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

[shawnbm]

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

I respectfully disagree. Until the late 1990s the clay major was won mostly by Europeans and mostly Europeans played in it—not many North Americans or Australian players.it was largely that way in the seventies and early eighties. Connors was barred from and then rarely played there, by way of example. I think the importance of playing well on all surfaces has really only come to the fore since the rise of Federer—Nadal. Now it is a necessity to excel on all the surfaces. Borg did that, but so did Connors (at least on HarTru). So, the guys from way back then should get cut a little slack as should Pistol Pete.

 

[El Dude]

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

Well it is all debateable, no?

 

[Tennis Miller]

It will be interesting to see if Tennis mag puts Pete above Djoker. I think they will, mainly because of the total slam count and the weeks at #1.

 

[El Dude]

I forgot about this. Here are their picks so far:

10. Jimmy Connors
11. Andre Agassi
12. Mats Wilander
13. Boris Becker
14. Stefan Edberg
15. John Newcombe
16. Guillermo Vilas
17. Jim Courier
18. Andy Murray
19. Ilie Nastase
20. Arthur Ashe
21. Gustavo Kuerten
22. Lleyton Hewitt
23. Stan Smith
24. Stanislas Wawrinka
25. Andy Roddick

I'd personally rank Andy Murray over Courier and Vilas, and Wilander behind Becker/Edberg, but I'm OK with their list so far. I'm guessing the rest is like so:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Rod Laver
7. Ivan Lendl
8. John McEnroe
9. Ken Rosewall

I'm not saying I agree with that, just my guess as to how they'll order them.

 

[El Dude]

It will be interesting to see if Tennis mag puts Pete above Djoker. I think they will, mainly because of the total slam count and the weeks at #1.

I'm almost certain that they will.

 

[Moxie]

I forgot about this. Here are their picks so far:

10. Jimmy Connors
11. Andre Agassi
12. Mats Wilander
13. Boris Becker
14. Stefan Edberg
15. John Newcombe
16. Guillermo Vilas
17. Jim Courier
18. Andy Murray
19. Ilie Nastase
20. Arthur Ashe
21. Gustavo Kuerten
22. Lleyton Hewitt
23. Stan Smith
24. Stanislas Wawrinka
25. Andy Roddick

I'd personally rank Andy Murray over Courier and Vilas, and Wilander behind Becker/Edberg, but I'm OK with their list so far. I'm guessing the rest is like so:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Rod Laver
7. Ivan Lendl
8. John McEnroe
9. Ken Rosewall

I'm not saying I agree with that, just my guess as to how they'll order them.

I would agree with your putting Murray over Vilas and Courier. While each has one more Major, there are a lot of fine-points in there, and Courier did play Olympics. My gut says that Murray has faced down more. (And I was a big Vilas fan.) I also think they'll take Pete over Novak, especially if they're favoring Slam count. Also, Pete still has a big fan-base, he's American, and let's face it...they don't want to hear it.

 

[Haelfix]

Having Connors so low is pretty silly. I don't know how you put him behind McEnroe, and frankly he probably should be above Lendl as well.

He won on 3 different surfaces, would have won many more majors if the AO was a thing back then and had a spell of about 4-5 years of pure domination, and was only really surpassed when his much younger rivals hit their prime and he passed 30. He was really only thoroughly outclassed by Borg who had the benefit of a matchup advantage over him.

There is a funny bias with older players who stay good, but cease to be completely unbeatable. Meanwhile we romanticize the young champions who leave at their peak (Borg et al).

 

[Haelfix]

Btw my argument against McEnroe is more than just statistics and championships. He was always the great what if story, that never quite realized the immense talent he had (arguably before Pete and Roger, the greatest talent in the game's history). The big hole in that myth, was that tennis was very much moving on from his style when he retired. Whereas say Pete was still competitive with his young peers when he left, you could say that McEnroe was not. Even if you put him in a younger body, it would be hard to see how he could match up against Pete Sampras or Pat Rafter, or Boris Becker. They were simply larger, stronger, faster versions of him, with perhaps a little less artsmanship. When Connors left, you could see that while his style was singular, a younger version of himself might have still bothered the tour.

 

[Moxie]

I not sure I understand your point about McEnroe, and I think you're wrong, if I do. He's never even actually left the game. I can see putting Connors higher, and higher than McEnroe. (I recognize that some of the reasons that I think McEnroe is a great has not all to do with singles.) And while I was a big Borg fan, I agree that there's a certain romance to him to gives him a lot of credit for "aura." In fairness, though, he was the first superstar of tennis, he was its first great athlete, and I would say that Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic stand on his shoulders as much as anyone else's. He was the James Dean of tennis. Died young and left a beautiful corpse. Jimmy Connors was the opposite. Ivan Lendl won a lot, but was not the most compelling champion. We could down-grade him a bit, I think. I'm not compelled to give each a number on a list, but I'm happy to argue the relativities.

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, Haelfix and Moxie. Ultimately all such rankings are artificial. As @mrzz and I were discussing up-thread, it makes more sense to group players in tiers, although then we don't get the satisfaction of something to argue and disagree with.

In my mind, Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe are all grouped closely and somewhat interchangeable in terms of greatness. Borg is slightly above them, Agassi a half-step below them, with the Newcombe/Wilander/Edberg/Becker group a solid step below.

So in that regard, I think the Tennis.com list has the basic tiers placed right. We can argue the specific order, but I think the groupings are a bit easier to gain consensus on.

 

[Moxie]

Not to throw ice-water on it, but mostly everyone wants to know how they rank the top 6. I agree that you could rather group or "tier" the rest.
To another point, let's be honest...no one really knows what to do with Rod Laver. Only CYGS in the Open Era. (Then there was the pre-Open era one, and those 200 titles.) 11 Majors, though only 5 in the Open Era. So they stick him with Borg. Sort of like Rosewall, who was a fantastic player and who had a great career, but also straddled the eras. It's an Open Era list, but they feel like they have to give some extra-credit to a few of the guys who had one foot in each. Am I being mean, or does it feel like a bit of an honorarium?

 

[El Dude]

I just read the fine print on the list: "any player who won a major title during the Open era had his or her entire career evaluated."

So they're doing what I've done in the last. This means they'll rank Laver and Rosewall higher than I predicted above. My guess is they rank Laver 2nd, between Federer and Nadal, and Rosewall after Borg.

 

[Moxie]

I just read the fine print on the list: "any player who won a major title during the Open era had his or her entire career evaluated."

So they're doing what I've done in the last. This means they'll rank Laver and Rosewall higher than I predicted above. My guess is they rank Laver 2nd, between Federer and Nadal, and Rosewall after Borg.

Laver is the only one to win the "Holy Grail" of tennis on the men's side, the CYGS, and that twice...once in the Open Era. Which he won on grass and clay. I still don't know what you do with Laver and Rosewall, despite the fine-print.

 

[El Dude]

Laver is the only one to win the "Holy Grail" of tennis on the men's side, the CYGS, and that twice...once in the Open Era. Which he won on grass and clay. I still don't know what you do with Laver and Rosewall, despite the fine-print.

The biggest mistake people make with both Laver and Rosewall is ignoring their pro tour years and accomplishments (similarly with Pancho Gonzales). If you take those years into account, Laver is probably #2, and Rosewall is in the next group down with Rafa, Sampras, Borg, and Novak.

 

[Moxie]

The biggest mistake people make with both Laver and Rosewall is ignoring their pro tour years and accomplishments (similarly with Pancho Gonzales). If you take those years into account, Laver is probably #2, and Rosewall is in the next group down with Rafa, Sampras, Borg, and Novak.

I don't think I'm ignoring their accomplishments, which were great. I'm asking how you measure them, though, against the current players, full Open Era players, when so much has changed. Let's face it: Laver and Rosewall mostly played a small group of white guys from a limited number of countries, and on 2 surfaces for the majority of their careers Just the very fact that the modern game includes so many players from so many countries makes the general admix much richer and competitive.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think I'm ignoring their accomplishments, which were great. I'm asking how you measure them, though, against the current players, full Open Era players, when so much has changed. Let's face it: Laver and Rosewall mostly played a small group of white guys from a limited number of countries, and on 2 surfaces for the majority of their careers Just the very fact that the modern game includes so many players from so many countries makes the general admix much richer and competitive.

Yes, I know. I've said this before, but there is only one way to do it: and that is to understand greatness as contextual. How good was a player relative to his or her peers and in the context he or she played in?

I mean, is there any other way? Can we possibly taken into account all that changes over the years and decades?

So we can say that the game as a whole has evolved, with richer and deeper competition, better equipment, etc. But in the end, a player can only play within their own context.

 

[El Dude]

Furthermore, if we require a static context to compare players across eras, how accurately can we go back? The early 00s or late 90s, maybe? The game is always changing....but it is gradual, and over many years. We also have players who spanned quite different eras - like Federer, Agassi, Santoro, Connors, Rosewall, etc.

Think how quickly we can get back to in time: Roger Federer played Andre Agassi, who played Jimmy Connors, who played Pancho Gonzales, who played ...etc.

The game changes, but so do the players - who adapt to new contexts. Rod Laver went from dominating the relatively small but potent pool of the Pro Tour to winning all four Slams in the first full year of the Open Era, and remained an elite player for another half decade or so. Peak Laver might not have done well in the more powerful game of the 1980s to present, but he was great in the context he played in and was able to adapt to new contexts (we cannot say the same for the much -overrated Roy Emerson, who flopped in the Open Era).

 

[Fiero425]

Furthermore, if we require a static context to compare players across eras, how accurately can we go back? The early 00s or late 90s, maybe? The game is always changing....but it is gradual, and over many years. We also have players who spanned quite different eras - like Federer, Agassi, Santoro, Connors, Rosewall, etc.

Think how quickly we can get back to in time: Roger Federer played Andre Agassi, who played Jimmy Connors, who played Pancho Gonzales, who played ...etc.

The game changes, but so do the players - who adapt to new contexts. Rod Laver went from dominating the relatively small but potent pool of the Pro Tour to winning all four Slams in the first full year of the Open Era, and remained an elite player for another half decade or so. Peak Laver might not have done well in the more powerful game of the 1980s to present, but he was great in the context he played in and was able to adapt to new contexts (we cannot say the same for the much -overrated Roy Emerson, who flopped in the Open Era).

Like most Australians, Emerson was a much better doubles player! He did very well with multi-partners including Laver, Stolle, & Fraser! In the mid 70's, he was playing indoor doubles matches with BJ King and Laver in another and his serve still sounded like a cannon!

 

[Andy22]

Well it is all debateable, no?

Not really mats wilander would be higher, he had 3 slam season.

 

[shawnbm]

I like the props Haelfix gives to Jimbo. I too was surprised to see him at number 10 when Lendl and McEnroe and Borg remain. I know they will place Borg higher than him, but the other two give me pause. I mostly beg to differ with McEnroe because his light was bright and burned brightly for a few years but then he precipitously dropped in quality of game and was unable to play to his old level as the technology and style of play evolved; Ivan the terrible just blew him off of the court, as did others. His touch was only so good against the pace and heaviness of shot that was getting bigger as the game changed. I guess many here are correct--Lendl was the beginning of modern power tennis, followed by Becker and Sampras. (Safin too! LOL)