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

[Ricardo]

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

Haha you are just easy. Not hard to understand though, you really didn’t get to watch much of the 90s. Muster was generally seen as better for some months, while Chang was superior for years. Chang was consistently battling the Sampras, Agassi’s, Edbergs etc everywhere while Muster was a rollover off clay. Actually talking about Edberg, Muster couldn’t buy a win against him all his life, not even on clay. Imagine if we put Edberg into RG95 final instead of 89, Muster would be slamless with a whole bunch of small titles....where Edberg didn’t bother to compete in. Lol

 

[Federberg]

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).

Lol! You're not making much sense at all mate. But I see you want to be combative right now. Find someone else to play with :sleep:

 

[britbox]

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.

Chang's better than Ferrer, man.... You'd always give Chang an outside shot at the big boys... however small... you couldn't say the same about Ferrer... his ceiling was pretty static.

 

[El Dude]

Haha you are just easy. Not hard to understand though, you really didn’t get to watch much of the 90s. Muster was generally seen as better for some months, while Chang was superior for years. Chang was consistently battling the Sampras, Agassi’s, Edbergs etc everywhere while Muster was a rollover off clay. Actually talking about Edberg, Muster couldn’t buy a win against him all his life, not even on clay. Imagine if we put Edberg into RG95 final instead of 89, Muster would be slamless with a whole bunch of small titles....where Edberg didn’t bother to compete in. Lol

You're right: I did not watch much in the 90s; I was more focused on partying (it was my 20s). I was a casual fan unil about ten years ago, so my "eyeball knowledge" before then is based on Youtube clips. Never claimed to be an expert; in fact, this is why I like to look at stats and records, watch clips, and ask questions : to deepen my historical understanding.

Anyhow, it is a hard call either way. My original point to Federberg stands: the "obvious flaws" he points out are all debatable, and thus not obvious. I haven't decided on Chang vs. Muster, but they seem to be in the same general category of guys who were better than their one Slam title would entail (vs. the Gaudios and Johansson's of the world, who were worse and lesser players than many with no Slams).

 

[El Dude]

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

But let's not over-emphasize Slam titles. Players like Rios and Nalbandian, not to mention Tom Okker, were better than many players with Slam titles - like Edmondson, Teacher, Gaudio, Johansson. Slam count is an important starting point, but then we have to look at the rest to adjust.

 

[Andy22]

But let's not over-emphasize Slam titles. Players like Rios and Nalbandian, not to mention Tom Okker, were better than many players with Slam titles - like Edmondson, Teacher, Gaudio, Johansson. Slam count is an important starting point, but then we have to look at the rest to adjust.

You're right: I did not watch much in the 90s; I was more focused on partying (it was my 20s). I was a casual fan unil about ten years ago, so my "eyeball knowledge" before then is based on Youtube clips. Never claimed to be an expert; in fact, this is why I like to look at stats and records, watch clips, and ask questions : to deepen my historical understanding.

Anyhow, it is a hard call either way. My original point to Federberg stands: the "obvious flaws" he points out are all debatable, and thus not obvious. I haven't decided on Chang vs. Muster, but they seem to be in the same general category of guys who were better than their one Slam title would entail (vs. the Gaudios and Johansson's of the world, who were worse and lesser players than many with no Slams).

My top 5 of all time

 

[DarthFed]

^ LOL. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess if you take out slams, YEC's, weeks at #1, and overall titles your list makes perfect sense.

 

[Ricardo]

You're right: I did not watch much in the 90s; I was more focused on partying (it was my 20s). I was a casual fan unil about ten years ago, so my "eyeball knowledge" before then is based on Youtube clips. Never claimed to be an expert; in fact, this is why I like to look at stats and records, watch clips, and ask questions : to deepen my historical understanding.

Anyhow, it is a hard call either way. My original point to Federberg stands: the "obvious flaws" he points out are all debatable, and thus not obvious. I haven't decided on Chang vs. Muster, but they seem to be in the same general category of guys who were better than their one Slam title would entail (vs. the Gaudios and Johansson's of the world, who were worse and lesser players than many with no Slams).

I’ll make the correction, Federberg is obviously flawed. Oh boy, Chang was superior at 3of the 4 slams but it’s a crime to rate him higher than Muster.

 

[mrzz]

Well, about Muster I guess one must not forget that the guy had to deal with extremely serious injuries due to the car accident and it is impossible not to wonder if things would not be different otherwise. The guy was back training on crunches (and really training) so that alone should move him a few spots up in any list.

Anyway I actually not fond of definitive lists, and all lists -- specially the ones published by specialized sites, have a definitive tone to it. Every time I see a list of "top 10 guitar players" I want to puke (just for remembering than I want to puke).

By the way, I just checked the tennis.com (ugh, actually I hate that site) list and they had Gustavo Kuerten at their 21 spot. I guess the position is reasonable, but the text is idiotic. The title is "Guga’s career was about more than evolution and equipment". Well, geniuses, so why you haven't actually talked about his career and skills and just kept repeating about the strings (that by the way a lot of other players were using)? It is not the first time that I see tennis.com insisting on this point, ignoring that other guys were using it already on his first RG title and virtually everyone on his next two... in case you guys don't know, Kuerten was one of the early users of Luxilon Original, which was there for all tour to use, for months (maybe more than a year). On top of my head the guy he beat on the semis in his first title run was using exactly the same strings.

The guy had monstrous backhand, and was able to comprehensively beat Federer at RG in 2004, he was able to generate a lot of pace as his trainer placed balls to him by tossing them with his bare hands (inside info you wont find anywhere else), so on and so forth.

In a nutshell, this illustrates why I hate those lists. In general you have one or two paragraphs to make your case, and therefore "sum up" a player's career. Too good if you can do it properly, but in general the more I see is people missing by miles. Good grief this fucking internet age spreads ignorance like a biblical plague.

 

[Andy22]

Well might have got first list a little wrong So here's my new one. Top 15 of all time. 1.Rafael Nadal. 2.Roger Federer. 3.Rod laver. 4.Pete Sampras. 5.Novak Djokovic. 6.John McEnroe. 7.Agassi. 8.ken rosewell. 9. Boris Becker. 10.Edberg . 11.Roy Emerson . 12.Don' budge. 13.Bjorn Borg. 14. Fred Pery. 15. Andy Murray

 

[Horsa]

1.Rafael Nadal 2.rod laver 3.Novak djokovic 4. Federer 5. Pete.sam

Welcome. Don't worry about people disagreeing with you. Some people here just like to argue the toss with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Some people do go O.T.T with disagreements but other people just like a bit of banter & fun. I guess you've just got to get to know people, how they work & how to take them.

 

[El Dude]

Well might have got first list a little wrong So here's my new one. Top 10 of all time. 1.Rafael Nadal. 2.Roger Federer. 3.Rod laver. 4.Pete Sampras. 5.Novak Djokovic. 6.John McEnroe. 7.Agassi. 8.ken rosewell. 9. Boris Becker. 10.Edberg

Evidently you're not aware of a guy named Bjorn Borg.

 

[El Dude]

@mrzz, I hear you but comparing ranking lists of tennis players to guitarists is a bit of a false equivalency because tennis is a sport and guitar is music. The first can be somewhat quantified through statistics and records, the latter much less so, and as primarily aesthetic in nature, is far more subjective in terms of valuation.

I was dabbling with the idea of starting a series of threads that attempted to create a Tennis Prose list. I would offer certain criteria to consider, and then would offer groupings of players, trying to at least establish agreement on groupings (e.g. we can all probably agree that Muster and Chang are in the same general ballpark - even Federberg, hopefully. We would then hash out the order of each grouping, until there is vague consensus. I guess there's have to be a final arbiter, which would be myself, of course .

Not sure how much buy-in that sort of project would get, though.

 

[Nekro]

Every time I see a list of "top 10 guitar players" I want to puke (just for remembering than I want to puke).

@mrzz, I hear you but comparing ranking lists of tennis players to guitarists is a bit of a false equivalency because tennis is a sport and guitar is music. The first can be somewhat quantified through statistics and records, the latter much less so, and as primarily aesthetic in nature, is far more subjective in terms of valuation.

ummm actually it can be quantified, you can come up with million ways to quantify it....

Also haven't you 2 heard of the term "sport guitarist"?

Like you can count how many scales they use....

you can also count the techniques they are competent at .... like sweep picking, etc.... some of the top guitarists are not able to pull that off to save their lives.... or don't sweep pick at all..... Some can't use the tremolo bar for shit, etc.....

The technical limitations can also be quantified....

Also it's common consensus that Michael Angelo Batio or Muhammed Suiçmez pick much more cleanly than Jeff Hanneman or Kirk Hammett... You can analyze it and prove it with comp too.....

And that's just off the top of my head.....

You can't state random shit in the guitarist communities, like sevenstring.org for example and get away with it if it's stupid.... tons of things can be proven scientifically too....

ofc it's another thing which guitarist writes and plays stuff that you like, that's subjective... but there's tons of hard science behind music....


PS: it's another thing that most of the top 10 lists mrzz is talking about are put together in half-assed ways but you could make serious lists....

 

[mrzz]

@mrzz, I hear you but comparing ranking lists of tennis players to guitarists is a bit of a false equivalency because tennis is a sport and guitar is music. The first can be somewhat quantified through statistics and records, the latter much less so, and as primarily aesthetic in nature, is far more subjective in terms of valuation.

I was dabbling with the idea of starting a series of threads that attempted to create a Tennis Prose list. I would offer certain criteria to consider, and then would offer groupings of players, trying to at least establish agreement on groupings (e.g. we can all probably agree that Muster and Chang are in the same general ballpark - even Federberg, hopefully. We would then hash out the order of each grouping, until there is vague consensus. I guess there's have to be a final arbiter, which would be myself, of course .

Not sure how much buy-in that sort of project would get, though.

Hey, Dude, don't worry, I get your spirit when compiling lists... you try hard to find criteria for it and it is wise enough to know the limited value, or better, the non-definitive aspect of it. And, yes, the comparison with guitar players is cruel, but, damn, I hate both kinds of lists and it is a good argument to me .

Consensus, here? What have you been drinking? Whatever it is, I want some...

What I think it is achievable is a list of tiers: the top X (in no particular order), the next Y, etc and etc.

In that case I can even contribute, leaving completely clear that it is completely subjective. My first six would be:

1) Borg, Djokovic, Federer, Laver, Nadal and Sampras (alphabetical order, but people can debate that if they want).

Probably around 10 guys on the second tier, and surely more than that on the third. A special place for Guga just because we grew up on the same place.

 

[mrzz]

ummm actually it can be quantified, you can come up with million ways to quantify it....

Also haven't you 2 heard of the term "sport guitarist"?

Like you can count how many scales they use....

you can also count the techniques they are competent at .... like sweep picking, etc.... some of the top guitarists are not able to pull that off to save their lives.... or don't sweep pick at all..... Some can't use the tremolo bar for shit, etc.....

The technical limitations can also be quantified....

Also it's common consensus that Michael Angelo Batio or Muhammed Suiçmez pick much more cleanly than Jeff Hanneman or Kirk Hammett... You can analyze it and prove it with comp too.....

And that's just off the top of my head.....

You can't state random shit in the guitarist communities, like sevenstring.org for example and get away with it if it's stupid.... tons of things can be proven scientifically too....

ofc it's another thing which guitarist writes and plays stuff that you like, that's subjective... but there's tons of hard science behind music....


PS: it's another thing that most of the top 10 lists mrzz is talking about are put together in half-assed ways but you could make serious lists....

I got your point, but there is more to it. Not to mention composition, there are other aspects of guitar playing that cannot be quantified. A guitar player is made of the sum of all those aspects, and this sum is hard/impossible to quantify. In other words, a lot of extremely technical guys out there that I would rather shoot than hear the sob playing...

 

[Nekro]

I got your point, but there is more to it. Not to mention composition, there are other aspects of guitar playing that cannot be quantified. A guitar player is made of the sum of all those aspects, and this sum is hard/impossible to quantify. In other words, a lot of extremely technical guys out there that I would rather shoot than hear the sob playing...

Just like tennis.... Tennis has aesthetical aspects too that you could argue about 'til kingdom come..... like blablabla's strokes are so ugly watching him play makes me puke etc etc..... Watching someone play pleases one and horrifies someone else.... But there are things that you can quantify about tennis...... Same with guitar players....... Certain things can be quantified others no....

 

[DarthFed]

Well might have got first list a little wrong So here's my new one. Top 10 of all time. 1.Rafael Nadal. 2.Roger Federer. 3.Rod laver. 4.Pete Sampras. 5.Novak Djokovic. 6.John McEnroe. 7.Agassi. 8.ken rosewell. 9. Boris Becker. 10.Edberg

Better, but still glaring errors starting at the top. Roger must have achieved a lot today to go from #4 to #2 in your book. And Rafa at #1 despite an inferior resume across the board makes perfect sense

 

[Horsa]

Hey, Dude, don't worry, I get your spirit when compiling lists... you try hard to find criteria for it and it is wise enough to know the limited value, or better, the non-definitive aspect of it. And, yes, the comparison with guitar players is cruel, but, damn, I hate both kinds of lists and it is a good argument to me .

Consensus, here? What have you been drinking? Whatever it is, I want some...

What I think it is achievable is a list of tiers: the top X (in no particular order), the next Y, etc and etc.

In that case I can even contribute, leaving completely clear that it is completely subjective. My first six would be:

1) Borg, Djokovic, Federer, Laver, Nadal and Sampras (alphabetical order, but people can debate that if they want).

Probably around 10 guys on the second tier, and surely more than that on the third. A special place for Guga just because we grew up on the same place.

I like alphabetical order. I worked in a library, book-shop & office. I'm used to alphabeticising everything. I keep my book-shelf in alphabetical order & normally read them in alphabetical order. Lol.

 

[El Dude]

@Nekro, I hear your point but think that the aesthetic aspect is very difficult to quantify, and is more prominent in music as an art form than it is in tennis. Yes, tennis has artistic element (see "Federer, Roger"), but it is far less of a component within greatness than overall effectiveness.

For instance, if Nadal wins ten more Slams and Roger no more, Rafa's the GOAT - no ifs, ands, or buts, even if Roger will go down in history as the Most Beautiful, Aesthetically Pleasing and Elegant Player of All Time, As Voted By Anyone With An Inkling of a Tennis Eye.

The big difference between tennis and music is that tennis is, in the end, about winning and losing; it isn't only about that, but in the end you either win or lose a match, no matter how beautifully you play. Again, effectiveness trumps artistry (in tennis).

But that is not the case in music. You can be the most technically proficient guitarist, with the fastest and most precise playing, but have little sense of artistry. Furthermore, how do you compare across genres: flamenco vs. jazz vs. speed metal? Different genres call for different qualities. Or what about originality? Stevie Ray Vaughn was more technically proficient and precise than Jimi Hendrix, but he didn't have that extra special something that defines Jimi's legend. Or if we look at bassists, how to quantify the uniqueness of Jaco Pastorius? Victor Wooten or Marcus Miller are probably more technically proficient than Jaco was, but Jaco's sound...