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

[El Dude]

Looks like Tennis.com is using the 50th anniversary of the Open Era as an excuse to do another ranking, right here.

I'll try to update their countdown here:

25. Andy Roddick

Let's follow suit: Who are your top 25? We haven't had a "top X" discussion in awhile, and the last one was about top 10, I think.

I don't know what their criteria are, but for the sake of discussion here, a few guidelines might be appropriate:

1. "Greatest" is somewhat subjective, but should be some balance between sustained peak level and career accomplishments. How you balance those two is up to you, but both should be considered.
2. For those player who are "tweeners"--that is, played part of their prime before and during the Open Era--consider their entire careers as part of their legacy and greatness (e.g. Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe in particular). But weight it more towards their Open Era accomplishes (thus those who peaked before such as Gonzales and Emerson don't really factor in).
3. Don't take it too seriously.

I'll put together a list in a separate post.

 

[El Dude]

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.

 

[Moxie]

Good effort. And you have to make it Open Era, so as not to complicate things. Therefore Laver at 3. Laver has one CYGS in the Open Era. I think the Novak fans will complain about the Nole slam and the competition. I get about Rosewall, too.

 

[El Dude]

Well, I think weighing it to the Open Era but keeping some sense of what happened before is best. If it is just Open Era I'd rank Laver just outside the top 10, but that doesn't accurately depict how dominant he was.

 

[Moxie]

Well, I think weighing it to the Open Era but keeping some sense of what happened before is best. If it is just Open Era I'd rank Laver just outside the top 10, but that doesn't accurately depict how dominant he was.

I understand what you're saying, but the CYGS counts for a lot. Even in early open era. And on only 2 surfaces. Still, no one else has done it in the Open Era. And may never again.

 

[El Dude]

I understand what you're saying, but the CYGS counts for a lot. Even in early open era. And on only 2 surfaces. Still, no one else has done it in the Open Era. And may never again.

Aliassime, 2024.

 

[Moxie]

Aliassime, 2024.

You are too much with that guy. You'll kill him with over-anticipation.

 

[Haelfix]

Not quite willing to put Djokovic above Sampras quite yet. Also feel like Kuerten should be a bit higher. Roddick and Chang are nasty bc I want to place people like Rafter and Safin ahead, but they both have a longevity and consistency argument.

 

[El Dude]

You are too much with that guy. You'll kill him with over-anticipation.

Haha, I know - I was totally joking. (Mostly).

 

[El Dude]

Not quite willing to put Djokovic above Sampras quite yet. Also feel like Kuerten should be a bit higher. Roddick and Chang are nasty bc I want to place people like Rafter and Safin ahead, but they both have a longevity and consistency argument.

Kuerten is hard to rank because his peak was so short, and he wasn't so great off clay (still very good, just far more limited).

I hear you about Novak and Pete. My reasoning is that Novak had a similar peak, with a couple years way above anything Peak ever did, but with harder competition. Novak was (is) an all-courter, while Pete had his big weakness on clay. I know - court homogeneity - but still. Anyhow, not completely sold either way...if Novak doesn't come back, I might end up giving Pete the edge. But if Novak comes back and wins even just 1-2 more Slams, he's got the clear edge IMO.

And yeah, I like Roddick and Chang's consistency, which I think gives them the edge.

 

[Federberg]

Can’t see Novak over Sampras. Nor can I see a justification for Chang to be there when Muster is not, to name a few obvious flaws...

 

[El Dude]

So what would your list be, Federberg? As for "obvious flaws," that is debateable, no?

But yeah...Muster was a contender, and a few others. These things aren't clearcut, thus the phrase "obvious flaws" is, well, obviously flawed .

 

[Federberg]

I wouldn't make a list. That's your thing

If you're looking at singles alone, I can't conceive of anyway one of my favourite players of all time McEnroe can be placed above a guy who once stole a black cab from me, Connors. No way, sorry. In any case, pick one of these...

• Your list isn't consistent

• If it's Open Era then focus on what was done in the Open Era, which to me means Laver can't be above Novak, let alone Pistol or Borg. But that's my opinion

• Your list is arbitrary and contains personal preferences

This is clearly click bait by tennis.com, which is fine. If you want to ask people what their personal list is? Fine. It's just opinions mate, as someone one said they're like arseholes, everyone has 'em...

 

[El Dude]

My list is not about personal preferences. I'm trying to weigh as many factors as possible and not playing favorites. Subjective? Certainly - how could it not be?

Not sure what you mean by it not being consistent. I don't have a statistic formula I'm using, but I try to weigh every player by the same general criteria: a mixture of different statistics, peak level vs. total career, etc. But if you mean that it isn't consistent in that it isn't ordered by any single statistic, like Slam count, then sure. But Slam count only tells part of the picture (e.g. Nastase and Kriek both won two Slams, but Nastase was a far greater player and Kriek a lesser player than many players who never won a single Slam).

 

[Federberg]

My list is not about personal preferences. I'm trying to weigh as many factors as possible and not playing favorites. Subjective? Certainly - how could it not be?

Not sure what you mean by it not being consistent. I don't have a statistic formula I'm using, but I try to weigh every player by the same general criteria: a mixture of different statistics, peak level vs. total career, etc. But if you mean that it isn't consistent in that it isn't ordered by any single statistic, like Slam count, then sure. But Slam count only tells part of the picture (e.g. Nastase and Kriek both won two Slams, but Nastase was a far greater player and Kriek a lesser player than many players who never won a single Slam).

As I said.. arbitrary, inconsistent and it is about personal preference. There's nothing wrong with that. It's your opinion. That's fine. Just don't try to assign any secret wisdom to it.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, you're pretty off-base, Federberg. It isn't about personal preference in that I don't care what order they end in. In other words, I'm not playing favorites. My opinion? Yes, but that's not the same thing as personal preference. Arbitrary? Not really, because I do have some sense of how each of their careers compare and have put some thought into it.

You still haven't said why or in what way it is inconsistent.

 

[Ricardo]

Can’t see Novak over Sampras. Nor can I see a justification for Chang to be there when Muster is not, to name a few obvious flaws...

Well Novak definitely has higher peak, better balance off all surfaces (all 4 slams in a row), better consistency throughout the year (winning all those ms1000 on top of slams), in fact Sampras doesn’t have a lot going for him in comparison.

 

[Federberg]

Well Novak definitely has higher peak, better balance off all surfaces (all 4 slams in a row), better consistency throughout the year (winning all those ms1000 on top of slams), in fact Sampras doesn’t have a lot going for him in comparison.

It's my opinion mate. Pete was focussed on slams to the exclusion of other titles in a way the current guys aren't. Am I going to hold it against him? Not really. He didn't have the same ranking points pressure these guys do. But I feel like people on here are suffering from recency bias. When that guy was in his pomp he was virtually unbeatable. He's earned enough credit for me that until Novak can at least match his slam count I have to keep him in front. Don't forget this is the guy who was the leader in weeks at number 1 until Roger deposed him. The guy who still has the lead in year end number 1 (even though it's not a stat I think is that important). The point is that he was dominant with a capital D. To go above him, you have to beat his numbers (slams, or weeks at number 1), and last I heard a French Open title is not worth 2 Wimbledon's. Unless something's changed and I'm not aware of it

 

[Federberg]

Haha, you're pretty off-base, Federberg. It isn't about personal preference in that I don't care what order they end in. In other words, I'm not playing favorites. My opinion? Yes, but that's not the same thing as personal preference. Arbitrary? Not really, because I do have some sense of how each of their careers compare and have put some thought into it.

You still haven't said why or in what way it is inconsistent.

There is no discernible logic to your ordering. I have already pointed out some obvious flaws. I'm not sure what else you need from me.

 

[Ricardo]

It's my opinion mate. Pete was focussed on slams to the exclusion of other titles in a way the current guys aren't. Am I going to hold it against him? Not really. He didn't have the same ranking points pressure these guys do. But I feel like people on here are suffering from recency bias. When that guy was in his pomp he was virtually unbeatable. He's earned enough credit for me that until Novak can at least match his slam count I have to keep him in front. Don't forget this is the guy who was the leader in weeks at number 1 until Roger deposed him. The guy who still has the lead in year end number 1 (even though it's not a stat I think is that important). The point is that he was dominant with a capital D. To go above him, you have to beat his numbers (slams, or weeks at number 1), and last I heard a French Open title is not worth 2 Wimbledon's. Unless something's changed and I'm not aware of it

Unbeatable? Novak’s winning streak is so much better you clearly don’t look at facts. In any case winning one of each slam is more impressive than 4 of the same slam, don’t tell me it’s a matter of opinion. Someone winning 4 in a row vs someone winning total of 5 here and there, no debate which is harder to do.