Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Ricardo]

what is holding number 1 for 6+ years? is it 6 or 7? 292 weeks is significantly less than 6 years.

anyway Federer held the top spot for longer than Sampras, you should point that out.

and please, Agassi isn't better than Connors, Mac and Lendl....all these players dominated for a period.

 

[Fiero425]

what is holding number 1 for 6+ years? is it 6 or 7? 292 weeks is significantly less than 6 years.

anyway Federer held the top spot for longer than Sampras, you should point that out.

and please, Agassi isn't better than Connors, Mac and Lendl....all these players dominated for a period.

S/B 6 YE rankings @ #1....taken care of with Federer @ 300+ weeks @ #1... left open since he may snatch it away from Murray!

 

[britbox]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Gonzalez (Pancho)
7. Borg
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe

Slight change in thought process from original post in 2013. I've put Laver above Sampras and Connors above Lendl and moved Pancho Gonzalez up a bit. Rosewall is the main ommission from the original Top 10 and that's largely because Djokovic gatecrashed the party.

Don't know how Roy Emerson features in anybody's Top 10. He would be lucky to make Top 6 in his own era.

 

[Fiero425]

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Gonzalez (Pancho)
7. Borg
8. Connors
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe

Slight change in thought process from original post in 2013. I've put Laver above Sampras and Connors above Lendl and moved Pancho Gonzalez up a bit. Rosewall is the main ommission from the original Top 10 and that's largely because Djokovic gatecrashed the party.

Don't know how Roy Emerson features in anybody's Top 10. He would be lucky to make Top 6 in his own era.

I personally don't care, but hardcore Agassi fans will be up in arms with his 8 majors, a CGS, & OG in singles!

 

[El Dude]

I agree with Ricardo that Agassi has no business being ahead of those guys.

Obviously talking all-time is problematic, because it is impossible to truly compare Tony Wilding to Rod Laver to Rafael Nadal. think ultimately these lists should be based upon who was most dominant and accomplished in the era they played in - and for how long. Greatness can only ever be relative to what the field is; we cannot penalize Tony Wilding for playing in a completely different era than Rafa - we can only compare them relative to their own eras.

I'm going to cheat a bit and not rank them in order of greatness, but in chronological order. Here goes:

10 Greatest Men's Players of All Time (Chronological Order)
Tony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Bjorn Borg/John McEnroe
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic

Honorable mentions to Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, Josiah Ritchie, Laurence Doherty, Bobby Riggs, and several others.

A few comments: Pancho Gonzales is the most chronically underrated great player in the history of men's tennis. Why? Because he won only two (amateur) Slams, and people are fixated on those. He utterly dominated the pro tour and remained near elite level into his early 40s, even winning a Grand Prix (Masters) in 1972 - at age 43, and vs. a 19-year old Jimmy Connors.

There's a good argument to be made that Bill Tilden was the most dominant player of all time, relative to the context he played in. He combined the longevity of Rosewall with the dominance of Laver. Yes, he played in the 20s and 30s--and was a total pervert, to boot--but no one was as great as he was for as long as he was. Tennis Base has him as the #1 player fourteen times, in all but two years from 1918 to 1932, and top 3 in all but one year from 1918-35. I don't even consider him the greatest player of all time, but I think he was certainly the most dominant over an extended period of time.

Tony Wilding is also a bit forgotten, but he was the best player in the sport for most of a decade until 1914 before dying in World War I, in 1915.

 

[El Dude]

I feel more comfortable ranking Open Era players. I'm going to include the entire records of Laver and Rosewall, because they remained great into the Open Era era, yet their Open Era records don't reflect their overall greatness (contrary to Pancho, who was similarly great, but in the 50s and still very good in the early years of the Open Era, but not really an Open Era great).

10 Greatest Players of the Open Era
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Rosewall
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
6. Djokovic
7. Lendl
8. Borg
9. McEnroe
10. Connors

I'd be happy ranking Lendl, Borg, and Mac in any order, but ahead of Connors and below Novak.

Agassi would be next, then a drop to Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray, Vilas, Nastase, Ashe, and Courier to round out the top 20.

If Roger wins a couple more Slams, he passes Laver. They're already a close 1-2, but Laver's overall record and dominance is still greater. That said, I might be over-compensating because Roger's my favorite.

Nadal may deserve to be ahead of Rosewall, but his record is marred by inconsistency as it shows up in his relative low weeks at #1. But if he wins another Slam this year and is YE1, I'd push him past Muscles. Novak also has a chance of surpassing Pete and Rosewall, but needs to bounce back in a big way.

If I were to add Gonzales to this list, he'd be between Federer and Rosewall.

 

[Ricardo]

I agree with Ricardo that Agassi has no business being ahead of those guys.

Obviously talking all-time is problematic, because it is impossible to truly compare Tony Wilding to Rod Laver to Rafael Nadal. think ultimately these lists should be based upon who was most dominant and accomplished in the era they played in - and for how long. Greatness can only ever be relative to what the field is; we cannot penalize Tony Wilding for playing in a completely different era than Rafa - we can only compare them relative to their own eras.

I'm going to cheat a bit and not rank them in order of greatness, but in chronological order. Here goes:

10 Greatest Men's Players of All Time (Chronological Order)
Tony Wilding
Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzales
Ken Rosewall
Rod Laver
Bjorn Borg/John McEnroe
Pete Sampras
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic

Honorable mentions to Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, Josiah Ritchie, Laurence Doherty, Bobby Riggs, and several others.

A few comments: Pancho Gonzales is the most chronically underrated great player in the history of men's tennis. Why? Because he won only two (amateur) Slams, and people are fixated on those. He utterly dominated the pro tour and remained near elite level into his early 40s, even winning a Grand Prix (Masters) in 1972 - at age 43, and vs. a 19-year old Jimmy Connors.

There's a good argument to be made that Bill Tilden was the most dominant player of all time, relative to the context he played in. He combined the longevity of Rosewall with the dominance of Laver. Yes, he played in the 20s and 30s--and was a total pervert, to boot--but no one was as great as he was for as long as he was. Tennis Base has him as the #1 player fourteen times, in all but two years from 1918 to 1932, and top 3 in all but one year from 1918-35. I don't even consider him the greatest player of all time, but I think he was certainly the most dominant over an extended period of time.

Tony Wilding is also a bit forgotten, but he was the best player in the sport for most of a decade until 1914 before dying in World War I, in 1915.

Riggs doesn't belong in the same group of Connors and Lendl, he is not an all timer.

 

[Ricardo]

I feel more comfortable ranking Open Era players. I'm going to include the entire records of Laver and Rosewall, because they remained great into the Open Era era, yet their Open Era records don't reflect their overall greatness (contrary to Pancho, who was similarly great, but in the 50s and still very good in the early years of the Open Era, but not really an Open Era great).

10 Greatest Players of the Open Era
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Rosewall
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
6. Djokovic
7. Lendl
8. Borg
9. McEnroe
10. Connors

I'd be happy ranking Lendl, Borg, and Mac in any order, but ahead of Connors and below Novak.

Agassi would be next, then a drop to Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray, Vilas, Nastase, Ashe, and Courier to round out the top 20.

If Roger wins a couple more Slams, he passes Laver. They're already a close 1-2, but Laver's overall record and dominance is still greater. That said, I might be over-compensating because Roger's my favorite.

Nadal may deserve to be ahead of Rosewall, but his record is marred by inconsistency as it shows up in his relative low weeks at #1. But if he wins another Slam this year and is YE1, I'd push him past Muscles. Novak also has a chance of surpassing Pete and Rosewall, but needs to bounce back in a big way.

If I were to add Gonzales to this list, he'd be between Federer and Rosewall.

who would put Borg so low? some people with real knowledge of the game even put him above Sampras, as he was a genuine chance to win the Grand Slam while Sampras never had a shot. Stats don't tell real story, as players didn't talk about Slam count.....it started with Sampras who talked big about it when he realised he had no chance of GS. All the Connors, Borgs and others they were going after the real thing. while you should be applauded for making an effort with stats, you need to learn the correct context.

 

[britbox]

who would put Borg so low? some people with real knowledge of the game even put him above Sampras, as he was a genuine chance to win the Grand Slam while Sampras never had a shot. Stats don't tell real story, as players didn't talk about Slam count.....it started with Sampras who talked big about it when he realised he had no chance of GS. All the Connors, Borgs and others they were going after the real thing. while you should be applauded for making an effort with stats, you need to learn the correct context.

Borg was a phenomenon but I see El Dude's reasoning. The fact Borg retired so early does have an impact, he would likely have won more, but he doesn't deserve kudos for it. Borg had the tools to win a calendar year grand slam, but at the end of the day, he never won a US Open, so the chance never presented itself.

 

[Ricardo]

for starters Borg isn't below Lendl, so can't see the reasoning there at all. I think people who studied the game back then, would put significance to those who had the tools (Lavor, Borg, Federer, Nadal, Novak and the likes) above those who didn't have it (weak on one surface so was not in with a shot). Sure fate dictated it that Borg never won USO despite getting so close in 4 finals, and while you can only reward someone who actually won things, he was considered as one of the few who could do it....thus his status.

 

[britbox]

I wouldn't put Lendl above Borg either, but I would put Sampras above him. Sampras achilles heel is his clay court resume but he's pretty much nailed everything else. If Borg hadn't retired so early he might have ended up Top 3.

 

[Federberg]

I wouldn't put Lendl above Borg either, but I would put Sampras above him. Sampras achilles heel is his clay court resume but he's pretty much nailed everything else. If Borg hadn't retired so early he might have ended up Top 3.

I'm not so sure he would have won more. To me that's a bit woulda coulda. And is disrespectful to the likes of Mac, Connors, Wilander and Lendl. They weren't exactly chopped liver after all

 

[britbox]

I'm not so sure he would have won more. To me that's a bit woulda coulda. And is disrespectful to the likes of Mac, Connors, Wilander and Lendl. They weren't exactly chopped liver after all

Yep, it is woulda coulda, and that's why I put Borg at 7 rather than higher, but on the same note I would estimate that he may have won more, he wasn't chopped liver either... but it is what is and I'm in agreement you can only judge on what happened not what might have happened.

 

[Ricardo]

Borg was the top player of any surface, or one of the top at the very least. while i am not a fan of coulda woulda, reasonable speculation is that he would've won more........just like saying Seles would've also. But that's not the point, as Borg was ranked to top tier by Toni (along with Laver and Federer) because he was great on all surfaces. He didn't have much of a go on hard as there were few available then, one can't write him off there either.

Sure it's still an opinion but i can totally see his point, as he puts significance on different things than many modern fans here. Sampras did a good job marketing his slam count achievement too, as he was very vocal about it.......which at the time was not considered a key factor in players greatness. Id argue that using slam count as key factor is not fair either, as players go about it differently when you move the goal post.

 

[britbox]

Borg was the top player of any surface, or one of the top at the very least. while i am not a fan of coulda woulda, reasonable speculation is that he would've won more........just like saying Seles would've also. But that's not the point, as Borg was ranked to top tier by Toni (along with Laver and Federer) because he was great on all surfaces. He didn't have much of a go on hard as there were few available then, one can't write him off there either.

Sure it's still an opinion but i can totally see his point, as he puts significance on different things than many modern fans here. Sampras did a good job marketing his slam count achievement too, as he was very vocal about it.......which at the time was not considered a key factor in players greatness. Id argue that using slam count as key factor is not fair either, as players go about it differently when you move the goal post.

Yeah, the slam count has a different dimension these days, that's for sure, as most of the top guys weren't playing the AO for a period. I don't think it was Sampras marketing the slam count though.. more the media of the day. I wasn't a Sampras fan, but in fairness, he wasn't a brag hard.

I think Borg is top tier, putting anybody in the Top few of all time is kind of acknowledging that,

 

[Federberg]

yes I agree with that. This whole slam count thing is a false comparison because it's really only from the Sampras era that everyone is making such a big deal out of it. That's why for me, weeks at number 1, number of titles won etc are in many ways even more important because they stand the test of time

 

[Fiero425]

yes I agree with that. This whole slam count thing is a false comparison because it's really only from the Sampras era that everyone is making such a big deal out of it. That's why for me, weeks at number 1, number of titles won etc are in many ways even more important because they stand the test of time

...and only since Agassi have we been talking about a "Career Grand Slam!" I guess he'd been the 1st since Laver to own all 4 majors at some point! Now we have 3 more holders in a single era with multiple chances for a "Calendar Year Grand Slam" taking 3 of the 4 majors! We've had 6 in fact; Fed with 3, Nole with 2, & Rafa draggin' up the rear with his effort in 2013!

 

[britbox]

...and only since Agassi have we been talking about a "Career Grand Slam!" I guess he'd been the 1st since Laver to own all 4 majors at some point! Now we have 3 more holders in a single era with multiple chances for a "Calendar Year Grand Slam" taking 3 of the 4 majors! We've had 6 in fact; Fed with 3, Nole with 2, & Rafa draggin' up the rear with his effort in 2013!

Yep, another media creation. THE Grand Slam is the calendar year grand slam!

 

[Ricardo]

Yeah, the slam count has a different dimension these days, that's for sure, as most of the top guys weren't playing the AO for a period. I don't think it was Sampras marketing the slam count though.. more the media of the day. I wasn't a Sampras fan, but in fairness, he wasn't a brag hard.

I think Borg is top tier, putting anybody in the Top few of all time is kind of acknowledging that,

well i remember he did talk about it quite a bit, as well as saying something about his competition top heavy (implying you ono what) .....when people talked about Federer's achievement, not sure that qualifies as brag hard but definitely very defensive there.......unlike other greats who knew that greatness is to be judged by 'others'.

Guys like Laver, people say his era was easier, or players are better today etc, he never advertised himself against it. Or Federer, who just said he was honoured to be in the conversation........i am sure he was aware that some people trashed talked his competition, he also didn't advertise for himself. Neither did Rafa or Novak. Not to mention that Sampras said the difference was 10 slams (between him and Rafter), and we all know Pat was all class.

 

[Ricardo]

Yep, another media creation. THE Grand Slam is the calendar year grand slam!

imo players should be judged more on how close they achieve the Grand Slam, key factor for greatness. We all know Federer was one match short in 2 of the years, when Rafa beat him at RG or Novak had in 2011 and 2015 when Fed and Stan managed to screw it up for him. But they were definitely very close and as such their greatness is strengthened.