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
