Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[El Dude]

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

You realize that was an honorable mentions group, with no attempt to rank them in order? I could have added many others - Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Segura, Agassi, etc. Don't read too much into my inclusion of Riggs. I just mentioned Riggs randomly from a list of a couple dozen who would fill out the 30-40 greatest players of all time.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Look, I'm balancing peak level and career accomplishments - I stated that pretty clearly. Borg had an immensely high peak level but retired at 25. I don't think he should be credited for what he coulda/woulda done, just what he actually did. This is part of the challenge of ranking Borg. Maybe he wins 4+ more Slams, maybe none. We'll never know.

Ricardo, you're trying to control the way this discussion is framed - as if you alone get to decide the criteria, or there's one true way to decide the criteria that you're privy to and I'm not (and of course you try to support this by throwing in your little jabs...pretty moderate by your standards, but still a bit pointless).

I'm not attached to ranking Lendl ahead of Borg. I'd definitely put Borg no higher than 7th behind the first six, but I think the next three or four could be ranked in different ways. I ranked Lendl higher mainly because he was #1 for so much longer, won 30 more titles, and had a longer prime. Lendl is a bit underrated, in my opinion, because of his 8-11 record in Slam finals. But what I've often said is that he is the player whose prime overlapped with more other great players than any other great of the Open Era: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras.

If we are judging solely on peak level, or greatness over a short period of time, then I'd rank Borg higher than Lendl and Rosewall, possibly Nadal, Sampras and Djoker as well, or at least equal with them. But I defined my general approach as "most dominant and accomplished in the era they played in - and for how long." If I had stopped before the dash, then I'd agree with you and rank Borg higher, but "how long" should be part of the equation, in my opinion. Longevity and health are aspects of greatness.

 

[Moxie]

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

Wow...interesting how many here are willing to take the Slam count to a lower lever. And giving a bit of a bump to the theoreticals on Borg, particularly.

 

[Federberg]

Wow...interesting how many here are willing to take the Slam count to a lower lever. And giving a bit of a bump to the theoreticals on Borg, particularly.

Think about it though. Do you think the likes of Mac, Connors or Borg assessed their careers on how many slams they won? Leave aside the fact that no one paid any attention to Australia for quite some time. It would be odd to judge them now on things that they didn't consider important. That's why I repeatedly say, judge them by the criteria that has stood the test of time. In any era, being the number 1 ranked player has meant something, also winning titles has meant something. Everything else is subject to the fashion of the day

 

[Moxie]

Think about it though. Do you think the likes of Mac, Connors or Borg assessed their careers on how many slams they won? Leave aside the fact that no one paid any attention to Australia for quite some time. It would be odd to judge them now on things that they didn't consider important. That's why I repeatedly say, judge them by the criteria that has stood the test of time. In any era, being the number 1 ranked player has meant something, also winning titles has meant something. Everything else is subject to the fashion of the day

Oh, I have thought about it, and I'm on your side. It's just that everyone around here has long been on the side of Majors count, no nuance allowed. I'm in favor of it. I'm just surprised.

 

[Federberg]

Oh, I have thought about it, and I'm on your side. It's just that everyone around here has long been on the side of Majors count, no nuance allowed. I'm in favor of it. I'm just surprised.

I've been banging this drum for ages It's why I don't really like the cross-era comparisons. Utterly flawed in my view. When you have guys like Lendl passing up chances to play at RG when he would have been the standout favourite because he wanted to win Wimbledon, why should the slam count matter? Not to talk of all the Australian Opens that those guys passed up on. Frankly if you wanted to be fair, you would probably cut out the AO wins of the current era to really make a balanced assessment. Wouldn't be great for either Novak or Roger!

 

[Federberg]

And don't get me started on Laver's calendar year slams and the fact that they were on grass. He get's credit for winning it twice (even though one was in the club house era), but no one mentions the fact that not only was the competition not deep, but the best guys were playing another tour the first time he won it!! Let's just enjoy the fact that in their respective era's they were all great. I love what both Roger and Novak have done in recent years (in terms of dominance), but I remember JMac's year of dominance, and I'm not sure I've seen anything quite like it. He was slaughtering everyone in his path, but there's so much recency bias these days

 

[Ricardo]

Look, I'm balancing peak level and career accomplishments - I stated that pretty clearly. Borg had an immensely high peak level but retired at 25. I don't think he should be credited for what he coulda/woulda done, just what he actually did. This is part of the challenge of ranking Borg. Maybe he wins 4+ more Slams, maybe none. We'll never know.

Ricardo, you're trying to control the way this discussion is framed - as if you alone get to decide the criteria, or there's one true way to decide the criteria that you're privy to and I'm not (and of course you try to support this by throwing in your little jabs...pretty moderate by your standards, but still a bit pointless).

I'm not attached to ranking Lendl ahead of Borg. I'd definitely put Borg no higher than 7th behind the first six, but I think the next three or four could be ranked in different ways. I ranked Lendl higher mainly because he was #1 for so much longer, won 30 more titles, and had a longer prime. Lendl is a bit underrated, in my opinion, because of his 8-11 record in Slam finals. But what I've often said is that he is the player whose prime overlapped with more other great players than any other great of the Open Era: Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras.

If we are judging solely on peak level, or greatness over a short period of time, then I'd rank Borg higher than Lendl and Rosewall, possibly Nadal, Sampras and Djoker as well, or at least equal with them. But I defined my general approach as "most dominant and accomplished in the era they played in - and for how long." If I had stopped before the dash, then I'd agree with you and rank Borg higher, but "how long" should be part of the equation, in my opinion. Longevity and health are aspects of greatness.

i don't decide on what criteria should be but if your criteria says that Lendl is above Borg, then i think you got some issues to sort out.

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, I hear you about cross-generation comparisons being very difficult, but that doesn't mean it is impossible or pointless to talk about (or at least no more than any such conversations are pointless!).

I still think the key is in considering relative dominance. We can't compare the stats of, say, Bill Tilden to Rafael Nadal, but we can compare how dominant they were relative to the context they played in. Probably the best way to do that is via rankings. While the weight of different tournaments changes, the #1 ranked player is still always the best player in the game (at least usually!). We only have computerized rankings from 1973 to the present, but there were still consensus #1 players going back and some sites (e.g. Tennis Base) have rankings going back to 1877.

I'm going to use Tennis Base's rankings, which I assembled into a chart for every player that was #1 at least once. Let's position a point system like so:

#11-20 ranking: 1 point
#6-10 ranking: 3 points
#3-5 ranking: 5 points
#2 ranking: 10 points
#1 ranking: 20 points

The point system is arbitrary, but I think is decent for weighing dominance. According to this system, here are the twenty-one greatest players of all time (couldn't exclude Andre):

1. 301 Bill Tilden
2. 202 Rod Laver
3. 185 Pancho Gonzales
3t. 185 Ken Rosewall
5. 165 Roger Federer
6. 164 Tony Wilding
7. 150 Josiah Ritchie
8. 137 Pete Sampras
9t. 131 Laurence Doherty
9t. 131 Jimmy Connors
11. 128 Rafael Nadal
12t. 126 Ivan Lendl
12t. 126 Novak Djokovic
14. 117 John McEnroe
15. 116 Don Budge
16. 111 Pancho Segura
17t. 101 Bobby Riggs
17t. 101 Bjorn Borg
19. 100 Harold Mahony
20. 97 Harry Barlow
21. 94 Andre Agassi

Again, no such system is without serious flaws. I see this as just another angle to consider. But a few things emerge:

1) Look at how far Tilden is ahead of the field. According to this system, he really is the Babe Ruth of tennis. He was #1 thirteen times. Next most was Laver with eight, Pancho Gonzales and Tony Wilding with seven each, then Doherty, Sampras, and Federer with five each (TB has Rios as #1 in 1998).
2) Josiah Ritchie? Perfect example of a great player who is forgotten because he didn't win any Slams. But he was a terrific player who won tons of tournaments.
3) Interesting how Lendl and Novak are tied right now. Of course Novak isn't done yet and will pass Ivan this year.
4) If Rafa finishes #1 or #2 this year, he passes Sampras.
5) And I know Ricardo is going to throw a fit because this system has Riggs and Borg tied. Well, according to TB rankings, Borg was #1 three times, #2 three times, #3-5 two times, and #11-20 once. Riggs was #1 three times, #2 twice, #3-5 three times, #6-10 once, and #11-20 three times. So they both were the best player three years, with Borg having a slightly more top-heavy distribution after.

 

[Fiero425]

The rankings were a bit of a joke back then in the 70's! Whenever I think of poor G. Vilas, taking 2 majors in '77, winning well over 100 matches, but was still relegated to an "also-ran" when Borg and Connors ruled the day! He was the 3rd or 4th wheel of that era like Lendl in the 80's with Borg/McEnroe/Connors & Djokovic now with Fedal!

 

[El Dude]

True, Fiero. Tennis Base has Connors only #1 twice in the 70s, although once again the 80s. They actually have Jimmy #5 in 1975, with Ashe #1. Vilas gets '77 and Borg '78, but Jimmy gets once back in '82, when he won two Slams.

Anyhow, Lendl was not the "3rd or 4th wheel" in the late 80s. He was easily the best overall player for the second half of the 80s.

You're also selling Novak short, presumably because you're unhappy with his results over the last year. Novak wrestled the crown away from peak Rafa in 2011 and was the best overall player--not an "also-ran"--from 2011 to mid-2016.

Anyhow, Tennis Base is close to the ATP rankings, but with a few differences. Here are the years that TB has different players as #1:

1975: Arthur Ashe
1977: Guillermo Vilas
1978: Bjorn Borg
1982: Jimmy Connors
1991: Jim Courier
1998: Marcelo Rios

 

[Moxie]

@Federberg, I hear you about cross-generation comparisons being very difficult, but that doesn't mean it is impossible or pointless to talk about (or at least no more than any such conversations are pointless!).

I still think the key is in considering relative dominance. We can't compare the stats of, say, Bill Tilden to Rafael Nadal, but we can compare how dominant they were relative to the context they played in....

5) And I know Ricardo is going to throw a fit because this system has Riggs and Borg tied. Well, according to TB rankings, Borg was #1 three times, #2 three times, #3-5 two times, and #11-20 once. Riggs was #1 three times, #2 twice, #3-5 three times, #6-10 once, and #11-20 three times. So they both were the best player three years, with Borg having a slightly more top-heavy distribution after.

Using relative dominance seems to be flawed on its face, especially as illustrated by having Riggs and Borg tied. It doesn't take into account who they played, in their relative eras. Sometimes you can just manipulate stats too much.

I lean towards @Federberg's position. We're always going to be tempted to talk about it, but I also think you will keep running into an impenetrable wall. So many things have changed, even just in the Open Era, including equipment, and the inclination to play the Australian Open, as two glaring ones. I know that certain folks are very invested in Federer being the GOAT, (including Federberg, and he doesn't seem to believe you can claim one.) Eventually you're left with considering eras individually. And even they will cross-pollinate. I know it irritates folks that the likes of McEnroe think there are two in just this era. And it won't surprise you that I agree.

 

[britbox]

Think about it though. Do you think the likes of Mac, Connors or Borg assessed their careers on how many slams they won? Leave aside the fact that no one paid any attention to Australia for quite some time. It would be odd to judge them now on things that they didn't consider important. That's why I repeatedly say, judge them by the criteria that has stood the test of time. In any era, being the number 1 ranked player has meant something, also winning titles has meant something. Everything else is subject to the fashion of the day

Is anyone just basing it on slam counts though? I think you can use slam counts as a big factor in the modern era as the majors are the benchmark, but less so back in the day.

 

[Fiero425]

Is anyone just basing it on slam counts though? I think you can use slam counts as a big factor in the modern era as the majors are the benchmark, but less so back in the day.

Back "in the day," it seemed like the whole season revolved around the summer with Wimbledon and The US Open! The French was really an afterthought, mainly put on a pedestal by South American and European clay specialist! The AO wasn't even on the radar, not usual to have 6-8 quarter-finalists from "down under" back in the 70's! It really was all about the "2 Biggies" and the rest was used for bragging rights, under the table $$, enhancement of endorsements, etc.! The Masters Series being created in '90 along with the est. of the new ATP elevated the tourney's just below a major; esp. when the winner had to win BO5 finals! That made it harder than what's happening now with the hording of titles by Fedalovic! Before Sampras, no one really thought about getting anywhere near the record of Emerson! Laver, then Borg the Open Era royalty! They were the tennis Gawds until Sampras came along! We were so desperate to see history made, we ignored the fact he never even made a FO final! After this latest generation, Sampras has fallen from the apparent GOAT with 14 Majors to barely holding his place in the top 6; Borg still given more credit for his short-lived career!

 

[Moxie]

Back "in the day," it seemed like the whole season revolved around the summer with Wimbledon and The US Open! The French was really an afterthought, mainly put on a pedestal by South American and European clay specialist! The AO wasn't even on the radar, not usual to have 6-8 quarter-finalists from "down under" back in the 70's! It really was all about the "2 Biggies" and the rest was used for bragging rights, under the table $$, enhancement of endorsements, etc.! The Masters Series being created in '90 along with the est. of the new ATP elevated the tourney's just below a major; esp. when the winner had to win BO5 finals! That made it harder than what's happening now with the hording of titles by Fedalovic! Before Sampras, no one really thought about getting anywhere near the record of Emerson! Laver, then Borg the Open Era royalty! They were the tennis Gawds until Sampras came along! We were so desperate to see history made, we ignored the fact he never even made a FO final! After this latest generation, Sampras has fallen from the apparent GOAT with 14 Majors to barely holding his place in the top 6; Borg still given more credit for his short-lived career!

I'm not sure of our relative ages, but in the 60s and 70s the French was no "afterthought." I watched it avidly as a kid, here in the US. It was on regular broadcast TV, if that doesn't tell you enough about how important it was considered. And perhaps you mean that the Masters Series has made it harder now than it was then, for the hording of titles. "Back in the day" everyone played whatever they liked, and met each other less frequently. I've always been astonished that the Borg-McEnroe H2H is 7-7. And they're considered a great rivalry.

 

[Fiero425]

I'm not sure of our relative ages, but in the 60s and 70s the French was no "afterthought." I watched it avidly as a kid, here in the US. It was on regular broadcast TV, if that doesn't tell you enough about how important it was considered. And perhaps you mean that the Masters Series has made it harder now than it was then, for the hording of titles. "Back in the day" everyone played whatever they liked, and met each other less frequently. I've always been astonished that the Borg-McEnroe H2H is 7-7. And they're considered a great rivalry.

The FO was bouncing around the networks; totally taped delayed until '84 with McEnroe/Lendl IIRC! There were also multiple tours if you remember; ITF, WCT, & the Grand Prix! - I still seem to remember seeing the last set of Wilander over Vilas in '82 FO on CBS! It went to NBC after that I guess! The women continued to be delayed until noon here in Chicago so I usually knew who won before it came on! Those '85 & '86 finals killed me allowing Evert back in the winning circle of majors after being owned for years by Navratilova in the mid 80's! I turned 60 in April! I started playing in '71, was teaching by '75, played in college, & made a name for myself in the tennis circles of Chicago!

 

[El Dude]

Using relative dominance seems to be flawed on its face, especially as illustrated by having Riggs and Borg tied. It doesn't take into account who they played, in their relative eras. Sometimes you can just manipulate stats too much.

A player can only play who they can play. Sure, the whole sport has become more competitive over the years, certainly with a big jump forward in 1968 and then gradually since then. Not unlike how athletic records get broken over time - Usain Bolt breaks his own records. But if we're going to compare Rod Laver to Rafa Nadal, the only way to meaningfully do so is to compare relative dominance.

Another way to put this, when you ask the question: "Who was the greater player, Pancho Gonzales or Novak Djokovic?" the only way you can meaningfully approach it is to look at how they fared against their respective opponents, and compare that. This holds true in every sport. The details of the sport change - for instance, in baseball, statistics fluctuate over time, so that a .300 batting average one year is different than another. For example, in the late 60s someone won the batting title hitting .301 I believe; in some years in the 1930s, when offense was inflated, the league average was around .300. But the batting champion is still the batting champion - the guy who gets a hit more often then anyone else. Just as the #1 player in tennis is the guy who should be the best that year.

I lean towards @Federberg's position. We're always going to be tempted to talk about it, but I also think you will keep running into an impenetrable wall. So many things have changed, even just in the Open Era, including equipment, and the inclination to play the Australian Open, as two glaring ones. I know that certain folks are very invested in Federer being the GOAT, (including Federberg, and he doesn't seem to believe you can claim one.) Eventually you're left with considering eras individually. And even they will cross-pollinate. I know it irritates folks that the likes of McEnroe think there are two in just this era. And it won't surprise you that I agree.

I start from a place where I realize it is probably impossible to ever definitely rank players, but that it's fun to do so and we might as well try to do it as best we can. So sure, it is an impenetrable wall, but if we take that attitude then what's the fun? That invalidates the entire field of philosophy, for one!

Anyhow, I've often said that there isn't one GOAT, but really a herd (or, more properly, a tribe) of GOATs. That's why I offered that first chronological list.

 

[Moxie]

OK, but your one-dimensional way of establishing relative dominance only uses their rankings. What about dominance of their relatively highly ranked co-top players, by years? I'm not trying to make an impossible grid for you, but, as I said before, your formula displays its own flaw by having Riggs and Borg as co-equals. It's fun to make rankings but only if the ranking makes sense, even if we all agree it will be flawed and won't resolve into one pure answer. TBH, I think the more subjective lists based on a full sense of narrative make more sense than this one based on only rankings. At some point, nuance and interpretations will come in, and your numbers won't be more reliable or better than that.

 

[El Dude]

OK, but your one-dimensional way of establishing relative dominance only uses their rankings. What about dominance of their relatively highly ranked co-top players, by years? I'm not trying to make an impossible grid for you, but, as I said before, your formula displays its own flaw by having Riggs and Borg as co-equals. It's fun to make rankings but only if the ranking makes sense, even if we all agree it will be flawed and won't resolve into one pure answer. TBH, I think the more subjective lists based on a full sense of narrative make more sense than this one based on only rankings. At some point, nuance and interpretations will come in, and your numbers won't be more reliable or better than that.

Actually, they're not my numbers - or rather, I put a point system onto TennisBase's rankings, so more properly you should blame them! But I agree that it is one-dimensional, which is why I clearly said it isn't definitive, just one way to look at things. I also agree that a combination of statistics and subjectivity is best, which is why I wouldn't rank Riggs equal with Borg, and why when push comes to shove I'd rank Borg ahead of Lendl and Connors, even if every single statistical system I've seen ranks him below them. Actually, late last year I did an Open Era top 20 blog for Tennis Frontier, and I had Borg ranked just behind Rafa, Pete and Novak, and just ahead of Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors.

As I've said many times, statistics aren't meant to replace subjectivity, but they are meant to balance and temper it. I'd rather have a balance of statistics and subjectivity, rather than the old-fashioned "whatever I think is right" approach that many take (e.g. Ricardo). At the least, the statistics should ask us to look twice, to question our assumptions. What I so often see is people invalidating statistics because they don't fit their predetermined narrative. To quote a recent someone, "Fake News!"

 

[Fiero425]

Actually, they're not my numbers - or rather, I put a point system onto TennisBase's rankings, so more properly you should blame them! But I agree that it is one-dimensional, which is why I clearly said it isn't definitive, just one way to look at things. I also agree that a combination of statistics and subjectivity is best, which is why I wouldn't rank Riggs equal with Borg, and why when push comes to shove I'd rank Borg ahead of Lendl and Connors, even if every single statistical system I've seen ranks him below them. Actually, late last year I did an Open Era top 20 blog for Tennis Frontier, and I had Borg ranked just behind Rafa, Pete and Novak, and just ahead of Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors.

As I've said many times, statistics aren't meant to replace subjectivity, but they are meant to balance and temper it. I'd rather have a balance of statistics and subjectivity, rather than the old-fashioned "whatever I think is right" approach that many take (e.g. Ricardo). At the least, the statistics should ask us to look twice, to question our assumptions. What I so often see is people invalidating statistics because they don't fit their predetermined narrative. To quote a recent someone, "Fake News!"

As always, I'll always have a problem ranking Nadal anywhere near "the top" with serious inconsistency; except maybe winning on clay! To this day he still hasn't defended a title off the dirt, has just 1 AO and 2 each of Wimbledons and USO! The majority of his success is at the FO with 10 titles! That's 2/3's of his major titles at 1 event! Even with 4 extra FO's, I'd still put Borg ahead due to his ability to leave the comfort of his best surface in Paris and with no tourney warmup, won 5 straight Wimbledons! Fedal's managed it 3 times between them, even with the homogenized courts! The imbalance continues in the rankings with Nadal woefully behind others at #1 and no YEC's! He has time I guess to help his record, but I'm doubtful anything more significant will occur! He has a chance at #1 even though dominated by Federer so far this season! In fact, I'd still place Rafa behind Nole with 3 less majors, but makes up for it with Masters 1000 dominance, being #1 more consistently, and owning multiple YEC's!