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

[El Dude]

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 the tiers, and that is where I'd start. But right there I think you have possible points of argument. For instance, given overall career accomplishments, can we include Borg, Novak and even Sampras with the other three?

But I like those six, who all have arguments - even if tenuous - for GOATdom, or at least being included within the conversation. Borg just barely makes the cut in that regard, with the problem (and mystique) of his early retirement. Sampras might have even less of an argument for inclusion, because we can compare him to Federer, who pretty much surpasses him in every way.

So...

Tier 1 (GOAT candidates): Borg, Djokovic, Federer, Laver, Nadal, Sampras

The next tier would be those players who don't have a GOAT argument, but were true greats, #1 types who won at least half a dozen Slams:

Tier 2 ("True Greats"): Agassi, Becker, Connors, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Newcombe, Rosewall, Wilander.

We could further sub-divide, but for broad categories I think those guys go together.

A third tier, would be "lesser greats" - players who were very, very good, but not quite true greats; probably all should have won multiple Slams and been #1:

Tier 3 ("Lesser Greats"):. Ashe, Nastase, Vilas, Courier, Kuerten, Murray, maybe Stanimal...

And then a fourth tier would be excellent players who didn't make the cut of greatness, but who were very good, perhaps #1 for a time, or at least top 5 regularly:

Tier 4 ("Near Greats"): Kodes, Smith, Gimeno, Gerulaitis, Noah, Stich, Ivanisevic, Bruguera, Rafter, Muster, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Hewitt, Roddick, Wawrinka, del Potro, Cilic, etc...(I'm sure there are more)

And then a fifth tier which would be comprised of players who either won a single Slam but not much else, or didn't win a Slam but had really good careers - regular top 10 types:

Tier 5 (Very Good Players): Okker, Kriek, Teacher, Panatta, Gomez, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych...etc, etc.

Lots of debateable material there. For instance, where does Wawrinka belong, tier 3 or 4? Do Cilic and del Potro belong in 4 yet? Can we put Rios in tier 4, even though he didn't win a Slam? Etc.

 

[Andy22]

Part 2 of my list 6-10 6.Agassi. 7.john McEnroe. 8.ken rosewell . 9.bo

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

Yea I I'm Bjorn Borg won 6 Roland garros titles 5 Wimbledon titles he was unlucky to miss out on my top if I had did a top 20 he would have been next .but all the players ahead of Bjorn Borg had just as good or a little better career's.

 

[mrzz]

I like the tiers, and that is where I'd start. But right there I think you have possible points of argument. For instance, given overall career accomplishments, can we include Borg, Novak and even Sampras with the other three?

Well, that's why they are tiers, right? They don't need to be absolute equals. And all those three have their cases for GOATness, Borg with his dominance which was self terminated (and the channel slams when they were played so differently), Djokovic with the Novak slam, turning the tables against Fedal and the absurd dominance, and Sampras with the number of year end #1's (and a major count which is still #3). For me they clearly belong in the first tier. They surely do not belong in the second...

Anyway, obviously debatable, but way more possible to reach logical agreement than with absolute ordering.

 

[Ricardo]

Sampras does not belong to the same group as you cannot be weak on a very important surface, no excuse.

 

[Federberg]

Sampras does not belong to the same group as you cannot be weak on a very important surface, no excuse.

That makes a lot of sense... not

 

[mrzz]

Sampras does not belong to the same group as you cannot be weak on a very important surface, no excuse.

Well, that's an argument... I cannot counter it, to be honest. All I can do is try to go around it... as Sampras has more majors than Djokovic and Borg, and overall numbers who are comparable or better than most, I cannot see him anywhere else. But, yes, the clay court resume is a glaring weakness. I need to think a bit to be sure if this alone is reason enough to keep the guy out the group.

 

[Federberg]

Well, that's an argument... I cannot counter it, to be honest. All I can do is try to go around it... as Sampras has more majors than Djokovic and Borg, and overall numbers who are comparable or better than most, I cannot see him anywhere else. But, yes, the clay court resume is a glaring weakness. I need to think a bit to be sure if this alone is reason enough to keep the guy out the group.

2nd highest weeks at number 1, most year end number 1s. 3rd most number of slams. Weak one place, strong elsewhere. If the 2nd most dominant player in the open era isn't a tier 1 player, then these tiers don't make any sense to me

 

[britbox]

2nd highest weeks at number 1, most year end number 1s. 3rd most number of slams. Weak one place, strong elsewhere. If the 2nd most dominant player in the open era isn't a tier 1 player, then these tiers don't make any sense to me

It depends on how you define the tiers... If you're looking for the Top 5 players of the open era, then Sampras has a good argument for inclusion... if Tier 1 is "GOAT Candidate' then he doesn't... because there isn't really any argument how you could put him above Federer which basically excludes him from the discussion as a candidate for "GOAT"

 

[Federberg]

It depends on how you define the tiers... If you're looking for the Top 5 players of the open era, then Sampras has a good argument for inclusion... if Tier 1 is "GOAT Candidate' then he doesn't... because there isn't really any argument how you could put him above Federer which basically excludes him from the discussion as a candidate for "GOAT"

I'm not sure how any of the others can be put above him either though. But you know what? I keep punishing myself by looking at threads like this. I'm going to do my best to ignore them in future

 

[Horsa]

I'm not sure how any of the others can be put above him either though. But you know what? I keep punishing myself by looking at threads like this. I'm going to do my best to ignore them in future

Why do you feel you're punishing yourself by reading this type of thread & why are you going to try your utmost best to ignore them in future? You've got a right to have & air an opinion like everyone else & you don't have to explain why you think or feel the way you do if you don't want to.

 

[El Dude]

Well, that's why they are tiers, right? They don't need to be absolute equals. And all those three have their cases for GOATness, Borg with his dominance which was self terminated (and the channel slams when they were played so differently), Djokovic with the Novak slam, turning the tables against Fedal and the absurd dominance, and Sampras with the number of year end #1's (and a major count which is still #3). For me they clearly belong in the first tier. They surely do not belong in the second...

Anyway, obviously debatable, but way more possible to reach logical agreement than with absolute ordering.

Yes, good point. I will echo what @britbox said, which also echoed what I previously said: that it depends on whether tier 1 is "best half dozen players of Open Era" or "GOAT candidates." If it is the latter, he doesn't belong because Roger pretty much surpasses in most ways, statistically speaking. If it is the former, then certainly.

 

[mrzz]

Yes, good point. I will echo what @britbox said, which also echoed what I previously said: that it depends on whether tier 1 is "best half dozen players of Open Era" or "GOAT candidates." If it is the latter, he doesn't belong because Roger pretty much surpasses in most ways, statistically speaking. If it is the former, then certainly.

But doesn't Federer surpasses everyone in most ways, statistically speaking? I guess that, like Sampras, all other members of the list only have only one aspect in which they overcome him. Djokovic has the modern day "Novak Slam", Laver has the two grand slams, Nadal has... well, only the H2H, which is not an argument in itself, Borg has only the channel slams. This way we could rule out basically everyone.

My gut feeling, even if the clay argument is a strong one, is that he should stay on the list, no matter what the tier ultimately is, but of course I agree that "best half a dozen" would entail less problems than "GOAT candidates", actually circumventing the clay problem too. So I suggest we stick to the half a dozen list and jump to next polemic.

 

[El Dude]

But doesn't Federer surpasses everyone in most ways, statistically speaking? I guess that, like Sampras, all other members of the list only have only one aspect in which they overcome him. Djokovic has the modern day "Novak Slam", Laver has the two grand slams, Nadal has... well, only the H2H, which is not an argument in itself, Borg has only the channel slams. This way we could rule out basically everyone.

My gut feeling, even if the clay argument is a strong one, is that he should stay on the list, no matter what the tier ultimately is, but of course I agree that "best half a dozen" would entail less problems than "GOAT candidates", actually circumventing the clay problem too. So I suggest we stick to the half a dozen list and jump to next polemic.

Yes, I agree that the six make a good first tier - and if we wanted to extend that to before the Open Era, we could add Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales, but maybe let's not go there.

But I think we could separate that first tier into two groups: true GOAT candidates, and "GOAT pretenders" - meaning, players who have some GOAT qualities but don't quite make the cut (yet). The only two true GOAT contenders, in my view, are Laver and Federer; the other four belong in the second "sub-tier."

Similar with the next grouping - those guys could be separated into two sub-tiers, as well. I see it as:

1a: Laver, Federer
1b: Borg, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic
2a: Rosewall, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Agassi
2b. Newcombe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

Again, I'm including the entire careers of the "tweeners."

 

[Andy22]

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Rod Laver
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Pete Sampras
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Ken Rosewall
8. Ivan Lendl
9. John McEnroe
10. Jimmy Connors
11. Andre Agassi
12. Boris Becker
13. Stefan Edberg
14. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander
16. Andy Murray
17. Guillermo Vilas
18. Ilie Nastase
19. Arthur Ashe
20. Jim Courier
21. Gustavo Kuerten
22. Lleyton Hewitt
23. Stan Smith
24. Andy Roddick
25. Michael Chang

For me the hardest player to rank is Ken Rosewall because of how his career is distributed. There's an argument that he should be in the top 5, just as there's argument Laver should be top 2. But if you look at Open Era only, Rosewall belongs somewhere in the 16-20 range. In the end, I went for balance. John Newcombe is also difficult to rank.

I think it also gets dicey after Andy Murray. To me, Andy is clearly greater than everyone after, but the ordering after him is hard to weigh.

Where Dude budge USA I guy won 6 slams in a row which is a record. Also you are jokeing by not putting in Roy Emerson he won 12 slams for gods slake

 

[El Dude]

Where Dude budge USA I guy won 6 slams in a row which is a record. Also you are jokeing by not putting in Roy Emerson he won 12 slams for gods slake

Emerson won 12 Slams in the amateur era, which is why he's not on the list; he played for a few years in the Open Era but was in decline and didn't do much. Budge goes back further. If I were doing a historical list, Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales would both be top ten.

 

[Ricardo]

2nd highest weeks at number 1, most year end number 1s. 3rd most number of slams. Weak one place, strong elsewhere. If the 2nd most dominant player in the open era isn't a tier 1 player, then these tiers don't make any sense to me

You are still blinded by your former love of a player. Sampras also lags a bit on slow hard, so once again you don’t know what you were talking about. As to 2nd most dominant? In which year? Fedalvics all had their 3-slam years, that’s dominance...while no1 ranking is up for grabs by the likes of rios, musters, Ferreros, Rafters, etc. only the cream of the top could have 3-slam years. Sampras had his chances and worked for it, but he wasn’t real strong at ao and rg.

 

[Andy22]

Emerson won 12 Slams in the amateur era, which is why he's not on the list; he played for a few years in the Open Era but was in decline and didn't do much. Budge goes back further. If I were doing a historical list, Bill Tilden and Pancho Gonzales would both be top ten.

OK fair enough. But your list could use some work

 

[Moxie]

You are still blinded by your former love of a player. Sampras also lags a bit on slow hard, so once again you don’t know what you were talking about. As to 2nd most dominant? In which year? Fedalvics all had their 3-slam years, that’s dominance...while no1 ranking is up for grabs by the likes of rios, musters, Ferreros, Rafters, etc. only the cream of the top could have 3-slam years. Sampras had his chances and worked for it, but he wasn’t real strong at ao and rg.

There is plenty argument for Sampras at the top tier of the list, as @Federberg says. But, even in the short time since he played, the goal posts have moved as to what makes a great, with Fedalkovic. I do think his inability to translate his game to clay is a big knock against him. At the time, I think he arrogantly didn't think he had to make the adjustment. Something that the recent greats have over him.

 

[El Dude]

OK fair enough. But your list could use some work

You mean like putting Nadal at #1 and pushing Borg out of the top 10? Haha, yeah right.

 

[Andy22]

You mean like putting Nadal at #1 and pushing Borg out of the top 10? Haha, yeah right.

I I'm not talking About, Nadal or Borg I very happy with their spots but Players like Mats wilander 15th, really. Agassi 11th are better than some of the players ahead of them