As Rafael Nadal strives to become only the third man ever – and first since 1969 – to hold all four grand slam trophies at once at this month’s Australian Open, tennis writer Darren Walton ranks the greatest players of the open era (1968-2011) from 10 down to one:
10. STEFAN EDBERG: – Unlike the small army of Swedes who stampeded the ATP Tour following the baseline footsteps of the trailblazing Bjorn Borg, Edberg was a graceful serve-volleyer who came within one tantalising set of achieving the career grand slam. Despite losing the 1989 French Open final in five sets to 17-year-old Michael Chang, Edberg remains the only player ever to claim a junior grand slam, having swept the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US under-18 championships in 1983, the unique feat serving as the appetiser to a stellar pro career.
He wound up a decade later with six grand slam crowns from 11 finals, three Davis Cup trophies and 72 weeks’ service as world No.1. He is one of only eight men to have held the year-end top ranking for consecutive seasons. A model sportsman and unflappable performer, his one-time record 53 straight major appearances is testimony to the fire that burned within. In retirement, Edberg carries that same ruthless competitive streak into national-level squash tournaments and he is also said to be nigh unbeatable in “rackleton” – a multi-sport event featuring tennis, squash, badminton and table tennis.
9. JOHN MCENROE: The Superbrat will forever be remembered for his wild, unrestrained outbursts and signature “you cannot be serious” ranting at umpires, but tennis purists prefer to marvel at his mastery with the racquet. With a mixture of junk, touch and grace and in possession of a unique and deceptive back-to-his opponent serve, McEnroe snared seven grand slam titles from 11 finals, had 14 stints totalling 170 weeks atop the rankings and halted Bjorn Borg’s record five-year Wimbledon reign in one of the greatest matches of all-time in 1981. The German-born firebrand also enjoyed the most dominant season of the 43-year professional era in 1984, winning 82 of 85 matches, a record that only Roger Federer (81-4 in 2005) has ever come close to matching. But to sporting neutrals McEnroe’s volcanic temper overshadowed his winning ways and, among the more notable of his tantrums, he was fined $US7500 and banned for three weeks for demanding an umpire in Stockholm to “answer the question, jerk” and ejected from the 1990 Australian Open for swearing at the umpire, supervisor and tournament referee. For all that, he’s now regarded as the premier TV commentator and analyst in the game.
8. JIMMY CONNORS: Arguably the greatest competitor of all-time, unquestionably the most enduring, James Scott Connors enjoyed an extraordinary career spanning three decades. Among his catalogue of highlights and achievements, he won eight majors from 14 finals, won more titles (109) and matches (1242) than any man in the modern era – at a staggering 82.4 per cent strike rate – and was world No.1 on nine different occasions for some 268 weeks, including five straight years from 1974-78. He spent a dozen years ensconced in the world’s top three and was a fixture in the top 10 for a phenomenal 16 consecutive seasons (1973-88). Connors was also the first man to win grand slam titles on three different surfaces – clay (when the US Open was contested on dirt in 1976), grass and hard courts. He finally signed off after the most emotion-charged encore in tennis history, a pulsating four-hour comeback victory over Aaron Krickstein in the 1991 US Open quarter-finals on his 39th birthday. The maverick American made almost as many headlines off the court, briefly engaged to Chris Evert before settling with playboy model Patti McGuire, with whom he had two children.
7. IVAN LENDL: He had less friends in the locker-room than major titles, but Ivan The Terrible – as he was often labelled – was one hell of a tennis player, as evidenced by his winning record over fellow greats John McEnroe (21-15), Jimmy Connors (22-13), Mats Wilander (15-7) and Boris Becker (11-10). All up, he made 19 grand slam final appearances – less than only Roger Federer (22) – including eight straight at Flushing Meadows. A modern-day pioneer of the baseline power game, the Czech-born court bully, who won eight majors incidentally, occupied top spot in the rankings for 270 weeks, behind only Pete Sampras (286) and Federer (285) and is in an elite group of only eight men to have contested all four grand slam finals. Having won three of the four, super-fit Lendl’s obsession became triumphing at Wimbledon and he even skipped Paris a couple of times in desperate pursuit of his holy grail. Alas, he never broke through. But with 94 career titles – second to Connors – and as the only man ever to have won at least 90 matches in three consecutive years (1980-82), Lendl’s place in tennis history is secure. Upon retirement, he took up golf but never quite made it professionally despite reaching a scratch handicap.
6. ANDRE AGASSI: Surely the most successful pigeon-toed athlete of all-time. Undoubtedly the highest earner in tennis, with his and wife Steffi Graf’s wealth estimated to be near enough to a billion dollars. Known on tour as The Punisher for his brutal groundstrokes, Agassi was the first man (and one of only two along with Rafael Nadal) to achieve the career “golden slam” – winning all four majors plus an Olympic gold medal. The eight-times major champion and 15-times finalist swears his infamous mullet wig cost him at least one more slam – when he feared the shocking hairpiece would fall off in the 1990 French Open final against Andres Gomez – and one wonders how many more he missed out on while plunging to No.141 in the world while married to Brooke Shields and fraternising with Barbra Streisand in the mid-1990s. Amazingly, Agassi recovered to reach four straight grand slam finals in 1999-2000 – one of the rarest feats in tennis – and add four more majors to his collection to take his tally to 101 weeks atop the rankings. Oh, and can anyone else say they beat Pete Sampras 14 times, or boast of 30 grand slam singles trophies in the family household?
***5. ROD LAVER: The Rockhampton Rocket was 30 and in the twilight of his celebrated career when he entered the professional ranks yet remains the only man in the 43-year open era to have pulled off the calendar-year slam with victories at the 1969 Australian, French and US Open championships plus Wimbledon. He also achieved the slam as an amateur in 1962 and Lord only knows how many more majors he would have amassed if not banned from the pro tour between 1963 and 67. As it was, he piled up 11, including five in the open era. And the five-year exile couldn’t stop Laver becoming the first player ever to earn $US1 million in prize money. He didn’t need a wheelbarrow for his cash, though. Laver’s left (hitting) forearm, measuring an abnormal 30cm, was the same size as world heavyweight boxing champion Rocky Marciano’s so when he unleashed one of his famous whip-like backhands, it often didn’t make it back over the net.
4. RAFAEL NADAL: At just 24, the modest Majorcan has already achieved feats most players dream of. His numbers are staggering. Success at last year’s US Open gave Nadal the full grand slam set – the second-youngest of only seven men in history to complete the sweep – and he will arrive at this month’s Australian Open hoping to join Laver and 1930s great Don Budge as only the third man ever to hold all four major trophies at once. Barely halfway into his career, Nadal sits fourth on the all-time grand slam leaderboard with nine majors. The all-court master is nigh unbeatable on clay, his lone defeat in six French Open campaigns coming while troubled by a knee injury. But confirming his all-court prowess, apart from Bjorn Borg, Nadal is the only man in the open era to have achieved the French Open-Wimbledon double more than once (2008 and 2010). And only Federer has conquered Nadal at The All England Club since 2005. Throw in two Davis Cups, an Olympic gold medal, a record 18 Masters Series titles and 70 weeks as world No.1 and an enviable 14-8 winning record over Federer and Nadal has done it all. The single-minded Spaniard may well have raised eyebrows with his lunch snubbing of the Queen at Wimbledon last year, but there is no doubting his own place in tennis royalty.
3. BJORN BORG: Tragically for tennis lovers, the ice-cool Swede was on display for an all-too-brief 10-year-career. But before retiring at just 25, Borg accrued 11 grand slam titles – the third-most in the modern era behind only Federer (16) and Sampras (14) – from 27 entered at a wondrous 41 per cent strike rate. All up, he won 89.2 per cent of his grand-slam singles matches. Both are men’s open-era records that have stood for 30 years. Borg’s adaption from clay to grass is also legendary, with the baseline master completing the French Open-Wimbledon double a record three straight times (1976-78). Had he bothered playing the Australian Open more than once, during a time when mostly locals and lesser lights reigned Down Under, it’s likely Borg would have challenged Federer’s sweet 16 majors. And despite jostling with fellow legends John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, Borg spent 109 weeks atop the rankings. And with 33 consecutive singles victories from 1973-80, Borg is also arguably the greatest-ever Davis Cup performer. On and off the court, the Scandinavian heart-throb transcended the sport like no other. He was the first tennis player ever feted like a rock star and to have women throw him their underwear.
2. PETE SAMPRAS: In a tremendous display of longevity, Pistol Pete won the first of his 14 slams at only 19 and last at 32, both in New York. Sampras rode his clutch serve and killer forehand to an unmatched seven Wimbledon crowns plus five US Open titles and two Australian Open triumphs, owned the top ranking for a record 286 weeks in total – one more week than Federer – and finished top dog for an unrivalled six consecutive years from 1993 to `98. He lost only four grand slam finals out of 18 and eclipses Federer for several big records. Alas, the American cannot be considered the greatest because of his dismal claycourt record. Sampras never made one final at Roland Garros, only ever reached the last four once in 12 attempts and averaged less than two wins a visit to the French capital. Sadly for Sampras, about 80 of his trophies and other priceless memorabilia were stolen this year – but he stopped the search for the Musketeers’ Cup long before that.
1. ROGER FEDERER: The Swiss master ended all arguments when he completed the career grand slam at the 2009 French Open. The once-in-a-lifetime talent owns a mountain of mind-boggling records – including 16 major trophies and 237 consecutive weeks as world No.1. He is the only man ever to contest all four grand slam finals in three different years and is the only player in history to win two different grand slam events for five consecutive years (Wimbledon 2003-07 and US Open 2004-08). Few could have imagined the mighty career ahead when, as a 19-year-old, Federer broke the Wimbledon domination of seven-times champion Sampras in 2001. At his most dominant, the freakish Federer reached 10 consecutive grand slam finals and a surely never-to-be-repeated 18 out of 19 (from 2005 to 2010), 22 in total and an almost incomprehensible 23 successive grand slam semi-finals and won 22 tour finals on the trot. If not for Nadal, the 29-year-old probably would have collected four more titles in Paris and three of his six other major final defeats were in five sets. In total, Federer has accounted for a dozen different rivals in grand slam finals. His crazy stats aside, the 29-year-old has achieved all he has with unrivalled on-court elegance, wielding his racquet like a stylish wand in a manner that may never be seen again. In truth, he could probably beat most social players with a frying pan. The undisputed tennis king.
(*** While Rod Laver won a total of 11 grand slam titles throughout his career, only his achievements from his professional career were considered for this exercise.)
BY THE NUMBERS – HOW THE GREATEST TENNIS PLAYERS OF THE PROFESSIONAL ERA (1968-2011) STACK UP:-
1.ROGER FEDERER (Switzerland)
Pro career: 1998-
Career win-loss record: 746-174 (81%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 208-31 (87%)
Career finals win-loss record: 66-28
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 16-6
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 54-7 (4-1)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 43-11 (1-3)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 55-6 (6-1)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 56-7 (5-1)
Weeks at No.1: 285
2.PETE SAMPRAS (USA)
Pro career: 1988-2002
Career win-loss record: 762-222 (77%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 203-38 (84%)
Career finals win-loss record: 64-24
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 14-4
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 45-9 (2-1)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 24-13 (0-0)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 63-7 (7-0)
US Open win-loss record and record in finals: 71-9 (5-3)
Weeks at No.1: 286
3.BJORN BORG (Sweden)
Pro career: 1972-82
Career win-loss record: 608-127 (83%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 141-17 (89%)
Career finals win-loss record: 63-26
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 11-5
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 1-1 (0-0)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 49-2 (6-0)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 51-4 (5-1)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 40-10 (0-4)
Weeks at No.1: 109
4.RAFAEL NADAL (Spain)
Pro career: 2001-
Career win-loss record: 475-101 (82%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 120-17 (88%)
Career finals win-loss record: 43-13
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 9-2
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 25-5 (1-0)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 38-1 (5-0)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 29-4 (2-2)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 28-7 (1-0)
Weeks at No.1: 70
**5.ROD LAVER (Australia)
Pro career: 1968-77
Career win-loss record: 413-107 (79%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 60-10 (86%)
Career finals win-loss record: 47-23
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 5-1
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 6-1 (1-0)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 13-1 (1-1)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 22-3 (2-0)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 19-5 (1-0)
Weeks at No.1: none (only contested three grand slam events after advent of rankings in 1973)
6.ANDRE AGASSI (USA)
Pro career: 1986-2006
Career win-loss record: 870-274 (76%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 224-53 (81%)
Career finals win-loss record: 60-30
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-7
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-5 (4-0)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 51-16 (1-2)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 46-13 (1-1)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 79-19 (2-4)
Weeks at No.1: 101
7.IVAN LENDL (Czech Republic/USA)
Pro career: 1978-1994
Career win-loss record: 1071-239 (82%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 222-49 (82%)
Career finals win-loss record: 94-52
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-11
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-10 (2-2)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 53-12 (3-2)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-14 (0-2)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 73-13 (3-5)
Weeks at No.1: 270
8.JIMMY CONNORS (USA)
Pro career: 1970-1992
Career win-loss record: 1242-277 (82%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 232-49 (83%)
Career finals win-loss record: 109-54
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-7
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 10-1 (1-1)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 40-13 (0-0)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 84-18 (2-4)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 98-17 (5-2)
Weeks at No.1: 268
9.JOHN MCENROE (USA)
Pro career: 1977-1992
Career win-loss record: 875-198 (82%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 167-38 (81%)
Career finals win-loss record: 77-31
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 7-4
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 18-5 (0-0)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 25-10 (0-1)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 59-11 (3-2)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 65-12 (4-1)
Weeks at No.1: 170
10.STEFAN EDBERG (Sweden)
Pro career: 1983-1996
Career win-loss record: 806-270 (75%)
Grand slam win-loss record: 177-47 (79%)
Career finals win-loss record: 41-36
Grand slam finals win-loss record: 6-5
Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 55-10 (2-3)
French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 30-13 (0-1)
Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 49-12 (2-1)
US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 43-12 (2-0)
Weeks at No.1: 72
(** While Rod Laver won a total of 11 grand slam titles throughout his career, only his achievements from his professional career were considered for this exercise.
(*** Statistics up to date as at January 7, 2011).
mark sadler
Guest
In regards to the g.o.a.t of mens tennis I feel it really comes down to laver or Federer as I believe at their peaks the mid 2000's for roger and late 60's for rod are examples of the most sustained periods of dominance and excellence .for what it's worth I would plump for a top 5 of 1.laver 2.federer 3.nadal 4.sampras 5.borg. and as for the matter in judging a player by the relative strength in depths of there eras I recently compiled an all-time top 50 and found room for six players of federer's era(2000's-date) nadal,djorkovic,murray,hewit,safin and roddick with nadal the only other player in my top10 thou djorkovic and murray might get somewhere near in future but in laver's case broadly speaking the 1960's up to about 1972 a whooping ten with rosewell,gonzales,hoad,newcombe,ashe,gimeno,emerson,segurra,santanna and fraser with two top tens in rosewell and Gonzales.i'm not sure whether that is conclusive in terms of lavers place at the pinnacle of the men's game maybe just a suggestion .
Thyagu
Guest
I do not agree that Edberg should be in top 10, his ugly looking serve and volley is awful. But Boris Becker, who has all court play and also better serve and return and also an amazing serve and volley player.. he should be there.
jacko
Guest
I would have to say that if you are basing your list on statistics alone it seems to me that Margaret Court beats the lot of them? After all the title of the article is not "who are the 10 greatest MALE tennis players of the open ear"? She won 24 titles and all Slams in a calendar year didn't she? Even Federer would like that record
amazonfan
Guest
Three comments: 1)Completely agree about Laver being number 1. :D 2)I'm not a fan of the 'weak era' argument. You can only play against your competition, and Federer's era was arguably no worse than any other era during the open era (the mid 70's was by far worse). 3)How was Edberg 'With Laver and Mcenroe the greatest grass court player of all time'?
Shaun_SouthAfrica
Guest
Hi All, This debate regarding the best of all time is very hotly debated wherever I go. I regard all the nuances of the arguments above to be well thought out, and extremely valid. Here is my top 10: 1) Rod Laver- No question at all. 2 grand slams in 6 years, and was unable to compete in the other 4 cause of his professional status. At worst he would probably have come out with 17 majors,. 2) Pete Sampras- He\was awsesome. He dominated all his rivals, and competed in arguabely the toughest generation. His rivals included; Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Chang, Agassi, Ivanisavic, Bekker, Stich, Martin, Courier, Brugeira, Muster, Rios,Krajicek, Rafter, Safin.People making to bigger deal of French open. He proved his greatness by dominating opponents. 3) Roger Federer- Probably the best player of all time on paper. However he is traiing his greatest rivals( Nadal), and has been the victim of a weak generation oif players. After all Andy Roddick was his greatest rival for a few years. 4) Byorn Borg- 6 French opens, and 5 Wimbledons say it all. 5) Rafa Nadal- 12 grand slams are awseome. However he was not challenged by enough clay court specialists 6) Ivan Lendl- His win /loss record is amazing, and he was in 19 grand slam finals 7) Andre Agassi- 8 Grand slam titels, and he won on all 4 surfaces 8) John Mcenroe. Sadly he should have been on top, if he had managed to keep his incredible momentum of 1984. He also won 9 Major doubles tournaments, and a number of Davis cvups 9) Jimmy Connors 10) Stefan Edberg- With Laver and Mcenroe the greatest grass court player of all time
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Kids? Anyway, I don't agree with your conclusion at all. You're suggesting that a player who has 17 French Opens, is better than a player who has claimed all four GS tournaments? I think that's absurd. There is no way you can suggest that a specialist is superior to an all-round player. Also, to simply go by number of slams won is incredibly simplistic. Was Gustavo Kuerton, who won 3 French Opens, superior to Ilie Nastase? Nastase won a French and a US Open, and was a runner-up at Wimbledon twice. Was Sergi Bruguera, who won two French Opens, superior to Michael Stich, who won Wimbledon and was a runner-up at the French/US Opens and a semi-finalist at the Australian? Was Roy Emerson a better player than Nadal, Borg or Laver? To only focus on number of slams won, when there are so many factors to take into account, is ridiculous IMO.
ali
Guest
LET ME TELL ALL OF YOU KIDS ONE THING............i have tryed to do so much reseach and come up with the best 10 players list....but it always ended up with so many constraints and considerations to be taken in mind that it becomes impossible to come up with a list............then i came up with the conclusion that the answer is actually very simple.....just look at the number of grandslams a player has won n then decide....it doesnt matter which ones what matters is how many....i tomorrow a player comes and wins 17 french opens and ails to win any other slam he is better than federer...yes fed won all four but someone had the capacity to win 17 french opens which obivously federer or nadal or any player cant do.............................i think this was a great list but the simple answer is to see by the number of grandslams won
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Completely agree about Laver. :D Disagree about McEnroe and Connors. McEnroe was more talented, however Connors IMO was superior. Also disagree about Federer. While Federer is second on my personal list (Laver is first), it's not because of Nadal. Not only has Federer had a superior career to Nadal, but I think it is a massive exaggeration to say that Nadal has dominated him.
Jim
Guest
Laver won the grand slam twice. He got a high count of grand slam titles even though he was kept from competition for most of his most productive years. His playing characteristics are quite extreme. So, it is ridiculous to put him so low on the list. He is probably number 1. Why do you rank Connors above McEnroe? McEnroe was in a position to compete more or less on even terms and simply was better. How can you make Federer first when he has systematically failed to respond to Nadal's competition? Can the number one person be someone who is clearly dominated by another player of his own time? This makes no sense. Much of the list is quite distorted, although many of the names belong somewhere on the list (some don't). Lendl probably doesn't belong on the list. Rosewall probably does.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"I mean if the acutal players are saying it who played the game and commentators who have seen tennis for 50 or 60 years say it then how can people argue about it?" Because it's subjective, and playing the game does not automatically mean one has a more informed opinion than those who haven't played it. Many of those commentators who have seen tennis for 50 or 60 years, haven't played at the highest level. Anyway, I have a friend who has been watching the game his entire life, he's 60, and he is convinced that Laver was the greatest. The point is that it's subjective.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
'There really aint no point debating everyone knows really the federer is the greatest!!" Actually there is a point, since not everyone knows Federer is the greatest. I certainly don't. IMO Laver was the greatest. As for Nadal, he is fourth on my list, and when he finishes his career, he could IMO go down as the third greatest of all time, at best. There is no way I can consider Federer & Nadal the two best players of all time, not when neither have claimed The Grand Slam even once. "Honestly the laver and all the rest of them they wouldn’t win that much in this era much faster stronger players to compete with and the skill level these days is much better." Please. If you put Laver in this era- with all the advantages that today's players have (better training, better equipment, easier transportation, multiple coaches and physios, being full-time), there is no doubt in my mind that Laver would dominate. You can't talk about how today's players are faster and stronger, and how skill level these days is much better, without also talking about the advantages today's players enjoy.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Top 5? Even if you don't consider Laver to be number 1, top 5 is pretty low. At the very least, I would have him top 2 or 3. As for Lendl (who is 13th on my all-time list), he was amazing, however he never won Wimbledon.
adeel bashir
Guest
And let me get one thing clear, Rod laver , andre aggasi, bjorn borg, pete sampras , jim courier , ivan lendl, jhon mcenroe, jimmy connors, the list goes on and on even commentators who have been covering tennis since 1960 in lavers and tilden days HAVE ALL SAID FEDERER IS THE BEST OF ALL TIME. I mean if the acutal players are saying it who played the game and commentators who have seen tennis for 50 or 60 years say it then how can people argue about it?
adeel bashir
Guest
There really aint no point debating everyone knows really the federer is the greatest!! Its so obvious , achievements wise and technical ability on court he is unmatched. And rafa nadal when he finishes his career he will go down as the 2nd greatest ever !! Federer and nadal are the 2 best players of all time. Look at their rivalry the speed the shot making , intensity, drama and for the most important things the respect and humbleness of both great champions surpasses all the past rivalrys. When you watch tennis these days I hear so many past and current experts and commentators and current and past players say fed and nadal are the best players ever. Honestly the laver and all the rest of them they wouldn't win that much in this era much faster stronger players to compete with and the skill level these days is much better.
John Lucania
Guest
Your list makes sense but it would be difficult for me to have a top 10 list that didn't include the likes of a Pancho Gonzalez and Bill Tilden. What about Donald Budge who was a monster on the court and winner of the Grand Slam ? It's very difficult to judge. Obviously you can't judge players in head to head matches. Placing Tilden in a match against Federer is ridiculous based on the speed of the game, equipment, etc... Players should be judged based on their achievements in their era of tennis and their level of competition for that era. Federer happens to be number 1 in my book based on his incredible achievements. I think it is disgraceful for people commenting to underrate Laver who I feel is one of the top 5 greatest players of all time. With Laver you also have to consider that he was short in stature but huge on talent and greatness. I saw Laver play towards the end of his career and on film and he was simply amazing. Please do not underrate Laver. I think Lendl is the most underrated player of all time. He was the father of modern tennis equipment and cross training in the men's game (Martina in the women's game) and got to 8 U.S. Open Finals in a row. That is an incredible achievement.
John Lucania
Guest
Although Majors may not have been as important to Laver as money he still had major accomplishments by winning two Grand Slams. I don't agree that Tennis as we know it started with Lendl/Edberg/Wilander. When you talk about the speed and modernization of today's game you have to credit Jimmy Connors as the father of modern era tennis along with Borg and McEnroe.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I think Becker did better because IMO he was a vastly superior player. It wasn't just about mental toughness, it also about competitive instinct, weapons that was as great as anyone else's (big serve, great serve & volley game, impressive groundstrokes), and it was also about power. As to whether or not Becker had easier GS finals? Nonsense. He went up against Lendl three times, Edberg three times, Stich, Sampras, and Chang (plus Kevin Curren.) I really hate the argument that some people pose that X player had an easier draw than another player. You can only beat your opponents, and Becker deserved each and every one of his slams. "Everyone knows Boris beaker had an easy draw to win wimbledon asa 17rd old." I don't know that so obviously everyone doesn't know that. Becker was the best grass-courter of the mid to late 80's. He absolutely deserves his 1985 Wimbledon title, and having just had a look at his draw, I don't think it was particularly easy at all. Regardless, nobody wins a slam simply because they may have had an easy draw. They win because they are the best, and if they don't win, they're not good enough. No excuses. What Becker, my all-time favourite player, did in 1985 was incredible, and I don't think you should try to lessen it. As for Philippoussis, he was a classic case of why talent isn't everything. He was a brilliant talent, perhaps the most talented Aussie player of the past 40 years (he may have had more pure talent than Becker, perhaps, although I'm not going to say for sure, however Becker was IMO many times superior), and it is a tragedy that he didn't win a slam. He had the potential to win many slams. However what prevented him from fulfilling his potential is not that he had difficult draws, but because he was lazy, he wasn't determined and mentally tough enough, and ultimately, Philippoussis cared more about buying fast cars and dating hot women than being the best he could possibly be. Stich was a fantastic player, well rounded, and capable of brilliance on all surfaces. Wilander was a legend, however what tends to let him down is that he never even made a Wimbledon final. Still, he is one of only five players to have won slams on three different surfaces, and his 1988 season was a masterwork.
Johnno
Guest
I can look at you with a straight face Ian and say Mcenrie on his day could beat Mcernoe on his day. Get the artistic logic there Ian. Meaning he beats himself Mcenroe rather than hoers. He would have to many shots, and unpredictability and serve volley tennis for Federer. He could probably artistcly control and master him of the court with a wooden racket. Yannick NOAH was an artiste to but JOHN Mcenroe was life expressed, the picasso of tennis, the complete artiste so to speak. What did you think of mat Wilander, micheal stitch, jim courier, mark phillpopusous, and pat cash. i THOUGHT ALL 3 COULD OF BEEN ANYTHING, BUT HAD ALOT OF PROBLEMS, burn out injuries etc. Mats won a few grand slams surly he could be on this list if Edberg and lENDL ARE ON THE top 10.
Johnno
Guest
Amazon fan do you think Mark phillpousous had more talant than Boris Becker, and only reason boris Becker did better than scud was he had easier grand slam finals than scud, and was mentally stronger. I THINK Scud or flip as both his nicknames was the greatest natural talent ever. Our own aussy scud. He smashed samaras at 96 Australain open as a 19 yr old. Everyone knows Boris beaker had an easy draw to win wimbledon asa 17rd old. bernard Tomic this year would of had a much tougher draw if he had won. I am surprised no one has looked at Mats Wildander on here if Edberg can get a look in an Lendl, Mats was amazing. And Micheal stitch i thought had as much talent as anyone out there.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Lets assume in any given year, the best player is a 3-1 shot to win any given slam. Winning four in that year is therefore (0.33)^4, or 1.1%, roughly. But the odds of a 1.1% chance coming up on ten tries is about 10:1. The odds of it coming up on 40 tries is about 35%." You're probably need to expand as I'm not entirely sure of your point. Regarding the Australian Open, it has gone through periods where it was incredibly prestigious and periods where it was less prestigious. It probably wasn't until 1983 that it truly cemented its status as equally prestigious as the other 3 slams (that year Wilander defeated Lendl) and has never looked back. If in 1982, I would be laughed at if I said that the Australian Open was as prestigious as the French/US opens, nobody would dare laugh at me in 1983, not when two of the best players in the world in Wilander & Lendl contested the final. Anyway before then, as I mentioned, there were periods beforehand where it was still extremely prestigious but there were also periods where it was a sub-slam. Jean Borotra won it in 1928, Fred Perry & Don Budge won it in the 30's, Alex Olmedo won it in 1959, however up until the 70's, it was dominated by Australians, with the occasional foreign winner (until 1969; five Brits, four Americans, two New Zealanders, and a Frenchman were the only foreign winners), and while many of the Aussie winners were legends, some were not. However, with all that said, and if it reads like I'm giving you a history lesson, that is not my intention, in 1962 Laver defeated Roy Emerson in the final, and in 1969, he defeated Andrés Gimeno in the final. Both are legends. So, while the Australian Open of 1969 was not the Australian Open of 1989 (or any Australian Open really since 1983), Laver still defeated two all-time greats, and as such, I don't think it lessens his achievement.