2026 ATP General News

[Fiero425]

Well, even though I love stats and charts, I still struggle to settle on a specific ranking - mostly because I can never decide how to balance peak and overall career accomplishments.

There's also the problem of Rod Laver and the Open Era. I think he's got about as good a claim to GOAT status and Djokovic, if we consider tennis history as a whole. But then we also have to include Pancho Gonzales, Rosewall, and Tilden, at least - if not Budge, Kramer, Vines, etc...at least in a top 20-30.

"Open Era Only" is easier, and pushes Laver down the list. Still top 20, maybe top 10, but not top 5.

But peak vs. career remains an issue, and no player is more impacted by this than Borg, who is the hardest to rank of any Open Era great. However...you're not going to like this, but even when emphasizing peak, Borg tends to be a bit over-rated, imo. He was great, but were his best two years (1979-80) greater than, say, Lendl's (1986-87)? Or McEnroe's (1981, 84)? Just as Borg tends to be a tad overrated due to the mystique from his early retirement, Lendl tends to be underrated, because of that 8-11 record in Slam finals, but that is largely due to him playing along side more all-time greats in their primes than any other player. Lendl faced late prime Connors and Borg, full prime McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander and Becker; and early prime Agassi and Sampras.

Anyhow, I'd also rank Novak #1 -- for the Open Era, at least. He is, at worst, the first among near equals. Roger and Rafa would be 2a and 2b. I think, all things tolled, they are too close to rank one over the other. Both have their arguments, and both sort of equalize each other. EDIT: After doing my ranking below, I give Roger a tiny edge, because his two or three best years are better than Rafa's best. But again, I see them as close enough to make any edge meaningless.

I'd then rank Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and Sampras in some order. It isn't as clear as the conventional "Sampras, Borg, Mac, Lendl" ranking that most lists employ. Sampras' weakness on clay and playing much of his peak during a relatively softer era weakens his edge over the others. I know, 14 Slams, but I think Borg and Mac were both better at their best, and Lendl arguably so as well. I'll still give Sampras the slight edge below, but it is closer than mere Slam count implies.

Connors is both clearly behind that group, and clearly ahead of everyone else - at least among Open Era only guys. I'd then insert Laver, for being the best player of the first four years of the Open Era, which included one of the two best season (1969) of the Open Era; but being the best player for four straight years is rather impressive, even if his Open Era career was pretty short.

I'd rank Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander, in that order, in a group. Agassi gets the edge due to longevity, but I think you could argue that the other three were slightly better during their peaks. To be honest, I think Agassi tends to be a bit overrated. He was a legitimately great player, but his name career more weight than his record. And really, he only had two truly great years: 1995 and 1999. The rest of his career was rather erratic, and he didn't put together a clear strong peak of a few years like those other guys did. Murray is the best of the rest, as befit his career compared to the Big Three.

OK, now Alcaraz and Sinner. Obviously it is too soon to assess them historically, but as of this moment, I'd probably rank them both between Laver and Agassi. Their peaks--especially Sinner's--are closer to the Sampras group than Agassi and the rest, and really to clearly surpass Agassi, they only need another year or two at a similar level. But I'd already them above him. Connors just had to too long of a career not to give him an edge over them, but I have little doubt that they'll eventually surpass him and--at least--join the "purple tier" below.


Here's how I'd sort it all out.

OPEN ERA (only) TOP 20 (color coded by tiers)

1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Lendl
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Laver
10. Sinner
11. Alcaraz
12. Agassi
13. Becker
14. Edberg
15. Wilander
16. Murray
17. Vilas
18. Newcombe
19. Nastase
20. Ashe

Things get fuzzy after Vilas, who I think follows Murray. I think you could make an argument for Rosewall or Courier to edge out one of those next three, but I think the next guys--Roddick, Hewitt, Zverev (yes, Zverev), Chang, etc--belong in the 21-30 range.

If we were considering all of tennis history, I'd probably rank Laver #1, then add Tilden, Rosewall, and Gonzales to the top 10, and Budge, Kramer, Vines and maybe Perry to the top 20. I'd consider Kozeluh, Drobny, and Riggs, too. I'd probably avoid players before Tilden and the pro/amateur split in the 1920s, because it is just too hard to compare. But the sport was relatively stable from the mid-20s through 1967, that we have enough continuity to compare Tilden's dominance to say, the dominance of the Big Three.

And to me, that's how such lists should be considered: relative dominance to the era a player played in - not specific statistical metrics, because those change over time.

We're on the same wave-length! I didn't mean to dismiss the Am. Era b/c players like Tilden dominated like no other in history from what I read! He was the 1st athlete that tried to trade in his athletic skills t/b an actor! I give all due credit for their achievement in pre-Open Era; Budge, Perry, Kramer, Gonzalas, Rosewall, but give the edge to Laver w/ his 2 Grand Slams ('62 & '69)! I, like everyone give Borg greater status due to his mystique & early retirement, but who else at the time won 5 Str. Wimbledons & 6 of 8 French Opens! He brought Paris into the elite mix of things as most top players early in the Pro Era either skipped the clay season or were playing WTT! If you're from that era, I hope you can recall how entertaining those All-Star WTT events were! At any given time players like Betty Stove & Diane Fromholtz c/b replaced by Evonne Goolagong & BJK coming into the end of a doubles match when it got tight!

As much as I liked players like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, & Agassi, IDK why they're even mentioned in the coversation b/c so many other players pre-OE & thereafter w/ much greater records! I also believe Lendl's been terribly underrated as he had to deal w/ so many greats B4, during, & after their prime! Reminds me of Djokovic as my blog promotes! He was relegated to 2nd rate status behind Fedal, but overtook them w/ ease in his 30's believe it or not! Who's ever going to achieve what he did in his later yrs.? He picked up 2 YEC's, 2 YE #1's, an OGM, & not just several Majors, but 3 of 4 twice ('21 & '23)! I might add to this later!

 

[the AntiPusher]

My initial response: That's about right! You've been paying attn.! I'm not only impressed, I'm flattered!

I'll fill in the blanks OTOH here:

1. Djokovic - Obvious GOAT w/ all the #'s in his favor (24 Majors, 40 Masters, 8 YE #1's, 7 YEC's, 428 Wks. @#1, & OGM
2. Borg - The man owned the early Pro Era taking lead w/ 11 Majors
3. Federer; when he was young & not wussing out against Nadal
4. Sampras deserves respect for his time! He initially took the overall lead w/14 in Majors held by Emerson's 12 (mostly Am. Majors)

5. Nadal can't be overlooked; even w/ his limitations (22 Majors)
6. Agassi gets a nod even though quite a few seasons of waste over 20 yrs! The 1st "Career GS" w/ OGM
7.Connors w/ his body of work over 20 yrs on the tour (109 Titles)
8. McEnroe w/ a few magnificents yrs. of excellence
9. Lendl S/B ahead of McEnroe & Connors w/ 8 Majors, but never pulled off that Wimbledon he treasured so much
10. A few players have the potential to make the list, but haven't done enuf yet: Alcaraz, Sinner. etc.

- - (Feel free to make changes or give opinions)

I wished the younger players especially the ladies would sit down and binge watch Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Graf and the GOAT Venus Williams matches. Learn how they kept their cool and not let their emotions determine their narrative. Way too much whinning in both the WTA and ATP in todays game IMO

 

[Fiero425]

I wished the younger players especially the ladies would sit down and binge watch Borg/Sampras/Nadal/Graf and the GOAT Venus Williams matches. Learn how they kept their cool and not let their emotions determine their narrative. Way too much whinning in both the WTA and ATP in todays game IMO

I just watched a You-Tube vid highlites of Navratilova/Evert in '88 Wimbledon Semi-Final! On Match pt. a call went against Chris! She just gave a dirty look to the linesman & umpire; it was enuf! She tossed her racket down on the sideline, and it was over! I +ed to that last post BTW!

 

[El Dude]

Peak. Once I realized that, I lost interest in the GOAT debate. Then, Djokovic rèsumè became undebatable, while on the other hand for me is strikingly obvious he is not the GOAT.

Career is about longevity. Of course this matters, and it says a lot, if you are still a top dog close to your forties you are pretty damn good, but still...

I think there's a good argument that peak is MORE important than career, but two questions arise:

1. How to weigh them properly? This is the same question, again, and remains unresolved by just saying "peak." To what degree? Peak only, or mostly, and how much is "mostly?"
2. What are the parameters for peak?

Let's just look at the second one. Peak can mean many things: It could be...

- A player at their very best level, and presumably in their best context. If this is the case, Nadal is the GOAT. Nadal on clay is better than any player on any surface. I dare you to defy me! But seriously, is this even a question? Nadal on clay > any player in tennis history on their best surface. But of course tennis isn't just played on clay or any single surface, so while this is meaningful, it can't be the only factor for "peak," let alone GOATness.

- A player's best year. This would make things easier, because in the Open Era, there are really only a few choices: Laver in 1969, McEnroe in 1984, Federer in 2006, and Djokovic in 2015. I actually have a big chart of the 250 or so best seasons of the Open Era, but am still tweaking the formula. But I have Laver in '69 and Djokovic in '15 as the two best seasons; the next two best are Mac in '84 and Federer in '06, but I've gone back and forth as to which is 3rd and 4th. Djokovic's 2011 comes in an easy 5th. But the point being, it is really either Laver or Djokovic, with Mac or Roger a bit behind. But does a single season define greatness, let alone GOATness? I'd say not.

- A player's best few years. What is a "few"? Where to draw the line? Again, this is a subjective call and yields different results, depending. One year and you can go with Novak or Laver; two years and it is easily Novak (11, 15); three years, and I'd go with Roger (04, 06, 07) or Novak (11, 15, 23); four years, I'll go with Roger (add 05), etc. If we extend beyond the Open Era, Laver's run from 1961 to about 1970 is probably the best decade span of any player. During that span he won 138 titles, averaging almost 14 per season (!!!).

There are other ways to define a player's peak...which may yield a variety of different results. It could just be a general vibe, or feeling about a player - a purely subjective determination based upon our impressions.

I have occasionally said, and heard other more knowledgeable people say, that Roger is the most talented tennis player ever, but Rafa and Novak were better competitors. But GOATness isn't just talent - it is where talent meets results, and Novak's results are unsurpassed, and Rafa's equal to Roger's (if slightly different). So what defines GOATness? If it is mostly their "peak," what do we mean by that?