Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Federberg]

I have to agree. I can't see any iteration of all time great rankings that sees Lendl above Borg...

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.

Be careful! I'm extremely sceptical about the concept of the GOAT. Without question, Federer is the most successful player of all time. GOAThood requires cross-era comparisons that don't really make sense to me. You can't compare eras when players measured success using different metrics. For the record I think there are 3 all time greats in this era, but it's not even close if you try to compare Federer and Nadal, sorry...

 

[El Dude]

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!

I got some flack for ranking Novak higher than Rafa, so I hear you. That said, I think Rafa's resurgence has pushed him back ahead of Novak...but it is very, very close and I could be convinced either way.

But I hear you. To me, the biggest hole in Rafa's resume is the lack of YECs and a relatively low total of weeks at #1 - at 141 weeks, he's got about half Lendl, Connors, and Federer, and 82 less than Novak. But he has a really good chance of adding to that, and who knows, maybe he wins the WTF this year. If he can get to 200+ weeks at #1 and at least one YEC, plus another Slam or two off clay, I think he's right there in the inner circle with Roger (plus Laver and Muscles) in terms of career greatness.

 

[Federberg]

@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.

This is data without any useful assessment of the data's value in my humble opinion. You simply can't compare the dominance in the club house era to the modern professional era. That's like saying the number 1 ranked mathematician in Malawi who has been top ranked for 10yrs is more dominant that the top ranked geek in China who's only been dominant for 5 years. Just based on ranking. It really makes no sense at all. I repeat there's very little value in these subjective attempts. The only things that have any consistency over time are number of titles won and ranking. But even then, depth is a huge issue

 

[Federberg]

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.

Lol! You trying to sneak H2H into the argument? Oh dear.. sounds like over-fitting to me
You play tennis to beat the field. You might use H2H at the very margin of these sorts of discussions, but the moment you try to add it in as a pillar of the debate it just makes no sense to me!

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, a better analogy would be comparing the number 1 ranked mathematician in China 50 years ago compared to today, but I hear your point, even if I don't fully agree with it. I don't think it is as either/or as you're making it. By your logic, there's no point in doing any kind of cross-era rankings at all. I just see it as a hazy but fun exercise in speculation. The further back you go, the harder to compare.

On the other hand, consider we can connect greats separated by eras through the same players they faced, and sometimes the matches they had. We could play a game of "Six Degrees to Bill Tilden," and connect him to Sascha Zverev like so:

Alex Zverev played Roger Federer
Roger Federer played Andre Agassi
Andre Agassi played Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors played Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales played Frank Parker
Frank Parker played Bill Tilden

Voila!

(we can add just two or three more players and get to the beginnings of Wimbledon in 1877).

It isn't like the old guys always got slaughtered by the young guys. If there was improvement across eras, it was very small and sometimes non-existent. A 43-year old Pancho beat a 19-year old Connors, who in turn was competitive with elite players 15 years later. And so on.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg, a better analogy would be comparing the number 1 ranked mathematician in China 50 years ago compared to today, but I hear your point, even if I don't fully agree with it. I don't think it is as either/or as you're making it. By your logic, there's no point in doing any kind of cross-era rankings at all. I just see it as a hazy but fun exercise in speculation. The further back you go, the harder to compare.

On the other hand, consider we can connect greats separated by eras through the same players they faced, and sometimes the matches they had. We could play a game of "Six Degrees to Bill Tilden," and connect him to Sascha Zverev like so:

Alex Zverev played Roger Federer
Roger Federer played Andre Agassi
Andre Agassi played Jimmy Connors
Jimmy Connors played Pancho Gonzales
Pancho Gonzales played Frank Parker
Frank Parker played Bill Tilden

Voila!

(we can add just two or three more players and get to the beginnings of Wimbledon in 1877).

It isn't like the old guys always got slaughtered by the young guys. If there was improvement across eras, it was very small and sometimes non-existent. A 43-year old Pancho beat a 19-year old Connors, who in turn was competitive with elite players 15 years later. And so on.

As long as folks are calling it fun!
As you know I'm a cross-era sceptic

 

[Moxie]

Lol! You trying to sneak H2H into the argument? Oh dear.. sounds like over-fitting to me
You play tennis to beat the field. You might use H2H at the very margin of these sorts of discussions, but the moment you try to add it in as a pillar of the debate it just makes no sense to me!

Yo, I didn't say H2H, you did. It's about the competition you face, and you said as much about the Chinese mathematician v. the Malawian one. Right?

 

[Federberg]

Yo, I didn't say H2H, you did. It's about the competition you face, and you said as much about the Chinese mathematician v. the Malawian one. Right?

Lol! Fair enough. Thought you were trying a sneaky tactic there!

 

[Moxie]

Lol! Fair enough. Thought you were trying a sneaky tactic there!

Well, in a sense I was, though I wasn't thinking of it in those terms. Just of how rankings don't tell the whole story. But you made the same argument, and assisted mine, so...thanks!

 

[Federberg]

Well, in a sense I was, though I wasn't thinking of it in those terms. Just of how rankings don't tell the whole story. But you made the same argument, and assisted mine, so...thanks!

Haha! I have no problem saying Rafa is an absolute all time great. His results prove it. The depth of the competition while he's been achieving what he's done proves it. No question! The boys in this era are something special. I'm not sure why that's not enough. To try to take it further and compare them to different eras is just a subjective exercise imho. There are so many variables. For example I think there was greater surface variability in the 80s, but then there was less depth at that time. It's impossible to adjust for everything. And don't get me started about going further back in history, it just becomes comedic at that point

 

[Ricardo]

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!"

you ranked Lendl above Borg yourself just days ago and now you say otherwise, don't try and be smart here.......you also put Pioline (along with Rios and others) as an all time underachiever previously and i called it out. I don't intend to jab at you anything but sometimes your knowledge of the game is beyond questionable that it's a tiny bit ridiculous......apparently stats can't really give you context and perspective of the game, which is why i disagreed with your several statements.

you should know by now that you are the one with that 'whatever i think is right' attitude, as you think using stats will back your claim. well i say you are a joke when 'stats' tell you that Lendl is above Borg or Pioline is huge underachiever.

 

[Ricardo]

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

so that's your list on Tuesday, then you say Borg/Mac/Lendl can be any order......really? Borg is above them for anyone who knows the game (and not sit on couch going through 'stats'). and i smell fence sitter when i see one

btw i have nothing against stats as that was one of my majors in undergraduate, which is why i know stats used in incorrect context would give nothing but a joke.

 

[El Dude]

Well, I can agree that Borg probably should rank ahead of Lendl, which is what I did in my top 20 article late last year. But I don't think it is as clear as you say, like it is beyond ridiculous to even consider that Lendl was at least roughly equal (which is all I said in the post you quoted - not that Lendl was greater). The argument is that whatever Borg had in peak greatness, Lendl made up for in longevity and consistency. Compare, for instances, their weeks at #1. Of course you'll just say that disproves statistics, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Ricardo, I never claimed to be an expert of tennis. In fact, I've been very clear that I'm not and often defer to others for views on the subtleties of the game as it is played on the court, or for their perspectives for decades past when I was only a casual fan. In the blog I wrote for TF, I would often say that the analysis was just a way for me to learn the history of the game. Sometimes I would find things that surprised me and bucked conventional wisdom. But I like using statistics because they give us something objective to look at, to get beyond pure subjectivity - which is all I hear from you. How about laying out some distinct criteria for how you'd rank players? Why not go beyond "This is how it is, because I say it is so?"

As for the Pioline thing, not sure why you're even bringing that up or how that is relevant. I didn't make that view up - I read that somewhere in a discussion about underachievers in which Pioline was mentioned. You seem to have a mental glitch where you think whenever names are grouped together, a person is saying they are the same. If I remember correctly, all I did was offer Pioline and Rios in a group of names that could be considered underachievers, not that they were equal players. If we want to get more granular about it, Pioline was probably an underachiever in a similar way that Gasquet was, where Rios is more in a group with Nalbandian and Safin of players who had great talent, but less than great career results. But an underachiever is simply someone whose results don't equal what they are capable of. I don't have a strong opinion on Pioline, but I don't see why you're so upset about the idea that he underachieved.

 

[Federberg]

My initial reaction to the idea that Borg and Lendl could be put on a similar level, was to shudder. But on reflection I guess a case can be made for it. I would still place Borg higher mind you. But it's a lot closer than my instinctive reaction. Lendl dominated, he's the prototypical modern player. His game is far more translatable into this era than Borg's would be I suspect. The man was in more slam finals than probably anyone other than the big 3, and he wasn't losing to patsies. His 94 titles are phenomenal. Yup... on reflection, I can see the case for Lendl

 

[El Dude]

There is a glamour around Borg, largely earned but also partially inflated due to the fact he retired so young and his general mystique. Lendl, on the other hand, was somewhat underrated both because he "only" won 8 Slams and lost 11 finals, and that he's about as un-sexy as you can get as far as his personality and general vibe on and off the court.

The conventional view is that Borg was significantly greater, but if you take those subjective elements out and just look at what they accomplished, at the very least the gap is narrowed substantially so that it is worthy of discussion.

 

[britbox]

This is data without any useful assessment of the data's value in my humble opinion. You simply can't compare the dominance in the club house era to the modern professional era. That's like saying the number 1 ranked mathematician in Malawi who has been top ranked for 10yrs is more dominant that the top ranked geek in China who's only been dominant for 5 years. Just based on ranking. It really makes no sense at all. I repeat there's very little value in these subjective attempts. The only things that have any consistency over time are number of titles won and ranking. But even then, depth is a huge issue

Just putting a value on "number of titles" is probably even more misleading than number of majors. In that scenario you're giving an 8 man round robin as much value as a major... not to mention you don't know who is in the field for half of those tournaments, and before the tour was more well stuctured in the modern era, there were a billion rinky dink tournaments that players entered just for a pile of cash.

 

[britbox]

I'd say back in the day, players largely just followed the money, so played wherever accordingly. The advantage of the structured tour is that the ATP/WTA/ITF largely decide where the money is...

 

[Moxie]

I'd say back in the day, players largely just followed the money, so played wherever accordingly. The advantage of the structured tour is that the ATP/WTA/ITF largely decide where the money is...

Which is why comparing their titles and records gets so sloppy across eras.

 

[Moxie]

My initial reaction to the idea that Borg and Lendl could be put on a similar level, was to shudder. But on reflection I guess a case can be made for it. I would still place Borg higher mind you. But it's a lot closer than my instinctive reaction. Lendl dominated, he's the prototypical modern player. His game is far more translatable into this era than Borg's would be I suspect. The man was in more slam finals than probably anyone other than the big 3, and he wasn't losing to patsies. His 94 titles are phenomenal. Yup... on reflection, I can see the case for Lendl

This is a tough one for me, because I get that the attraction and mystique of Borg is so romantic. It surely was for me. Nothing like quitting while you're ahead. I don't agree with you that Lendl's game was more translatable to this era than Borg's, as Borg was a spectacular athlete, (I think that's indisputable,) and his style was more fluid, his movement better. But we do give Borg a lot of style points, because he burned fast and bright. There is an inclination to project the "what might have been" with him, which isn't fair. Lendl stuck it out through thick and thin and had a great career. It's a bit like Darth insisting that Sampras has a better record at Wimbledon, because he was 6-0 in finals, whereas Roger is currently at 6-3. Three more losses, but 3 more finals. If you bail as early as Borg did, you can always look like a genius. If you dig in for the long slog like Lendl, your percentages won't be as good, but you'll have won quite a lot. All that to say, I'm sort of with you: hard not to put Borg above (and there are many other reasons,) but I can understand them being around the same realm on the list. Borg still has the 3 channel Slams. 5 Wimbledons in a row tied with Fed. Six French Open titles is still miles ahead of all men, after Nadal. It was a lot of dominance, while it lasted. And he was really tennis's first super-star. Lendl was no super-star, but he made a lot of his career.

 

[El Dude]

The title count problem holds true today. David Ferrer has won 26 titles--more than Jim Courier (23) or Gustavo Kuerten (20)--but no Slams and only one Masters. 10 are ATP 500, 15 are ATP 250. On the other hand, if we go too far the other way we end up under-valuing Ferrer. The truth of the matter is that he is or was) a solid second tier, top 10 player for about a decade, and the best of that group for several years. How do you balance his career against a David Nalbandian, who was a much better player at his best, but a career half as long? (He was 9-5 vs. Nalbandian, by the way, winning the first three and last three matches they played).

Rod Laver won 200 titles, a bunch of which were presumably the "rinky-dinky" variety. That said, the better players tended to play tournaments with better payouts. This is why I see the Grand Slam Cup of the 90s as a "big title" because it had a huge pay out and attracted lots of top players, more than many Masters, but wasn't actually an ATP tournament.

Or we can look at Jimmy Connors' 109 titles, but only 26 big titles - one less than Agassi.

I think the bottom line is that no single metric, statistical or otherwise, can adequately define a player's greatness, let alone determine his weight vs. other players. This is why every ranking system uses a diversity of metrics, subjective and statistical.