[aliceingoogs]

There may be totally valid reasons for this happening, but this list does seem to consistently weight men's tennis above women's. I love Rafa to death, but I would have to contort myself to come up with a good rationale for him, as of March 2012, being above Margaret Court AND Chris Evert. Okay, no more complaining.

[CIAFreeAgent]

There may be totally valid reasons for this happening, but this list does seem to consistently weight men's tennis above women's. I love Rafa to death, but I would have to contort myself to come up with a good rationale for him, as of March 2012, being above Margaret Court AND Chris Evert. Okay, no more complaining.

For sure, I'd also put Chris and Madge ahead of Borg- and I love Borg. I take nothing away from Borg for not winning the Aussie- very few of the really big players were bothering to play the Aussie during his peak years. But, his not winning the US Open drops him below these two (and arguably BJK) IMO.

[gogona]

I didn't catch last night's episode but I cannot think of any rationale for Connors and Serena Williams being below John McEnroe. The numbers aren't there and he hasn't had a significantly bigger impact on the game than those 2. I'd say Serena has had a bigger impact. That's really bizarre to me.

I'd say McEnroe's being the #1 doubles player for 270 weeks may have contributed.

[vipBrooriErok]

Jon made a really good point when he said Sampras couldn't beat anyone on clay while there was only one player Roger has trouble with.

I have no complaints whatsoever with TCs #1. And Graf the #1 woman. No problem at all.

Quickly forgetting that Sampras made the Sf at Paris, won Rome, and in 1995 won the Davis Cup basically by himself, in Moscow, on a clay court that was so watered down by the Russians the ITF fined them for it.
Nobody is saying Sampras was always looking forward to RG. But to say that he was totally inept on the stuff is not accurate either.
(BTW: he won more clay events than Agassi won grass events, and nobody ever says Andre could not play on grass).

[jagxj12]

Sure, but unless you fancy going to Rhode island during the dead period of summer, there are only two grass events per year.

[vipBrooriErok]

Indeed, Suliso. And we know that grass, as a surface, would be meaningless were it not for that old-fashioned tournament at Church road.
All I am saying is that Sampras was not Borg, not even Bruguera, but that he could not beat anybody on clay is not accurate.

[jagxj12]

Indeed, Suliso. And we know that grass, as a surface, would be meaningless were it not for that old-fashioned tournament at Church road.
All I am saying is that Sampras was not Borg, not even Bruguera, but that he could not beat anybody on clay is not accurate.

I agree with that, but still I would argue that the entire top 4 now is more capable on clay than Sampras ever was. Of course surface homogenization has a lot to do with it...

[aliceingoogs]

Quickly forgetting that Sampras made the Sf at Paris, won Rome, and in 1995 won the Davis Cup basically by himself, in Moscow, on a clay court that was so watered down by the Russians the ITF fined them for it.
Nobody is saying Sampras was always looking forward to RG. But to say that he was totally inept on the stuff is not accurate either.
(BTW: he won more clay events than Agassi won grass events, and nobody ever says Andre could not play on grass).

I think maybe nobody makes this argument because it doesn't make a ton of sense in context. Half the season was clay and like 6 tournaments were on grass. Pete won 3 clay titles out of 54 entered. Andre won one grass title out of 19 entered (in like 21 years on tour) but that was Wimbledon where he beat Boris, McEnroe and Ivanisevic and then made another final and 3 SF's. Andre was one of the better grass court players in the world and Pete was competent at best on clay. I think his record and performance on clay are totally relevant to his legacy and I think they were a big shortcoming of his - one that he was pretty fine with.

[Aswdwdfg]

While naming and debating the Top 100 is fun, the number of factors make comparisons difficult at best. Comparing across generations is difficult and somewhat subjective. Add comparing across gender which is definitely subjective. Throw in biases and different criteria (# of slams, # of wins etc.) and it's difficult to assess anything.

When I look at Grand Slam victories, 5 women have more than Roger Federer. Margaret Court has 50 % more than him. We might conclude that winning a lot of male Grand Slams is more difficult than winning as a woman. That conclusion may be historical rather than current as in the last 10 years, Roger and Rafa have been winning at a greater pace than the women.

So, in the end, there's a lot of subjectivity. When looking at the list, I try to latch on to similarities. I'm comfortable enough comparing Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic etc. I can even extend that back to Connors, McEnroe, Borg.

I honestly can't tell you with any convincing argument if Roger Federer is a greater player than Steffi Graf.

Steffi has more slams. Roger has more slams than anyone in his peer group.

They both won on all surfaces.

Most would not argue about whether Roger would have beaten Steffi in a match.

It's tough.

Once you pass them through a few basics then it becomes about how I feel.

I saw Connors, McEnroe, Graf, Navratilova and Seles play. I barely remember Newcombe, Rosewall and Laver from childhood. I have no sense as to what their games were like.

I think the list got all of the top 20 or so right and within that list, we can subdivide but who's greater between the top few players, I don't know. Federer, Graf, Navratilova. One of them would be my choice with a lot still left to write in the Nadal story. I guess I'd pick Federer but it would purely be because I love watching him more than any other player I've ever seen.

I still think Roddick is a underrated at 94. I'd chose his career over a lot of people ahead of him on the list. That's even without the Brooklyn Decker factor.

And of course, Esther Vergeer, would be the runaway pick if given consideration.

Fun to debate, hard to conclude.