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

[Fiero425]

Well, if they'd have kept the clay, then who knows? Borg might have won 3 or 4 US Opens. Why did they get rid of it, by the way? They only used it for two championships...

Actually it was 3; '75-77! - Simple, the MEN couldn't hang! Europe and South America owned clay back then! We had a few clay courters like Harold Solomon and Eddie Dibbs, but BORG owned them like a clothing line! Brian Gottfried and Vitas Gerulaitis didn't have the fire power to stay out there and blast away for hours! Dick Stockton and other were on par with them as well! Between Borg, Vilas, Raul Ramirez, and the other greats of clay Connors saved them with his lone title on clay in '76! Evert loved it, winning all 3 years; 6 overall! When they went to that pane of glass they called a HC in '78, Vilas was upset right away in the first round IIRC! US tennis came back with McEnroe who took 3 straight; 2 over BORG and 4 overall on HC! :dodgy: :nono :angel:

 

[Kieran]

75 as well, you're right! But even still, the yanks won 4 of the 6 singles finals. However, when names like Orantes and Vilas show up on a roll call that could have Connors and the other great Americans, I suspect you're right on why it changed. Pity for Bjorn, and Rafa would have more too. Bear in mind, this isn't pipedream stuff, since the USTA held the slam on clay. For Bjorn it was tougher though. They couldn't have chosen a more hostile and alien environment for him than the hards at Flushing Meadows... :Nono

 

[Fiero425]

75 as well, you're right! But even still, the yanks won 4 of the 6 singles finals. However, when names like Orantes and Vilas show up on a roll call that could have Connors and the other great Americans, I suspect you're right on why it changed. Pity for Bjorn, and Rafa would have more too. Bear in mind, this isn't pipedream stuff, since the USTA held the slam on clay. For Bjorn it was tougher though. They couldn't have chosen a more hostile and alien environment for him than the hards at Flushing Meadows... :Nono

Everyone forgets about Manuel Orantes! He was a great players; coming back in 5 set against Vilas with a huge lead and then "straight-setted" Connors the very next night to win '75 USO! - I still call it the most "gutless" maneuver ever; changing the court twice in 3 years! The USTA even started eliminating their other clay court titles; USTA CCC became the USTA HC! Ridiculous! I've been saying for years, I think that's why US tennis is DOWN! We've gotten away from the basics, esp. training our kids on clay! It's hurt with only Serena saving USA "face!" - :cover :nono

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Well, if they'd have kept the clay, then who knows? Borg might have won 3 or 4 US Opens. Why did they get rid of it, by the way? They only used it for two championships...

3 years they had clay 1975/76/77..moving to a new build in 1978.

hc easier to maintain and a surface more usa players might prosper on.

 

[El Dude]

Here's an updated list with the following system:

Year-end #1 (sole): 3 pts
Year-end #1 (shared): 2 pts
Year-end runner up: 1 pt
Slam (Open Era): 3 pts
Slam (Amateur): 2 pts
Slam (Pro): 2 pts
Slam (Runner-up): 1 pt

1. Federer 79
2. Rosewall 78
3. Laver 75
4t. Gonzales 65
4t. Sampras 65
6. Nadal 62
7. Tilden 60
8t. Connors 49
8t. Lendl 49
10. Borg 47
11t. Budge 41
11t. Djokovic 41
13. McEnroe 39
14. Agassi 38
15. Perry 37
16. Renshaw 36
17t. Larned 31
17t. Edberg 31
19t. Vines 30
19t. Wilander 30
21t. Wilding 29
21t. Cochet 29
23t. Kramer 28
23t. Newcombe 28
25t. L Doherty 27
25t. Riggs 27
25t. Emerson 27
28. Sedgman 26
29t. R Doherty 25
29t. Lacoste 25
29t. Becker 25
32. Segura 23
33. Vilas 21
34. Courier 20

Updating this list to reflect Australian Open, because of the "cross generation" thread having similar topics. Anyhow, I put active players in bold. Novak is really moving up the ranks, although there's a sizeable gap between the top 10 and #11 that will take him a bit to bridge - but he could tie Borg with another Slam win, and year-end #1. Then there's a huge gap between Tilden at #7 and everyone else - not sure Djokovic can bridge that gap.

With a big year in 2015 or two pretty good years in 2015-16, Rafa could join Federer, Rosewall and Laver in a career Big Four - a "Goat Quartet" (Goatet?).

Note that this system doesn't like Borg as some others. I really like how it has Connors and Lendl tied and so high - these two don't always get their due. The last 5-10 ranks are very sketchy and not very accurate in that there are a few players that I haven't calculated that might sneak in.

 

[mrzz]

I forgot how fun this thread was... and the most fun part is to bombard El Dude with suggestions! I was thinking that wining percentage against top 10 would be better than simply winning percentage, but it has the data problem. So maybe the percentage of tournaments won would be a good indicator... as it, on average, naturally takes into account one's winning percentage against better ranked players, and perhaps this data could be found even for pre-ATP periods.

 

[Moxie]

Here's an updated list with the following system:

Year-end #1 (sole): 3 pts
Year-end #1 (shared): 2 pts
Year-end runner up: 1 pt
Slam (Open Era): 3 pts
Slam (Amateur): 2 pts
Slam (Pro): 2 pts
Slam (Runner-up): 1 pt

1. Federer 79
2. Rosewall 78
3. Laver 75
4t. Gonzales 65
4t. Sampras 65
6. Nadal 62
7. Tilden 60
8t. Connors 49
8t. Lendl 49
10. Borg 47
11t. Budge 41
11t. Djokovic 41
13. McEnroe 39
14. Agassi 38
15. Perry 37
16. Renshaw 36
17t. Larned 31
17t. Edberg 31
19t. Vines 30
19t. Wilander 30
21t. Wilding 29
21t. Cochet 29
23t. Kramer 28
23t. Newcombe 28
25t. L Doherty 27
25t. Riggs 27
25t. Emerson 27
28. Sedgman 26
29t. R Doherty 25
29t. Lacoste 25
29t. Becker 25
32. Segura 23
33. Vilas 21
34. Courier 20

Updating this list to reflect Australian Open, because of the "cross generation" thread having similar topics. Anyhow, I put active players in bold. Novak is really moving up the ranks, although there's a sizeable gap between the top 10 and #11 that will take him a bit to bridge - but he could tie Borg with another Slam win, and year-end #1. Then there's a huge gap between Tilden at #7 and everyone else - not sure Djokovic can bridge that gap.

With a big year in 2015 or two pretty good years in 2015-16, Rafa could join Federer, Rosewall and Laver in a career Big Four - a "Goat Quartet" (Goatet?).

Note that this system doesn't like Borg as some others. I really like how it has Connors and Lendl tied and so high - these two don't always get their due. The last 5-10 ranks are very sketchy and not very accurate in that there are a few players that I haven't calculated that might sneak in.

I'm a little surprised at your criterion. Year-end #1 weighs heavily, but no mention of career slam, for example, or players who won more of the heavier weighted tournaments. I know you're trying to analyze it across eras, which is difficult, but there are other measures which I think you're leaving out. And realistically, if Roger had been the younger one, either Nadal or Djokovic would have been the ones to have been racking up weeks at #1. The YE #1 does tell something of how a year went, but it doesn't tell the whole narrative. If you're going to put that one as a premier criterion, I think you have to put some weight on tournaments, too, as a balance as to across a given year.

 

[El Dude]

I'm a little surprised at your criterion. Year-end #1 weighs heavily, but no mention of career slam, for example, or players who won more of the heavier weighted tournaments. I know you're trying to analyze it across eras, which is difficult, but there are other measures which I think you're leaving out. And realistically, if Roger had been the younger one, either Nadal or Djokovic would have been the ones to have been racking up weeks at #1. The YE #1 does tell something of how a year went, but it doesn't tell the whole narrative. If you're going to put that one as a premier criterion, I think you have to put some weight on tournaments, too, as a balance as to across a given year.

Well again, the criteria I use is simply a matter of what is available for ALL players. We have data on Slams and #1 rankings; before the ATP rankings, there were agreed upon rankings for the #1-2 players as is explained here.

Again, these are the only criteria that I can find for all players no matter what era. Even total titles is hard to find for many pre-Open Era players, and unlike recent years there's no rhyme or reason as to what is more or less important. It isn't perfect--it isn't even particularly good--but it is something, and it is based upon something more than impressions and anecdotes. So consider this a short-hand system to approximate career greatness.

All that said, I think it is a decent system for just that--approximation. It takes into account the most important tournaments, the Slams, and it also takes into account who was considered best two or three players for each year, which in turn takes into account tournaments won in any given year. It perhaps unduly penalizes players like Andy Murray who are always finishing #3 or 4, and it doesn't go into much detail, but I think it does a decent job overall and, if nothing else, gives us something to talk about.

 

[Kirijax]

Reading the responses made me think of something. Rod Laver won a Grand Slam on two syrfaces; three on grass and one on clay. The current Grand Slam set up would seem to be more difficult than what Rod Laver did, even though he did it in a Calendar year. Would a present-day Career Grand Slam be worth more than a pre-Open Era Calendar Grand Slam? Just a thought.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

My father has watched Rod Laver live,he told me he was the 'purest' tennis player he has seen,he also loved Gonzalez game,though his downfall was his temper.

Nice to see Moxie posting by the way....

 

[Federberg]

I posted this in the general news thread, but probably more appropriate here...

Intriguing... I was looking at ATP match stats, and stumbled on something that surprised me.

Win percentages after losing the 1st set:

Roger Federer : 41.8% ; 275 matches
Novak Djokovic : 40.5% 195 matches
Rafael Nadal : 44.7% ; 197 matches
Andy Murray : 40.1% ; 202 matches

Am I the only one that assumed that Novak's record would be better than Rogers? And when you consider how much bigger the sample is for Federer... We can all get caught up in a narrative, even if the stats don't support it in reality