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

[El Dude]

Since I started watching in the 90's it'd be stupid for me to attempt a long list like this and I can see the difficulties in placing Laver and Rosewall. Also Nole vs. Sampras is an interesting one. That was a debate two years ago and the general consensus was that it was close to call but who cares as Nole was a lock to pass him up soon. Now that doesn't seem to be a given!

I'd argue Stan and Safin over Chang. I know Chang was more consistent but Stan has the two extra majors, Safin has one more than Chang and was also number one for a short stint while Chang reached #2 (Stan's high so far is #3).

Why is it stupid to attempt a list? One doesn't have to be an absolute authority - I certainly don't claim to be. Anyhow, we have statistics, we have career records - which are objective, unlike our eyeball test and memory. We also have judgement. It is all for fun.

Clearly some combination is ideal. No serious tennis historian or analyst will judge players' all-time greatness solely on memory. But it seems that some here have a very strong knee-jerk reaction against statistics. It is kind of weird.

But yeah, agree on Novak vs. Pete. Still very close.

I was tempted to put Stan in the 20-25 range.

 

[El Dude]

LOL @Nekro. Leather Boys, eh?

 

[mrzz]

Well, talk about having exactly the opposite effect of what you desired... (in other words, I just lost a fantastic opportunity to keep my big fat mouth shut).

...and, @Nekro, leave Halford alone. Just for "Beyond the Realms of Death" he gets credit to fuck with Crocodiles if he wants to...

 

[MartyB]

You saw both of them play, too? Wow, I thought I was the only one around here besides Fiero that was older than dirt. I did note that you agree that it's all opinion. That's why I don't see that you argue so much. Let's face it...you do take after El Dude. It's just an exercise to inspire conversation. Anyway, I saw Jimmy in DC at the Open, on clay, probably '75. And I saw JMac in college, when he was 18, the one year he played for Stanford, at my university, '77-78. We went because everyone said, "You've gotta see this guy play!" Indeed. He turned pro the next year.

I'm older than dirt as well. Starting going to Forest Hills around 1972...Won't say how old I was either. LoL. Jimmy's longevity and tenacity was there for all the world to see. I just thought JMac was the more talented player. But statistically one has to give the edge to Jimmy even as repugnant as he was & is.

 

[Busted]

Did anybody make a case for my two favorite head cases - Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios?

 

[El Dude]

Did anybody make a case for my two favorite head cases - Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios?

Off the top of my head, Safin would be ranked somewhere in the 20s and Rios probably low 30s.

 

[Horsa]

Memo to all fellow posters trying not to prolong a war: next time you see that perfect opportunity to make that clever snarky comment, for once just let it pass. You probably have said it in different words a thousand times already (or even maybe with almost the same words).

Good advice! No snide remarks, witty word-play no matter how subtle & calming down before responding & watching phraseology helps a lot too.

 

[Moxie]

Did anybody make a case for my two favorite head cases - Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios?

I think there was some noise around Safin as being over Chang. (Which I would agree with.) Marcelo Rios...I know the myth more than his tennis, but isn't he more like Nalbandian? Widely considered to be a terrific tennis player, but without the wins? Though I think Rios was considered better, no?

 

[Ricardo]

Putting. Mac above Connors is an obvious flaw. Putting a diminutive guy who was there or thereabouts for years above a guy who touched the stars and has more lasting achievements is not an acknowledgement of greatness, just a recognition of quality. There are other flaws that are obvious. But as usual you’re so defensive you probably haven’t once reviewed your own list. It seems it’s more of an exercise in showcasing your intellect than an appreciation of tennis. Anyway I’ve said my bit

Two things, putting Mac above Connors is not an obvious flaw.....they achieved similarly in a close enough era and just look around, about half the people support one of them each side. Since it is nothing but opinion including yours, it’s a close call as shown. Secondly, if Chang is diminutive at 5”9’ while Connor isn’t (at 5”10’), sorry but you are just obviously very biased against certain players...like many fans around here.

 

[Ricardo]

back in the day doubles was part of your tennis greatness, the singles players didn’t just participate to mock around....that should be considered. Sadly it’s not the case anymore, the top singles players only play it if they have to today.

 

[Federberg]

Two things, putting Mac above Connors is not an obvious flaw.....they achieved similarly in a close enough era and just look around, about half the people support one of them each side. Since it is nothing but opinion including yours, it’s a close call as shown. Secondly, if Chang is diminutive at 5”9’ while Connor isn’t (at 5”10’), sorry but you are just obviously very biased against certain players...like many fans around here.

By half the people supporting one side and half the other, you refer to this forum? I'm not impressed...

Well let's have a look at Connors vs Mac. And it pains me because Mac along with Edberg and Federer are my favourite players of all time (btw I used to argue this point on the other side, but I used doubles to bolster my case for Mac)..


Connors McEnroe
Weeks at #1 268 170
No of Slams 8 7
Span of years for slam wins 10 6
Year end #1 5 4
No of titles 109 77
Years on tour 24 16
Consecutive years in top 10 16 8

As much as I love Mac, it's hard to come up with any scenario where he can go on any tennis list of greats above the loathsome Connors. The man beats Mac by the numbers (and over and above the numbers he was every bit a BSD as Mac was reference 'Liars Poker' for BSD ), and his longevity near the top is matched only by the likes of Federer. Folks might want to dispute it, we live in a post fact world after all, but that doesn't deter me in the least. I haven't lived my life succumbing to the herd, in fact being anti-consensus has worked very well for me, so I'm very comfortable where I'm sitting. Don't give a hoot whether most on this forum agree with me or not, when I'm forced to present a case against one of my favourite players His star burned brighter than Connors, and to my mind only Federer has exhibited more talent than Mac that I have seen. But talent and greatness are different things..

As for whether Chang is diminutive or not it's an irrelevance. I described him as such because that always sprung to mind when I watched him live - by the way I don't trust the published height measures. Thought he was a phenomenal player by the way, and easily cast aside due to the Sampras's, Agassi's and Courier's. But that's neither here nor there. As a guy who's been watching tennis since the late 70s, there are certain players who echo through time because of their feats/ periods of dominance. As tough a player as Chang was, he simply can't be compared to Muster who at one point was considered an absolute beast and feared. (This is the problem with just looking at data imho). Used to love watching Muster play on the dirt, and one of the matches I would love to see in a cross-era match up is peak Muster vs peak Nadal on clay. That would have been something!

 

[Federberg]

back in the day doubles was part of your tennis greatness, the singles players didn’t just participate to mock around....that should be considered. Sadly it’s not the case anymore, the top singles players only play it if they have to today.

I agree with this. Mac's combination of doubles and singles titles is something that's unlikely ever to be matched

 

[El Dude]

@Federberg, I've played with lists for a few years now and this is the first time I've ranked McEnroe above Connors, if I remember correctly. Ironically the reason I did so was because I was trying to balance the stats with how the players are historically viewed - what they were capable of on court, and how they are perceived as far as their ability is concerned.

As for Chang and Muster, would you at least that they're in the same general ballpark?

 

[Federberg]

^ It depends on how you define greatness. I'll give Chang credit for the age at which he won RG. He also has significance in that he's of Oriental stock, so I get how folks could remember him over someone with roughly similar career achievements. But to me greatness is about more than that. It's about achievement, it's also about how you were viewed by your peers in your time. How fearsome were you? Did you dominate something. Were you the best at something for a time? That's greatness to me. Taking it to the extreme, you could have a player who was ranked no. 2 for years and was a perpetual runner up in slams. Let's say they got to 10 slam finals but never won. Sure, they would be memorable (memorable as a big loser imho). Greatness is about winning, it's about dominance. The longer you're able to do that, the greater you are. What is it Nike said? You don't win silver, you lose gold. That's just my opinion

 

[El Dude]

I hear you and agree with that - but like to balance it with career accomplishments. In other words, ti is both - and of course once we get into the Chang/Muster level, we're not really talking about "greatness" but "very goodness."

Looking at their careers, in a way Chang is basically like a David Ferrer, but with a Slam and more Masters - but Masters were far more distributed then; in other words, Chang didn't have to deal with the Big Four like Ferrer has.

 

[Federberg]

^Not only did Muster win significantly more titles than Chang, he got to number 1. Was universally recognised as the best clay court player for a time. Had the longest clay court streak since Borg, until Rafa came along. Muster had superlatives attached to his achievements in a way Chang never did. There is a marked difference between the two, and to me that difference is greatness. Chang was good, very good. I've even forgiven him for beating Edberg at RG. But I can in no way understand any list that has Chang above Muster when looking at greatness. When I see such a thing I question the very definition of greatness that is implied by that list.

For example when I think of clay court greats at their peak who I would like to see play against Rafa, I don't just think Borg, or Lendl, or Villas. I think Muster as well. I never sit down and wonder how Chang would have done against anyone. He just doesn't pass the hurdle where I would waste my time wondering how he would have fared. He doesn't register to me, Muster does

 

[El Dude]

You make a good case, and I may adjust the list and put Muster above Chang. It is a work in progress!

 

[Busted]

Off the top of my head, Safin would be ranked somewhere in the 20s and Rios probably low 30s.

Sounds about right. I'd probably put Safin ahead of Stan even though Stan's won more Slams. Rios is a bit less straight forward...but ultimately no Slams pushes him out of the Top 25...

 

[Busted]

I think there was some noise around Safin as being over Chang. (Which I would agree with.) Marcelo Rios...I know the myth more than his tennis, but isn't he more like Nalbandian? Widely considered to be a terrific tennis player, but without the wins? Though I think Rios was considered better, no?

Correct. As I was just saying to El Dude - no Slams pushes Rios out of the Top 25 - probably out of the top 35. Safin won 2 Slams so I could make a case to squeeze him into the Top 25...but then I think about his lack of longevity when there were players like Stan Smith, John Newcombe and Yevgeny Kafelnikov who played longer probably should be Top 25. I guess if you look at the Ultimate Tennis Statistics; GOAT list...their numbers make the case that neither Safin nor Rios should be Top 25...

http://ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList

 

[Ricardo]

By half the people supporting one side and half the other, you refer to this forum? I'm not impressed...

Well let's have a look at Connors vs Mac. And it pains me because Mac along with Edberg and Federer are my favourite players of all time (btw I used to argue this point on the other side, but I used doubles to bolster my case for Mac)..


Connors McEnroe
Weeks at #1 268 170
No of Slams 8 7
Span of years for slam wins 10 6
Year end #1 5 4
No of titles 109 77
Years on tour 24 16
Consecutive years in top 10 16 8

As much as I love Mac, it's hard to come up with any scenario where he can go on any tennis list of greats above the loathsome Connors. The man beats Mac by the numbers (and over and above the numbers he was every bit a BSD as Mac was reference 'Liars Poker' for BSD ), and his longevity near the top is matched only by the likes of Federer. Folks might want to dispute it, we live in a post fact world after all, but that doesn't deter me in the least. I haven't lived my life succumbing to the herd, in fact being anti-consensus has worked very well for me, so I'm very comfortable where I'm sitting. Don't give a hoot whether most on this forum agree with me or not, when I'm forced to present a case against one of my favourite players His star burned brighter than Connors, and to my mind only Federer has exhibited more talent than Mac that I have seen. But talent and greatness are different things..

As for whether Chang is diminutive or not it's an irrelevance. I described him as such because that always sprung to mind when I watched him live - by the way I don't trust the published height measures. Thought he was a phenomenal player by the way, and easily cast aside due to the Sampras's, Agassi's and Courier's. But that's neither here nor there. As a guy who's been watching tennis since the late 70s, there are certain players who echo through time because of their feats/ periods of dominance. As tough a player as Chang was, he simply can't be compared to Muster who at one point was considered an absolute beast and feared. (This is the problem with just looking at data imho). Used to love watching Muster play on the dirt, and one of the matches I would love to see in a cross-era match up is peak Muster vs peak Nadal on clay. That would have been something!

Actually I don’t care if Mac is your fav or not, for one moment you should know it’s not about you. As expected you just do what the herd does, you list things selectively in Connors favour. So much for claiming not doing what the herd does or thinks.

Wether Chang is diminutive is indeed not significant normally, except in this case it shows you cannot judge but rely on your ‘opinion’ when it’s just about a simple fact. If Connors isn’t diminutive, then Chang isn’t either....of course you say you don’t trust atp public records, to which I say they at least publish it for all to see, while all you do is dispute with your mouth with nothing to back up. Better if you stop with this been watching tennis from 70s nonsense, because it reflects poorly with your knowledge of the game and as shown of what you got out of it, you’ve wasted a lot of time.....unfortunately. Good example, Muster vs Nadal? Anyone with some experience wouldn’t fancy too much, as you basically pit a lefty against another who is better in just about every aspect....more powerful, faster, stronger, and who also happens to be outright more talented.

I’ll sum it up for you, Chang was better than Muster at 3 of the 4 slams by some distance and RG is the only surface one can dispute with serious argument. For you to openly criticise people who ranked Chang ahead of Muster and made counter claims with such certainty just shows that you are full of it with nothing to back up (don’t forget also your dispute of players published height).