none of the Big 3 had to do)

Some say Nole is not greater than Borg and Sampras despite 24>11 and 24>14 because you can't compare players of different eras, yet at the same time they say Becker and Edberg are better than Murray because of 6>3 despite they belongs to different eras

 

[GabeT]

Some say Nole is not greater than Borg and Sampras despite 24>11 and 24>14 because you can't compare players of different eras, yet at the same time they say Becker and Edberg are better than Murray because of 6>3 despite they belongs to different eras

Yep, I see things like this all the time.

 

[helterskelter]

Year end #1 excluding ATGs:

Spoiler

1968 Ashe
1969 Roche
1970 Ashe
1971 Newcombe
1972 Nastase
1973 Nastase
1974 Newcombe
1975 Vilas
1976 Nastase
1977 Vilas
1978 Vilas
1979 Gerulaitis
1980 Vilas
1981 Clerc
1982 Vilas
1983 Noah
1984 Gomez
1985 Noah
1986 Noah
1987 Mecir
1988 Carlsson
1989 Chang
1990 Gomez
1991 Courier
1992 Courier
1993 Stich
1994 Bruguera
1995 Muster
1996 Chang
1997 Rafter
1998 Rios
1999 Kafelnikov
2000 Kuerten
2001 Hewitt
2002 Hewitt
2003 Roddick
2004 Roddick
2005 Roddick
2006 Davydenko
2007 Davydenko
2008 Murray
2009 Murray
2010 Murray
2011 Murray
2012 Murray
2013 Ferrer
2014 Wawrinka
2015 Murray
2016 Murray
2017 Dimitrov
2018 Zverev
2019 Thiem
2020 Thiem
2021 Medvedev
2022 Ruud
2023 Medvedev
2024 Zverev
2025 Zverev

Total:

Murray 7
Vilas 5
Nastase, Noah, Roddick, Zverev 3
Ashe, Newcombe, Gomez, Chang, Courier, Hewitt, Davydenko, Thiem, Medvedev 2
Roche, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Mecir, Carlsson, Stich, Bruguera, Muster, Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrer, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Ruud 1

2024 and 2025 are Sinner (for now).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Some say Nole is not greater than Borg and Sampras despite 24>11 and 24>14 because you can't compare players of different eras, yet at the same time they say Becker and Edberg are better than Murray because of 6>3 despite they belongs to different eras

We have explained that to you already ad nauseam. Borg’s and Becker’s times were LESS SLAM CENTRIC than Murray’s/Djokovics. So when comparing Becker to Murray the slam count works in his favour since it was harder to win slams in his times and the 3 slam difference is actually bigger than in paper. With Djoko and Borg it works the other way and the difference is way less than the slam numbers suggest. Only a certified ignoramus would think that with a normal slam focused career Borg wouldn’t be closer to Djoko.

 

[junkieballer]

We have explained that to you already ad nauseam. Borg’s and Becker’s times were LESS SLAM CENTRIC than Murray’s/Djokovics. So when comparing Becker to Murray the slam count works in his favour since it was harder to win slams in his times and the 3 slam difference is actually bigger than in paper. With Djoko and Borg it works the other way and the difference is way less than the slam numbers suggest. Only a certified ignoramus would think that with a normal slam focused career Borg wouldn’t be closer to Djoko.

Even if we give Borg 3 free extra AOs it's still 24>14, nearly double

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Even if we give Borg 3 free extra AOs it's still 24>14, nearly double

Throw in polarised conditions, 16 seeds system, way less money and more uncomfortable travelling conditions and so on and so forth. Of course Borg would never get close to Novak’s slam count with ending his career at 25 which is completely on him. But even that is affected by the different eras they played in or do you think if Djoko asked today or even ten years ago to play a reduced schedule, ATP would have demanded him to play AO Qualies?

 

[junkieballer]

Throw in polarised conditions, 16 seeds system, way less money and more uncomfortable travelling conditions and so on and so forth. Of course Borg would never get close to Novak’s slam count with ending his career at 25 which is completely on him. But even that is affected by the different eras they played in or do you think if Djoko asked today or even ten years ago to play a reduced schedule, ATP would have demanded him to play AO Qualies?

And Djokovic and Murray had to deal with 2-3 GOATs, something Borg and Edberg didn't have to.

Who tells you that Edberg wins more than 3 Slams if he peaked in Big3 era?

If Djokovic Is not better than Borg despite 24>11 because you can't compare different eras then Edberg is not better than Murray despite 6>3 because you can't compare different eras.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And Djokovic and Murray had to deal with 2-3 GOATs, something Borg and Edberg didn't have to.

If Djokovic Is not better than Borg despite 24>11 because you can't compare different eras then Edberg is not better than Murray despite 6>3 because you can't compare different eras.

I didn’t say Djokovic is not better than Borg I said the difference between them is way closer than your mindless bean-counting of stats suggests since we have to assess them in the context of the era they played in. Slam count was way lower in general during those days since the homogenisation and 32 seeds as well as the incredible differences in prize money made it way easier to reach consistently the later stages at slams. It’s not only the big three and Murray, even guys like Zverev or even Ferrer reached later stages of slams with consistency many better players from the 80s/90s could only dream of.
Edberg is also not only better than Murray because of 6-3, he also has 31 more weeks at No.1 for example.
All in all different eras are always tough to compare so you can argue all these comparisons are moot but just trying to think logically, Edberg > Murray should not raise too many eyebrows.

 

[junkieballer]

I didn’t say Djokovic is not better than Borg I said the difference between them is way closer than your mindless bean-counting of stats suggests since we have to assess them in the context of the era they played in. Slam count was way lower in general during those days since the homogenisation and 32 seeds as well as the incredible differences in prize money made it way easier to reach consistently the later stages at slams. It’s not only the big three and Murray, even guys like Zverev or even Ferrer reached later stages of slams with consistency many better players from the 80s/90s could only dream of.
Edberg is also not only better than Murray because of 6-3, he also has 31 more weeks at No.1 for example.
All in all different eras are always tough to compare so you can argue all these comparisons are moot but just trying to think logically, Edberg > Murray should not raise too many eyebrows.

The gap in achievements between Borg and Djokovic is similar to the one between Edberg and Murray for me.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The gap in achievements between Borg and Djokovic is similar to the one between Edberg and Murray for me.

Adjusted for eras it isn’t. Anywho, as I said Djokovic is ahead of Borg even adjusted for everything, Edberg and especially Becker are ahead of Murray so where exactly do we disagree.

 

[junkieballer]

Adjusted for eras it isn’t. Anywho, as I said Djokovic is ahead of Borg even adjusted for everything, Edberg and especially Becker are ahead of Murray so where exactly do we disagree.

I was trying to figure out if you are one of the people I was referring to in post #35

 

[Razer]

Throw in polarised conditions, 16 seeds system, way less money and more uncomfortable travelling conditions and so on and so forth. Of course Borg would never get close to Novak’s slam count with ending his career at 25 which is completely on him. But even that is affected by the different eras they played in or do you think if Djoko asked today or even ten years ago to play a reduced schedule, ATP would have demanded him to play AO Qualies?

Even if we give Borg 3 free extra AOs it's still 24>14, nearly double

Since Borg skipped AOs, the only fair way to deal with this would be to assume Djokovic skipped AOs too, so we can erase his 10 AOs from the comparison

Now have

Borg - 11 slams at age 25
Djokovic - 14 slams at age 36

Surely Borg can win 3 more slams in 11 years.

 

[helterskelter]

And Djokovic and Murray had to deal with 2-3 GOATs, something Borg and Edberg didn't have to.

Who tells you that Edberg wins more than 3 Slams if he peaked in Big3 era?

If Djokovic Is not better than Borg despite 24>11 because you can't compare different eras then Edberg is not better than Murray despite 6>3 because you can't compare different eras.

I didn’t say Djokovic is not better than Borg I said the difference between them is way closer than your mindless bean-counting of stats suggests since we have to assess them in the context of the era they played in. Slam count was way lower in general during those days since the homogenisation and 32 seeds as well as the incredible differences in prize money made it way easier to reach consistently the later stages at slams. It’s not only the big three and Murray, even guys like Zverev or even Ferrer reached later stages of slams with consistency many better players from the 80s/90s could only dream of.
Edberg is also not only better than Murray because of 6-3, he also has 31 more weeks at No.1 for example.
All in all different eras are always tough to compare so you can argue all these comparisons are moot but just trying to think logically, Edberg > Murray should not raise too many eyebrows.

Actually, EdbGOAT was better than all of those other players you mention.