- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,333
- Reactions
- 6,104
- Points
- 113
Here's another take on the top 20 of all time - they're always fun to talk about and never fail to get someone's panties in a wad. The caveat is just that: it is a take and is not meant to be taken as fact or even how I see things. I was just looking at pre-ATP rankings for players and was surprised to see that players like Jack Kramer had finished (alone or tied) #1 six times. I decided to create a quick ranking system based upon two things and two things only, to determine true greatness:
*year-end #1 rankings: 3 points for solo, 2 points for shared
*Majors won: 2 points for pre-Open Era Grand or Pro Slams, 3 points for Open Era Slams
Now obviously, and again, this is a huge over-simplification. It doesn't take into account a whole host of important data: Non-win results, other titles, non-#1 rankings, etc, not to mention it doesn't differentiate Slams enough (e.g. the Australian Open in the 1970s was less competitive than other Slams). But it is a quick and dirty system and, I think, worked out pretty well.
So here we go, the top 20 players of all time according to one system. I've also included the points so you can see how close or far players were from each other.
1. Federer 66
2. Laver 62
3. Rosewall 61
4. Sampras 60
5. Gonzales 56
6. Nadal 51
7. Tilden 48
8. Borg 42
9. Connors 39
10. Lendl 36
11t. Budge 34
11t. W Renshaw 34
13. McEnroe 33
14. Perry 31
15t. Kramer 30
15t. Djokovic 30
17. Agassi 27
18t. Vines 25
18t. Cochet 25
18t. Newcombe 25
Some interesting things to note.
1) Whatever you think of the exact order, I think it has the top 10 players rightly in the top 10. Novak has a chance of sneaking in there and edging Lendl out in another year or two, but right now it works.
2) To be honest, the accuracy of the next ten gets decreasingly reliable as I didn't research absolutely everyone. But I think the next ten is mainly right, although maybe one or two players weren't accounted for. It is really hard to research 19th century players. Also right off the edge of the list woud be players like Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, Bobby Riggs, Roy Emerson, etc.
3) While many (myself included) think Nadal has surpassed Sampras, this system likes Pete quite a bit more because of those year-end number ones. I think it makes a valid point.
4) This system rightly honors perhaps the most underrated historical great player, Pancho Gonzales, who is underrated because his peak was in the Pro Slam era and he only won two Grand Slams, while winning 15 Pro Slams. Pancho was the best player of the 50s and finished #1 a record eight times.
5) Yes, Roger Federer is #1. Sorry Roger Haters, just about any system is going to place him as the greatest of all time, or at least the greatest of the Open Era. Rafa may pass him, although according to this system Roger would have to remain stagnant (a distinct possibility) and Rafa would have to have five more Slam wins and/or year-end #1s to tie him - a tall order, but possible. But for now I think Roger deserves his place.
*year-end #1 rankings: 3 points for solo, 2 points for shared
*Majors won: 2 points for pre-Open Era Grand or Pro Slams, 3 points for Open Era Slams
Now obviously, and again, this is a huge over-simplification. It doesn't take into account a whole host of important data: Non-win results, other titles, non-#1 rankings, etc, not to mention it doesn't differentiate Slams enough (e.g. the Australian Open in the 1970s was less competitive than other Slams). But it is a quick and dirty system and, I think, worked out pretty well.
So here we go, the top 20 players of all time according to one system. I've also included the points so you can see how close or far players were from each other.
1. Federer 66
2. Laver 62
3. Rosewall 61
4. Sampras 60
5. Gonzales 56
6. Nadal 51
7. Tilden 48
8. Borg 42
9. Connors 39
10. Lendl 36
11t. Budge 34
11t. W Renshaw 34
13. McEnroe 33
14. Perry 31
15t. Kramer 30
15t. Djokovic 30
17. Agassi 27
18t. Vines 25
18t. Cochet 25
18t. Newcombe 25
Some interesting things to note.
1) Whatever you think of the exact order, I think it has the top 10 players rightly in the top 10. Novak has a chance of sneaking in there and edging Lendl out in another year or two, but right now it works.
2) To be honest, the accuracy of the next ten gets decreasingly reliable as I didn't research absolutely everyone. But I think the next ten is mainly right, although maybe one or two players weren't accounted for. It is really hard to research 19th century players. Also right off the edge of the list woud be players like Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, Bobby Riggs, Roy Emerson, etc.
3) While many (myself included) think Nadal has surpassed Sampras, this system likes Pete quite a bit more because of those year-end number ones. I think it makes a valid point.
4) This system rightly honors perhaps the most underrated historical great player, Pancho Gonzales, who is underrated because his peak was in the Pro Slam era and he only won two Grand Slams, while winning 15 Pro Slams. Pancho was the best player of the 50s and finished #1 a record eight times.
5) Yes, Roger Federer is #1. Sorry Roger Haters, just about any system is going to place him as the greatest of all time, or at least the greatest of the Open Era. Rafa may pass him, although according to this system Roger would have to remain stagnant (a distinct possibility) and Rafa would have to have five more Slam wins and/or year-end #1s to tie him - a tall order, but possible. But for now I think Roger deserves his place.
