Yahoo's 10 Top ATPers of the '00s - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Agehoobionibe** · 01-12-2009, 06:08 PM

10. Juan Carlos Ferrero -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: 8

Injuries prevented Ferrero from a lengthy career, but not before he became the 21st man to ever ascend to No. 1 in the rankings in September of 2003.

9. Novak Djokovic -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: None

In one year, Djokovic went from No. 23 to No. 3 in the rankings. He's stayed there for 92 of the past 112 weeks.

8. Pete Sampras -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 10

Where, oh where, to put Sampras? By the time the time the world had calmed down from Y2k panic, the peak of the best player of last decade was over. But Sampras still won two Slams in the decade, culminating in his 2002 U.S. Open swansong.

7. Gustavo Kuerten -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 43

The first-ever Brazilian to win a Grand Slam and reach No. 1, Kuerten won three French Open titles, two of which came during the decade. If our "decade" was from, say, 1995 to 2005, Kuerten would be a bit higher on the list.

6. Marat Safin -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 9

At his best, I'd take Safin over the next man on the list. The only problem is, Safin was at his height so inconsistently that it's tough to rank him any higher. The Russian was ranked in the year-end top 10 just three times (2000, 2002 and 2004), but does have those two Grand Slams to his credit.

5. Andy Roddick -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: 13

Surprised Roddick is so high? Me too. But the American has one thing going for him that almost every other member of this list doesn't: longevity. This was the eighth straight year Roddick finished in the year-end top 10. He may only have one Grand Slam (the 2003 U.S. Open), but he's been consistent enough to be a threat in every non-Paris major since then. Plus, it's not his fault he happened to be born around the same time as the greatest player ever.

4. Andre Agassi -- Grand Slams: 3, Weeks at No. 1: 51

Though his career straddles both the '90s and '00s, Agassi played some of his best tennis in the current decade. It was sort of surprising that he "only" won three Slams in the aughts (Aussie 2000, 2001, 2003), but he reached the finals of the U.S. Open twice as well.

3. Lleyton Hewitt -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 80

Not to take anything away from Hewitt, but his success was largely predicated on his timing. Had he been born a few years earlier, he'd have been Patrick Rafter. Had he been born a few years later, he'd be Novak Djokovic. Neither of those things is an insult (the pair have three Grand Slams between them, after all), but there's little chance Hewitt would ever have seen No. 1 if he was playing against Federer and Nadal at his peak.

2. Rafael Nadal -- Grand Slams: 6, Weeks at No. 1: 46

If he's not the greatest clay court player of all-time, he's right behind Bjorn Borg. At the start of the year Nadal looked like he was on his way to supplanting Roger Federer and ending the decade at No. 1. But injuries ruined his year and now the tennis world is left to wonder: Are Rafa's best days behind him?

1. Roger Federer -- Grand Slams: 15, Weeks at No. 1: 259

There are hundreds of ways to describe Federer's greatness, but consider this: In the decade, he won 15 of 40 Grand Slams (37.5 percent). And since his first (Wimbledon, 2003) he took home the title in 58 percent. Thank goodness Nadal came around, or else men's tennis would have had as much suspense as a Harlem Globetrotters game.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...urn=ten,205693

**indentKew** · 01-12-2009, 06:58 PM

Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right.

**bobibnoxx** · 01-12-2009, 07:10 PM

Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right.

Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously.

Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around.

I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain

Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time.

**Automobill** · 01-12-2009, 07:14 PM

Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right.

Yeah, but who else? There have been only 15 different GS champions and it would be hard to argue that his accompishments in the given time frame are not better than of those who didn't make this list (Ivanisevic, Costa, Gaudio, Johansson and del Potro).

**Automobill** · 01-12-2009, 07:15 PM

Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously.

Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around.

I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain

Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time.

How much more do you want? He is already #3 on the list...

**bobibnoxx** · 01-12-2009, 07:18 PM

How much more do you want? He is already #3 on the list...

I meant in the explanation, I don't mean he should be ranked higher

**enurneAcourdy** · 01-12-2009, 07:23 PM

Seems like a pretty fair list. Good job, Yahoo!

**allvideO** · 01-12-2009, 07:33 PM

Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously.

Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around.

I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain

Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time.

Nalbandian ? I don't see his name .

**koebforfrn** · 01-12-2009, 07:47 PM

Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre

**bobibnoxx** · 01-12-2009, 07:51 PM

Nalbandian ? I don't see his name .

I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him.

There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade

**gardenerextraordinaire** · 01-12-2009, 07:56 PM

Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre

But I'm sure there was METHod to his madness.

**enurneAcourdy** · 01-12-2009, 07:59 PM

I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him.

There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade

One big one and at least two smaller ones. Lol!

I'd put Venus above Maria (whether it was 5 or 7)

**Ruiceara** · 01-12-2009, 08:03 PM

Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre

Looking at the stats, it does speak more for Andre than for Lleyton. Sure, most of Hewitt's wins and all his weeks at #1 came during the 00's, but Andre won more majors, won more masters series events and in head-to-head meetings they went 3-3. If anyone wants to factor in age, then the question becomes if excelling while young, or stretching ones prime is the most impressive. Hmmmmm....

**Automobill** · 01-12-2009, 08:03 PM

Venus has won all of her GS's in this decade and surely ought to be ahead of Sharapova on the list. Also there have been more than 10 different winners in this decade and Ivanovic belongs on this list not Dementieva.

**bobibnoxx** · 01-12-2009, 08:09 PM

One big one and at least two smaller ones. Lol!

I'd put Venus above Maria (whether it was 5 or 7)

I didn't read all the way through it, so I just e-mailed him about the slam winners number

Venus has won all of her GS's in this decade and surely ought to be ahead of Sharapova on the list. Also there have been more than 10 different winners in this decade and Ivanovic belongs on this list not Dementieva.

There were 12. Myskina was at the top for longer than Ivanovic, even if Ivanovic was No.1, although I guess Ana had more slam finals.

I think I may agree with his choice of Dementieva

**Karinochka** · 01-12-2009, 08:10 PM

I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him.

There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade

Where's the mistake? I can't seem to find it.

**Automobill** · 01-12-2009, 08:11 PM

I didn't read all the way through it, so I just e-mailed him about the slam winners number

There were 12. Myskina was at the top for longer than Ivanovic, even if Ivanovic was No.1, although I guess Ana had more slam finals.

I think I may agree with his choice of Dementieva

Are you sure about that?

Ana's career doesn't have longevity, but she does have one GS title and 2 finals. Far more than Elena can claim... In fact even Dinara would have to be higher on the list than her.

**Agehoobionibe** · 01-12-2009, 08:18 PM

as for the WTA list, placing Sharapova ahead of Venus is laughable.

**bobibnoxx** · 01-12-2009, 08:19 PM

Are you sure about that?

Ana's career doesn't have longevity, but she does have one GS title and 2 finals. Far more than Elena can claim... In fact even Dinara would have to be higher on the list than her.

I think if "top" is top 10, it's true for Myskina. I think she was something like No.6 when she got her foot injury, and that was 2006. I have a faulty memory, though.

As for Elena... I think longevity counts for a lot. Plus, two Olympic medals at two ends of the decade. That said, she only has 6 WTA titles

**Automobill** · 01-12-2009, 08:23 PM

I think if "top" is top 10, it's true for Myskina. I think she was something like No.6 when she got her foot injury, and that was 2006. I have a faulty memory, though.

I checked... Both ended two seasons in the top 10 (2003, 2004 for Myskina; 2007, 2008 for Ivanovic), but Ana has more GS finals and higher peak ranking.

01-12-2009, 06:08 PM	#1
Agehoobionibe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 446 Senior Member	Yahoo's 10 Top ATPers of the '00s 10. Juan Carlos Ferrero -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: 8 Injuries prevented Ferrero from a lengthy career, but not before he became the 21st man to ever ascend to No. 1 in the rankings in September of 2003. 9. Novak Djokovic -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: None In one year, Djokovic went from No. 23 to No. 3 in the rankings. He's stayed there for 92 of the past 112 weeks. 8. Pete Sampras -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 10 Where, oh where, to put Sampras? By the time the time the world had calmed down from Y2k panic, the peak of the best player of last decade was over. But Sampras still won two Slams in the decade, culminating in his 2002 U.S. Open swansong. 7. Gustavo Kuerten -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 43 The first-ever Brazilian to win a Grand Slam and reach No. 1, Kuerten won three French Open titles, two of which came during the decade. If our "decade" was from, say, 1995 to 2005, Kuerten would be a bit higher on the list. 6. Marat Safin -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 9 At his best, I'd take Safin over the next man on the list. The only problem is, Safin was at his height so inconsistently that it's tough to rank him any higher. The Russian was ranked in the year-end top 10 just three times (2000, 2002 and 2004), but does have those two Grand Slams to his credit. 5. Andy Roddick -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: 13 Surprised Roddick is so high? Me too. But the American has one thing going for him that almost every other member of this list doesn't: longevity. This was the eighth straight year Roddick finished in the year-end top 10. He may only have one Grand Slam (the 2003 U.S. Open), but he's been consistent enough to be a threat in every non-Paris major since then. Plus, it's not his fault he happened to be born around the same time as the greatest player ever. 4. Andre Agassi -- Grand Slams: 3, Weeks at No. 1: 51 Though his career straddles both the '90s and '00s, Agassi played some of his best tennis in the current decade. It was sort of surprising that he "only" won three Slams in the aughts (Aussie 2000, 2001, 2003), but he reached the finals of the U.S. Open twice as well. 3. Lleyton Hewitt -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 80 Not to take anything away from Hewitt, but his success was largely predicated on his timing. Had he been born a few years earlier, he'd have been Patrick Rafter. Had he been born a few years later, he'd be Novak Djokovic. Neither of those things is an insult (the pair have three Grand Slams between them, after all), but there's little chance Hewitt would ever have seen No. 1 if he was playing against Federer and Nadal at his peak. 2. Rafael Nadal -- Grand Slams: 6, Weeks at No. 1: 46 If he's not the greatest clay court player of all-time, he's right behind Bjorn Borg. At the start of the year Nadal looked like he was on his way to supplanting Roger Federer and ending the decade at No. 1. But injuries ruined his year and now the tennis world is left to wonder: Are Rafa's best days behind him? 1. Roger Federer -- Grand Slams: 15, Weeks at No. 1: 259 There are hundreds of ways to describe Federer's greatness, but consider this: In the decade, he won 15 of 40 Grand Slams (37.5 percent). And since his first (Wimbledon, 2003) he took home the title in 58 percent. Thank goodness Nadal came around, or else men's tennis would have had as much suspense as a Harlem Globetrotters game. http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...urn=ten,205693 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 06:58 PM	#2
indentKew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 416 Senior Member	Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:10 PM	#3
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right. Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously. Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around. I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:14 PM	#4
Automobill Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 632 Senior Member	Seems like a pretty fair list to me. I doubt there will be much debate about the choices for 1 and 2. Djokovic making the top 10 seemed odd to me at first, but perhaps #9 is about right. Yeah, but who else? There have been only 15 different GS champions and it would be hard to argue that his accompishments in the given time frame are not better than of those who didn't make this list (Ivanisevic, Costa, Gaudio, Johansson and del Potro). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:15 PM	#5
Automobill Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 632 Senior Member	Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously. Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around. I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time. How much more do you want? He is already #3 on the list... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:18 PM	#6
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	How much more do you want? He is already #3 on the list... I meant in the explanation, I don't mean he should be ranked higher Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:23 PM	#7
enurneAcourdy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 727 Senior Member	Seems like a pretty fair list. Good job, Yahoo! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:33 PM	#8
allvideO Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 665 Senior Member	Yeah, I was thinking maybe Ivanisevic should be in there for the Wimbledon run, but he didn't do anything else this decade, while Djokovic and Ferrero had both been at the top continuously. Can't really justify putting a non-slam winner like Nalbandian in there with enough top-player slam winners to go around. I can't even validly debate Roddick's placement, something that obviously gives me pain Maybe give more respect to Hewitt. Timing or not, he had such a stronghold on No.1 in his time. Nalbandian ? I don't see his name . Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:47 PM	#9
koebforfrn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 478 Senior Member	Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:51 PM	#10
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	Nalbandian ? I don't see his name . I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him. There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well. http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:56 PM	#11
gardenerextraordinaire Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 709 Senior Member	Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre But I'm sure there was METHod to his madness. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 07:59 PM	#12
enurneAcourdy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 727 Senior Member	I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him. There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well. http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade One big one and at least two smaller ones. Lol! I'd put Venus above Maria (whether it was 5 or 7) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:03 PM	#13
Ruiceara Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Seems a bit of a stretch putting Hewitt before Andre Looking at the stats, it does speak more for Andre than for Lleyton. Sure, most of Hewitt's wins and all his weeks at #1 came during the 00's, but Andre won more majors, won more masters series events and in head-to-head meetings they went 3-3. If anyone wants to factor in age, then the question becomes if excelling while young, or stretching ones prime is the most impressive. Hmmmmm.... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:09 PM	#15
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	One big one and at least two smaller ones. Lol! I'd put Venus above Maria (whether it was 5 or 7) I didn't read all the way through it, so I just e-mailed him about the slam winners number Venus has won all of her GS's in this decade and surely ought to be ahead of Sharapova on the list. Also there have been more than 10 different winners in this decade and Ivanovic belongs on this list not Dementieva. There were 12. Myskina was at the top for longer than Ivanovic, even if Ivanovic was No.1, although I guess Ana had more slam finals. I think I may agree with his choice of Dementieva Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:10 PM	#16
Karinochka Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 554 Senior Member	I meant it's RIGHT that Djokovic and Ferrero are on there before him. There's a big factual mistake on his WTA list, but, otherwise, it's pretty fair as well. http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/blog/bus...-of-the-decade Where's the mistake? I can't seem to find it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

01-12-2009, 08:11 PM	#17
Automobill Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 632 Senior Member	I didn't read all the way through it, so I just e-mailed him about the slam winners number There were 12. Myskina was at the top for longer than Ivanovic, even if Ivanovic was No.1, although I guess Ana had more slam finals. I think I may agree with his choice of Dementieva Are you sure about that? Ana's career doesn't have longevity, but she does have one GS title and 2 finals. Far more than Elena can claim... In fact even Dinara would have to be higher on the list than her. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:18 PM	#18
Agehoobionibe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 446 Senior Member	as for the WTA list, placing Sharapova ahead of Venus is laughable. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:19 PM	#19
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	Are you sure about that? Ana's career doesn't have longevity, but she does have one GS title and 2 finals. Far more than Elena can claim... In fact even Dinara would have to be higher on the list than her. I think if "top" is top 10, it's true for Myskina. I think she was something like No.6 when she got her foot injury, and that was 2006. I have a faulty memory, though. As for Elena... I think longevity counts for a lot. Plus, two Olympic medals at two ends of the decade. That said, she only has 6 WTA titles Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-12-2009, 08:23 PM	#20
Automobill Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 632 Senior Member	I think if "top" is top 10, it's true for Myskina. I think she was something like No.6 when she got her foot injury, and that was 2006. I have a faulty memory, though. I checked... Both ended two seasons in the top 10 (2003, 2004 for Myskina; 2007, 2008 for Ivanovic), but Ana has more GS finals and higher peak ranking. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote