Top 20 Greatest Players of All Time (Yet another take)

[tented]

^ That doesn't have anything to do with this idea of "many want Rafa acknowledged as the GOAT!" Not to mention it's something you wrote yourself. :nono :dodgy:

Still waiting ...

Still looking, but your attitude is not appreciated!

What attitude? I've merely asked you to provide a single example to back up a claim which you made. That's not attitude; that's asking for an answer.

I don't have to do anything!

It's in the nature of a discussion board to have back-and-forth conversations, in which one person says one thing, another asks a question, and the other person replies. For one of the participants to respond "I don't have to do anything!" goes against the spirit of the whole endeavor.

WHO ARE YOU? :nono uzzled :dodgy:

I'm the person asking you to respond to a claim you made.

I know we've had extensive conversations on Goat-Dom here

Then it should be no problem finding at least one example.

and on ESPN board when it was up!

Citing a defunct message board, which is no longer accessible, isn't valid. What would stop someone from claiming "many want Gasquet acknowledged as the GOAT!"?

 

[Fiero425]

^ That doesn't have anything to do with this idea of "many want Rafa acknowledged as the GOAT!" Not to mention it's something you wrote yourself. :nono :dodgy:

Still waiting ...

Still looking, but your attitude is not appreciated!

What attitude? I've merely asked you to provide a single example to back up a claim which you made. That's not attitude; that's asking for an answer.

I don't have to do anything!

It's in the nature of a discussion board to have back-and-forth conversations, in which one person says one thing, another asks a question, and the other person replies. For one of the participants to respond "I don't have to do anything!" goes against the spirit of the whole endeavor.

WHO ARE YOU? :nono uzzled :dodgy:

I'm the person asking you to respond to a claim you made.

I know we've had extensive conversations on Goat-Dom here

Then it should be no problem finding at least one example.

and on ESPN board when it was up!

Citing a defunct message board, which is no longer accessible, isn't valid. What would stop someone from claiming "many want Gasquet acknowledged as the GOAT!"?

I posted it on my blog and it's obviously dated! Still looking at earlier this year, but I have a feeling I need to go back before his last long absence from the tour! Been posting this stuff for years so there's a lot to scan! My memory isn't the best these days to pinpoint subject matter as quickly as I once could! :cry :cover - Onto the next: http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2013/07/whats-up-topics-11-entries-from-813-on.html - Will go to the next one shortly!

 

[El Dude]

Here's an alternate list, a bit expanded, using the same point system but using the list here on Wikipedia.

1. Federer 66
2. Laver 62
3. Rosewall 61
4. Sampras 60
5. Gonzales 56
6. Nadal 50
7. Tilden 48
8. Borg 45
9t. Renshaw 34
9t. Budge 34
11t. Connors 33
11t. Lendl 33
13. Djokovic 32
14. Perry 31
15. McEnroe 30
16t. Larned 27
16t. Agassi 27
18t. L Doherty 26
18t. Kramer 26
20t. Wilding 25
20t. Cochet 25
20t. Vines 25
20t. Newcombe 25
24t. Emerson 24
24t. Wilander 24
24t. Edberg 24
27t. R Doherty 22
27t. Riggs 22
29. Becker 21
30. Lacoste 20

The main difference is that Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe all go down some spots. Novak goes up a bit because he's given credit for sharing the #1 in 2013 with Nadal (who loses a point, but doesn't go down in the rankings). I also miscalculated Jack Kramer's points, so he moves down, and I calculated some more older players - Anthony Wilding, William Larned, Laurence Doherty, etc.

Some nit-picking, but I think there's a good argument that William Renshaw should be honored for being the best player of the 19th century and should be in the top 10, and that Don Budge was probably the best among near-equals in the 30s and 40s.

I do think it is worth noting that there's a big gap between the "Big Eight" and the rest - there's the same amount of points separating #7 and #9 as there is #9 and #30. Those eight, to me, are all GOATs.

(If you're wondering if Novak Djokovic has a chance to enter the "Goat Family," the answer is yes. I'd say three more Slams and/or year-end #1s puts him in that category as he'll be a 41 points, closer to Borg than Renshaw/Budge, although he'd clearly be the lowest of the group. Five gets him past the "Goatkeeper" Borg).

 

[Fiero425]

Here's an alternate list, a bit expanded, using the same point system but using the list here on Wikipedia.

1. Federer 66
2. Laver 62
3. Rosewall 61
4. Sampras 60
5. Gonzales 56
6. Nadal 50
7. Tilden 48
8. Borg 45
9t. Renshaw 34
9t. Budge 34
11t. Connors 33
11t. Lendl 33
13. Djokovic 32
14. Perry 31
15. McEnroe 30
16t. Larned 27
16t. Agassi 27
18t. L Doherty 26
18t. Kramer 26
20t. Wilding 25
20t. Cochet 25
20t. Vines 25
20t. Newcombe 25
24t. Emerson 24
24t. Wilander 24
24t. Edberg 24
27t. R Doherty 22
27t. Riggs 22
29. Becker 21
30. Lacoste 20

The main difference is that Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe all go down some spots. Novak goes up a bit because he's given credit for sharing the #1 in 2013 with Nadal (who loses a point, but doesn't go down in the rankings). I also miscalculated Jack Kramer's points, so he moves down, and I calculated some more older players - Anthony Wilding, William Larned, Laurence Doherty, etc.

Some nit-picking, but I think there's a good argument that William Renshaw should be honored for being the best player of the 19th century and should be in the top 10, and that Don Budge was probably the best among near-equals in the 30s and 40s.

I do think it is worth noting that there's a big gap between the "Big Eight" and the rest - there's the same amount of points separating #7 and #9 as there is #9 and #30. Those eight, to me, are all GOATs.

(If you're wondering if Novak Djokovic has a chance to enter the "Goat Family," the answer is yes. I'd say three more Slams and/or year-end #1s puts him in that category as he'll be a 41 points, closer to Borg than Renshaw/Budge, although he'd clearly be the lowest of the group. Five gets him past the "Goatkeeper" Borg).

Boy, this really shows how much Agassi underachieved; even with a career GS! Still behind so many other greats! McEnroe wasn't even a finalist at the AO and he's still way ahead of him! I agree btw since he obviously excelled t Wimbledon and THE USO!

 

[Fiero425]

Posted from a year and a half ago from me alone:

Since some of the true greats are still playing, names will flip later:

1) Federer - 17 majors & holds many records incl. 7 Wimbys & 5 str. USO's)
2) Laver - 2 cal. yr Gr Slms - should have more majors (11) but for amateur rules
3) Sampras - Held #1 ranking for 6+ years and won 7 Wimblys, 5 USO's, 2 AO's
4) Bjorn Borg - Won 5 str wimblys, 6 Fo's (4 str.), & 2 Masters
5) Rafa Nadal - Won 7 FO's and a career GS (Olym. Gold in singles)
6) Agassi - Career GS incl. 8 majors and Olympic Gold in singles
7) Lendl - 8 majors and won 94 titles incl. 3 USO's, 3 FO's, & 5 Masters
8) Connors - Won 107 titles incl. 5 USO's on 3 surfaces, 2 Wimbys, 1 AO
9) McEnroe - Won 7 majors incl. 3 str. USO's, 4 overall - 3 Wimbys
10)Roy Emerson - Honorary top 10 holding 12 majors in singles - (pre-Open era)

This is just from memory! Novak Djokovic will break into the top 10 in good time! Obviously things have changed since then!

 

[El Dude]

Fiero425, interesting list, although it is heavily weighted towards the Open Era. The big point of disagreement that stands out for me is the inclusion of Roy Emerson, whose 12 majors were all won when the best players were banned from playing in the Grand Slams. He did beat Rod Laver twice, but it was in 1961 before Laver had come into his prime. Most of his Slam wins were against players like Fred Stolle (five wins), Arthur Ashe (two), as well as once each against Ken Fletcher, Pierre Darmon, and Tony Roche. Emerson was never considered the best player in the world, and more like a #3-10.

To be honest, I think Emerson is rated too highly in my list and should be below players like Edberg, Wilander and Becker that won half as many Slams - and he's certainly inferior to players like Perry, Kramer, Budge, etc, all of whom were considered the best in the game for a time but didn't win nearly as many majors as Emerson.

Anyhow, Emerson gets bagged on a bit. He was still a very good player. But my guess is that if the player base hadn't been split in the 60s he'd have won more like 3-5 Slams rather than 12, and thus is probably more comparable to someone like Guillermo Vilas or Andy Murray in terms of career greatness - more of a top 40 player than a top 10 or 20 player.

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. It is very difficult to compare across eras and, I think, best to look at three broad eras of tennis, with the best players of each era confined to one era. Using the list above as a starting point with some ad hoc additions, here's how I'd rank the top 10 or so players from each era. At some point I'll do a more detailed study and blog post.

1877-1925: Early Era
1. Bill Tilden
2. William Renshaw
3. William Larned
4. Anthony Wilding
5. Reggie Doherty
6. Laurence Doherty
7. Richard Sears
8. Joshua Pim
9. Wilfred Baddeley
10. Ernest Rendshaw

Or something like that. I feel uncomfortable rating this era, at least beyond the obvious top few players. The great Bill Tilden really deserves to be on both this list and the next, as he won Pro Slams as late as 1935 in his 40s.

1926-1967: Pro Era
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Pancho Gonzales
4. Don Budge
5. Fred Perry
6. Jack Kramer
7. Ellsworth Vines
8. Henri Cochet
9. Bobby Riggs
10. Rene Lacoste

As you can see, I probably wouldn't even put Roy Emerson in the top 10 of the broad era, although definitely in the top 20.

1968-present: Open Era
1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Jimmy Connors
6. Ivan Lendl
7. Novak Djokovic
8. John McEnroe
9. Andre Agassi
10. John Newcombe

...or something like that. Again, I'll try to do a more in-depth study at some point.

 

[Federberg]

Posted from a year and a half ago from me alone:

Since some of the true greats are still playing, names will flip later:

1) Federer - 17 majors & holds many records incl. 7 Wimbys & 5 str. USO's)
2) Laver - 2 cal. yr Gr Slms - should have more majors (11) but for amateur rules
3) Sampras - Held #1 ranking for 6+ years and won 7 Wimblys, 5 USO's, 2 AO's
4) Bjorn Borg - Won 5 str wimblys, 6 Fo's (4 str.), & 2 Masters
5) Rafa Nadal - Won 7 FO's and a career GS (Olym. Gold in singles)
6) Agassi - Career GS incl. 8 majors and Olympic Gold in singles
7) Lendl - 8 majors and won 94 titles incl. 3 USO's, 3 FO's, & 5 Masters
8) Connors - Won 107 titles incl. 5 USO's on 3 surfaces, 2 Wimbys, 1 AO
9) McEnroe - Won 7 majors incl. 3 str. USO's, 4 overall - 3 Wimbys
10)Roy Emerson - Honorary top 10 holding 12 majors in singles - (pre-Open era)

This is just from memory! Novak Djokovic will break into the top 10 in good time! Obviously things have changed since then!

That's interesting. Personally I would probably have Connors and Lendl above Agassi for the tournament wins

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Let's take out the players who won less than 10 majors from the conversation as well, because frankly, anything less than that is not so impressive.:snigger

you can't do that though..borg n Connors etc were playing in a 3 major era..no-one rated the AO before 1983..it was rated below rome n monte carlo masters, and bekow WCT finals and the YE championships etc..

also don't forget folk like laver 6years..rosewall 12 years (?), and gonzalez were banned from majors all that time.in 1950s/60s.

laver, for instance..banned from Wimbledon in 1971 (?), 1972, and 1973 he joined wimby boycott by most top players.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

rod laver was doing well winning 4 wimbledons inbetween the small windows of time when he wasn't banned lol.

I bet he telephoned ahead.."am I allowed to win Wimbledon this year?, or are you gonna be banning me...again?"

 

[mrzz]

... many want Rafa acknowledged as the GOAT!

Such as? Show me even one example of someone claiming he's the GOAT.

His mom. You can find her original post in www.lamamamasfelizdelmondo.com.es

By the way, great thread/post, El Dude. The beauty of it is in the simplicity of the criteria. When you start to complicate it, it gives you room to tweak in the way you want.

Federberg's idea of replacing YE#1 by number of weeks as #1 is very good, and I would have gone for it, but it would be harder to calculate manually as I guess El Dude is doing. With access to a database, that's a whole other story...

 

[El Dude]

Federberg's idea of replacing YE#1 by number of weeks as #1 is very good, and I would have gone for it, but it would be harder to calculate manually as I guess El Dude is doing. With access to a database, that's a whole other story...

It is a good idea but only works for the ATP era. Before that the #1 ranking was given to the consensus best player in the game for that year. As far as I know there was no way that weekly rankings were kept track of, or if they were there isn't any record of it.

The thing about this system is that you can use it across eras reasonably well. If we want to fine-tune Open Era rankings then you can take into account stuff like weeks at #1, winning percentage, Slam results other than wins, WTF/Masters Grand Prix, WCT finals and Tennis Cup, and Masters/ATP 1000. But if we want to compare Bill Tilden to Roger Federer then we have to be relatively simple.

 

[mrzz]

^case closed, then...

 

[El Dude]

OK, another list - this time with runner's up for year-end #1 added, with one point each. This doesn't change the order of the Big Eight, but it does re-arrange things a bit further on, breaking up some ties and such.

1. Federer 71
2. Rosewall 64
3. Laver 63
4. Sampras 61
5. Gonzales 58
6. Nadal 55
7. Tilden 51
8. Borg 48
9. Lendl 37
10. Budge 36
11t. Renshaw 35
11t. Connors 35
13. Perry 33
14t. McEnroe 32
14t. Djokovic 32
16. Agassi 31
17. Larned 29
18t. Wilding 28
18t. Vines 28
20. L Doherty 27
21t. Cochet 26
21t. Kramer 26
21t. Wilander 26
21t. Edberg 26
25. Newcombe 25
26. Emerson 24
27. R Doherty 23
28t. Lacoste 22
28t. Riggs 22
28t. Becker 22

As I fiddle about with the system, I may continue to post updates. I might also work on a more detailed system for Open Era players, including some of the factors mentioned above. But I'm reasonably comfortable with this list, with a few caveats:

One, I don't like Rosewall just ahead of Laver. Laver was a better player, but for a shorter period of time. This would be like ranking Connors ahead of Borg or Agassi ahead of Sampras. Laver and Rosewall were a lot closer than those other pairs, but there was a solid gap in ability.

Two, I think Becker deserves to be right there with Wilander and Edberg, but he's close enough that I won't quibble. Maybe the more detailed system will change this, I don't know.

I do really like McEnroe and Djokovic being tied - that seems about right, right now at least. In other words, if Novak retired today then I think he'd have a roughly equal historical ranking as McEnroe. But he won't retire today so will pass him soon enough, next year really.

This system also pushes Lendl ahead of Connors and the rest, being "the Best of the Rest." I kind of like this. As I've said before, more than any other player of the Open Era, Lendl played alongside more all-time greats at or close to their peaks. He bridged the gap between Connors-Vilas, Borg-McEnroe, Wilander-Edberg-Becker, and Agassi-Sampras-Courier.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a visual depiction that really gives a sense of how the Big Eight are head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.

 

[Federberg]

Let's take out the players who won less than 10 majors from the conversation as well, because frankly, anything less than that is not so impressive.:snigger

you can't do that though..borg n Connors etc were playing in a 3 major era..no-one rated the AO before 1983..it was rated below rome n monte carlo masters, and bekow WCT finals and the YE championships etc..

also don't forget folk like laver 6years..rosewall 12 years (?), and gonzalez were banned from majors all that time.in 1950s/60s.

laver, for instance..banned from Wimbledon in 1971 (?), 1972, and 1973 he joined wimby boycott by most top players.

On top of that it's not clear to me that players of earlier era's placed quite the same level of importance on the slams as we all do now. This at the end of the day is the fatal flaw in comparing across eras. But I can well understand why we often try to do this. For me, even open era comparisons can be shakey, particularly if you want to give such a large weighting to slams. A lot of the earlier guys realistically only competed in maximum 3 slams. And a lot focused on Wimbledon and the US Open. It's a bit tough to judge such players against the current crop who are far more slam focused. In a way it bolsters my suggestion that weeks at number 1, and overall tournament wins makes more sense for puritys sake. But I totally understand that collating that sort of data is next to impossible

 

[El Dude]

Weeks at #1 has some problems too, mainly that it is relative to the competition. I see it as one of a few data points, but not necessarily one of the most important ones. Look at, for instance, the top ATP players by weeks at #1:

1. Federer 302
2. Sampras 286
3. Lendl 270
4. Connors 268
5. McEnroe 170
6. Nadal 141
7. Djokovic 120
8. Borg 109
9. Agassi 101
10. Hewitt 80
11. Edberg 72
12. Courier 58
13. Kuerten 43
14. Nastase 40
15. Wilander 20
16. Roddick 13
17. Becker 12
18. Safin 9
19t. Ferrero 8
19t. Newcombe 8

The thing that really stands out for me is that Hewitt has 80 weeks at #1 compared to Wilander with 20 or Becker with 12. Hewitt was not as good a player as Becker or Wilander, not even close really. And what about Connors, Lendl and McEnroe ahead of Nadal? Etc etc.

One of the problems with ranking systems is that it is hard to take into account the level of competition. Weeks at #1 just exacerbates this. Actually, I was dabbling with a system whereby I weighted Slam wins depending upon who was beaten in the final. This would work favorably for someone like Rafael Nadal who won 10 of his 14 Slams against Federer and Djokovic, but not as good for someone like Federer who only won 4 of his 17 Slams against what I would consider "great" opponents (Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic) and the rest against lesser players.

 

[Fiero425]

Weeks at #1 has some problems too, mainly that it is relative to the competition. I see it as one of a few data points, but not necessarily one of the most important ones. Look at, for instance, the top ATP players by weeks at #1:

1. Federer 302
2. Sampras 286
3. Lendl 270
4. Connors 268
5. McEnroe 170
6. Nadal 141
7. Djokovic 120
8. Borg 109
9. Agassi 101
10. Hewitt 80
11. Edberg 72
12. Courier 58
13. Kuerten 43
14. Nastase 40
15. Wilander 20
16. Roddick 13
17. Becker 12
18. Safin 9
19t. Ferrero 8
19t. Newcombe 8

The thing that really stands out for me is that Hewitt has 80 weeks at #1 compared to Wilander with 20 or Becker with 12. Hewitt was not as good a player as Becker or Wilander, not even close really. And what about Connors, Lendl and McEnroe ahead of Nadal? Etc etc.

One of the problems with ranking systems is that it is hard to take into account the level of competition. Weeks at #1 just exacerbates this. Actually, I was dabbling with a system whereby I weighted Slam wins depending upon who was beaten in the final. This would work favorably for someone like Rafael Nadal who won 10 of his 14 Slams against Federer and Djokovic, but not as good for someone like Federer who only won 4 of his 17 Slams against what I would consider "great" opponents (Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic) and the rest against lesser players.

The Hewitt period at the top was more a bridge to the next era for the most part! Sampras was all but gone and a some of the weeks were during a "dead period" when no tennis is even being played after WTF and the AO! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

^I think you're straying into the realms of subjectivity there Dude, even though you're trying to do the exact opposite. In my opinion I think you're on really shaky ground if you just dismiss Hewitt out of hand. Hewitt was at his best in an era that was transitioning towards greater use of the technology players today take forgranted.. particular stringing. To dismiss Hewitt would be like downgrading McEnroe because he wasn't able to make the transition from wood to newer materials while retaining his dominance. You should let the results of the data speak for itself, not dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you expect. Surely that's the greatest value you can extract out of it? Again.. at the risk of getting trollish response to my comment here (certainly not from you).. this is just my opinion.

I would also add that while Hewitt clearly wasn't effective coping with the bigger more athletic players that came shortly after him, the fact he was able to do what he did commands tremendous respect at least from me. I think we would all agree that the players today are far more professional, athletic, powerful than players just a few decades back. Sports technology has come a long way. I mean.. let's be real.. as talented as Laver clearly was.. deep down we all know he probably wouldn't translate quite as effectively into this era. Times move on, things improve. So all you can do IS compare players - without prejudice - in the era's they played in. The moment you dismiss an era.. the analysis loses it's value.. in my opinion

 

[Fiero425]

^I think you're straying into the realms of subjectivity there Dude, even though you're trying to do the exact opposite. In my opinion I think you're on really shaky ground if you just dismiss Hewitt out of hand. Hewitt was at his best in an era that was transitioning towards greater use of the technology players today take forgranted.. particular stringing. To dismiss Hewitt would be like downgrading McEnroe because he wasn't able to make the transition from wood to newer materials while retaining his dominance. You should let the results of the data speak for itself, not dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you expect. Surely that's the greatest value you can extract out of it? Again.. at the risk of getting trollish response to my comment here (certainly not from you).. this is just my opinion.

I would also add that while Hewitt clearly wasn't effective coping with the bigger more athletic players that came shortly after him, the fact he was able to do what he did commands tremendous respect at least from me. I think we would all agree that the players today are far more professional, athletic, powerful than players just a few decades back. Sports technology has come a long way. I mean.. let's be real.. as talented as Laver clearly was.. deep down we all know he probably wouldn't translate quite as effectively into this era. Times move on, things improve. So all you can do IS compare players - without prejudice - in the era's they played in. The moment you dismiss an era.. the analysis loses it's value.. in my opinion

No argument here! :angel: :dodgy: On the ladies' side, I'd put Hingis in this category! She was playing during a bridge between the era of Graf/Seles to The Williams, Sharapova, and the rest! Neither Hingis or Hewitt could over-power their opponents, were obviously very cerebral in their play, and got the most out of their limitations!