Tennis.com's "50 Greatest Players of Open Era" - who are your top 25?

[mrzz]

I am with @El Dude in this one, at least in a general level. Laver did almost everything that it was possible for him to do. Only regarding the tennis.com list, which explicitly says it counts open era only, that I would not only put Laver behind Nadal but behind a few others. I understand the weight of the small sample argument, but once I checked the H2H of Laver against the dominant players of 3 (yes, 3) generations after him and found out that he dominated or was even against all of them with only one single exception (Connors), I addmitted to myself that his accomplishments were truly great and not only "just context" great.

Obviously, the actual level of tennis kept growing, and I have no doubt that a top 10 player of today would beat comfortably any all time great up to the early 90's. (Of course, we can always wonder what those guys would have done if they have grown up in this era). But this gives further strength to the Laver legacy, as he kept winning in an evolving game, beating players that grew up in a new context.

 

[Andy22]

I think Matt's wilander should be in anyone's top 10 of all time el dude had him 15?

 

[britbox]

I am with @El Dude in this one, at least in a general level. Laver did almost everything that it was possible for him to do. Only regarding the tennis.com list, which explicitly says it counts open era only, than I would not only put Laver behind Nadal but behind a few others. I understand the weight of the small sample argument, but once I checked the H2H of Laver against the dominant players of 3 (yes, 3) generations after him and found out that he dominated or was even against all of them with only one single exception (Connors), I addmitted to myself that his accomplishments were truly great and not only "just context" great.

Obviously, the actual level of tennis kept growing, and I have no doubt that a top 10 player of today would beat comfortably any all time great up to the early 90's. (Of course, we can always wonder what those guys would have done if they have grown up in this era). But this gives further strength to the Laver legacy, as he kept winning in an evolving game, beating players that grew up in a new context.

Hey @mrzz, I've argued a case in favour of Laver being up there too in the past... and he should be up there... but I'm very wary of basing it on a hypothetical slam count...

Laver's pro slams do not equate to a modern-day major and neither do his pre-open era amateur slams. I guess my argument is that not all slams are equal when comparing across eras... but as in being a great player, sure Laver is up there. I'm now thinking Rafa should be above him.

 

[mrzz]

Hey @mrzz, I've argued a case in favour of Laver being up there too in the past... and he should be up there... but I'm very wary of basing it on a hypothetical slam count...

Laver's pro slams do not equate to a modern-day major and neither do his pre-open era amateur slams. I guess my argument is that not all slams are equal when comparing across eras... but as in being a great player, sure Laver is up there. I'm now thinking Rafa should be above him.

I see, and agree with most of your points. In the end it falls back to a matter of taste -- all those guys accomplished different things, what do you deem more important? Even with two guys with almost the same age (Djokovic and Nadal) there could be still argument (specially when it was 14x12).

But, jumping in @El Dude's defense, I do not think he uses the hypothetical slam count as an argument in favor of Laver, but rather as a mere illustrating point.

 

[britbox]

I think Matt's wilander should be in anyone's top 10 of all time el dude had him 15?

Who would you have him above?

 

[Federberg]

I see, and agree with most of your points. In the end it falls back to a matter of taste -- all those guys accomplished different things, what do you deem more important? Even with two guys with almost the same age (Djokovic and Nadal) there could be still argument (specially when it was 14x12).

But, jumping in @El Dude's defense, I do not think he uses the hypothetical slam count as an argument in favor of Laver, but rather as a mere illustrating point.

which is why a list like this really just comes down to personal preference. There is no definitive measure that captures everything. I rather prefer hard data. Who's the best server, who's the best grass court player, who's won the most titles etc Multiple lists, with everyone free to choose what is more important to them. I for one do not think it makes sense to be so slam-centric because you should only judge players by the focus of their ambitions. If players of the past weren't so preoccupied with winning slams why should they be downgraded for it? Lendl decided not to play RG one year because he was consumed with winning Wimbledon. It was shocking because he was the run away favourite to win RG. Can you imagine something like that now? The world has changed. It makes far more sense, if one insists on cross-era comparisons to look at the things which have been consistent throughout time, and in the Open era there are few of those things. Being the number 1 ranked player is one of them, but somehow this seems to be almost an after thought in this particular exercise. Look at Edberg and Becker for example. Becker dominated the H2H, but Edberg won as many slams as him, was number 1 ranked for longer, was in more slam finals than him. Who's the greater player? Personally I would go with Edberg because he dominated the field more, that's my personal taste.

What I'm trying to say is that agreeing or disagreeing with what others think is almost irrelevant (unless someone presumes to have a definitive list), it's all about personal taste

And by the way, a player who has actually managed to get to #1 is automatically elevated vs someone else who hasn't done that but won the same number of slams, in my view. They've done the ultimate thing in sports, be the best of the best

 

[britbox]

The Edberg/Becker one is always a tough one to figure out. Becker ran away with it at the end and ended up 25-10 on the H2H, yet Edberg was 3-1 in majors to the positive and also won the YEC over the German bruiser.

6 majors each... Edberg also won 3 doubles majors, had more weeks at #1... Becker won 49 overall tournaments to Edbergs 42. You can call it either way... My avatar leans toward Edberg

 

[Federberg]

The Edberg/Becker one is always a tough one to figure out. Becker ran away with it at the end and ended up 25-10 on the H2H, yet Edberg was 3-1 in majors to the positive and also won the YEC over the German bruiser.

6 majors each... Edberg also won 3 doubles majors, had more weeks at #1... Becker won 49 overall tournaments to Edbergs 42. You can call it either way... My avatar leans toward Edberg

no secret who I root for! But I do agree it's a close run thing.

 

[mrzz]

What the players are going after at a particular time is indeed a very good measure, @Federberg. Some time back there was another similar argument (I cannot remember exactly in which thread and between who, sorry), and someone raised that prize money was a good measure of how important the tournament was back in the day (and, yes, your Lendl Roland Garros example is a good counter example, but I guess that on average this is a good idea), so what I thought then and post now is that if it was possible to measure how much (percentage wise) of the total money available on one year one player has won, you would have the closest thing to an all-eras measure as you could get.

 

[britbox]

What the players are going after at a particular time is indeed a very good measure, @Federberg. Some time back there was another similar argument (I cannot remember exactly in which thread and between who, sorry), and someone raised that prize money was a good measure of how important the tournament was back in the day (and, yes, your Lendl Roland Garros example is a good counter example, but I guess that on average this is a good idea), so what I thought then and post now is that if it was possible to measure how much (percentage wise) of the total money available on one year one player has won, you would have the closest thing to an all-eras measure as you could get.

Yeah, the players followed the money... heck mrzz in some cases you could win more playing and winning a top exhibition event than a major. Some of those exho events were pretty insane. Borg was playing Mac and Connors in real competitive exhos after he retired. The Suntory Cup in Tokyo had a $250,000 prize pool each year from 1978-1986... it was a 4 man draw. Compare that to the $72.000 you got for winning the AO in 1982.

 

[britbox]

For all the talk of Laver, slams etc... that Open Era Calendar Grand Slam is still and always will be hugely impressive. It is the holy grail of tennis and is recognised by everyone past and present, even if some of the slams at some time or another weren't necessarily the biggest money spinners.

When the AO was played in December and the prize money didn't stack up for some top players... Borg said he would definitely go to Australia if the Calendar Grand Slam was possible... and Connors said he'd definitely follow him to try and prevent it!

 

[Federberg]

What the players are going after at a particular time is indeed a very good measure, @Federberg. Some time back there was another similar argument (I cannot remember exactly in which thread and between who, sorry), and someone raised that prize money was a good measure of how important the tournament was back in the day (and, yes, your Lendl Roland Garros example is a good counter example, but I guess that on average this is a good idea), so what I thought then and post now is that if it was possible to measure how much (percentage wise) of the total money available on one year one player has won, you would have the closest thing to an all-eras measure as you could get.

Lol! There's nothing new under the sun. I've brought up the money issue several times in the past, and I believe either @britbox, @fiero or @shawnbm have as well. I forget who. The point is... all this talk about should player A who's won 8 slams be rated more great than player B who's won the same number of slams but has won at least one of each, is a recent construct. It's ultimately meaningless in my view. Each slam is as valuable as the other. Personally I place a higher value on players who are able to win a ton of the same slam consecutively. That's DOMINANCE. So the idea that Laver can be put above Rafa is an utter joke to me. That's the difference between being hot in one season versus being great, truly great over a career

 

[Andy22]

Who would you have him above?

Yes I would, look at the players ahead of wilander he's better than at least three of them.

 

[britbox]

Yes I would, look at the players ahead of wilander he's better than at least three of them.

Who?

 

[Andy22]

Who?

Edberg, Newcombe Becker?

 

[britbox]

I kind of like @El Dude's list actually... there's a few I'd swap around but it's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.

 

[britbox]

Edberg, Newcombe Becker?

None of those were in his Top 10... you posted that Mats should be Top 10.

 

[Andy22]

None of those were in his Top 10... you posted that Mats should be Top 10.

Well at least 11 or 12, would be about right.

 

[Federberg]

I kind of like @El Dude's list actually... there's a few I'd swap around but it's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things.

Agreed, it's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things, which was my point in first place. There are a number of glaring issues in it as far as I'm concerned which have been highlighted by other posters as well

 

[britbox]

11. Andre Agassi
12. Boris Becker
13. Stefan Edberg
14. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander

was Dude's order...

I think Agassi has a bit of separation...the rest is a bit of a wash... I think you can make a decent argument on placings for the next 4. I like Newcombe in there, to be honest. I think he gets overlooked a lot, he followed some great Aussies and can get lost in the conversation.