- 05/24/2013, 08:52AM ET
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/24, 08:52 AM
17. Del potro
18. Michael Chang
19. Thomas muster
20. Marcelo rios
20. Andy roddick
Argos. said 05/25, 11:07 AM
I'll keep this simple, with changes to my top 10.
Sampras (2) over Nadal (3)
Pete Sampras has the second most Grand Slam titles of all time. All 14 of his grand slam titles came since 1990. He has three more Grand Slam titles than Rafa.
Sampras was also ranked number one in the world for 286 weeks. Nadal has only been number one in the world for 102 weeks.
Agassi (4) over Novak (5)
Agassi's longevity deserves some credit, after winning 870 career matches, and playing in well over 1000 matches, and still having a winning percentage of 76% (Novak is 79%, despite not hitting the decline yet).
Agassi has 8 Grand Slam titles to Novak's 6, and has won all four Grand Slams, while Novak hasn't won a French.
Add in an Olympic Gold for Agassi (Novak has a bronze) and his 101 weeks has world number 1, to Novak's 82.
Novak hasn't passed Agassi, yet.
Courier (8) and Hewitt (9) over Murray (10)
Grand Slams: Courier 4, Hewitt 2, Murray 1
Weeks at No. 1: Courier 58, Hewitt 80, Murray 0
I think Murray will one day pass both these two men, but not yet.
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/26, 11:45 AM
I have a massive problem with hewitt over murray..
If you look at hewitt's lousy record against federer, (llyeton has won only one in his last 17 meetings), vs Murray's record against federer, (Murray has won 11, lost 9)..
Also, bear in mind, Hewitt has won 28 titles vs Murray's 26 titles.. And you would like to think Murray will win another 20 titles..
Hewitts, (and courier's), stint at number one is slightly not as impressive considering that they did not have to compete with the greats during this time.. It was more of a down period in mens tennis..
Djokovic too has a wonderful record against Federer AND Nadal, (they are both losing records, but its close to .500).
Agassi would get killed against Federer and Nadal, in Andre's prime.
Cause Agassi was too small, at 5'11, and he would have to work too hard to hold serve.
Also, Agassi looked soooo uncomfortable on grass.
While Djokovic looks cool as a cucumber on clay.
Nadal is the complete player.
Sampras had that ugly back hand.
They both dominate on one surface.
But Nadal has won on all surfaces.
Pete only got to the semis once, in an era that didn't have a true great clay court champ
Argos. said 05/26, 07:04 PM
"llyeton has won only one in his last 17 meetings"
First off, what does his record against one player have to do with anything?
Secondly, nit picking stats much? Hewitt isn't 9 because of his last couple years, it's what he did in the early 2000's. But here is nit picking some stats, Hewitt beat Federer in 7 of their first 9 meetings.
I don't care if Murray wins another 20 (which is a stretch). This is the best player since 1990 until now. Not the best players 5 years down the road. Do you have a crystal ball?
Heywitt has won more as of now, and his 80 weeks at world number one, give him a massive edge of Murray.
You are under-stating Agassi in his prime. The game was also different in his era, and you are holding that against him? Hold Novak's career sub-.500 record against his two top rivals against him.
Agassi has just won so many matches in his career, was the world's number one player for nearly two years.
Why has Novak never won a French then if so good on clay? Yet Agassi won a Grand Slam on grass. Agassi has won on all surfaces.
Sampras - 14 Grand Slams. That is all that needs to be said, for now.
HighwayCrossingFrog said 05/28, 12:26 PM
Hewitt feasted off Federer, before Federer turned the page and became untouchable..
Meanwhile, all of Murrays wins were in Federer's prime.. Much more impressive..
A winning record against Federer is pretty damn cool.
Now lets look at results in grand slams and Master series.
Murray has been to 6 finals in slams, winning one.
Hewitt has been to a measly 4 finals winning 2.
Murray has been to an awesome 6 semis in slams.
vs Hewitts 4 semis.
MURRAY HAS BEEN TO 12 MASTER SERIES FINALS, winning 9 of them!, (these 9 trophies rank him 6th in the all time category!)
Hewitt has been to 7 Master series Finals, winning a pathetic 2 of them.
Lets not forget the fact that Murray got an olympic gold medal, on Wimbledon grounds vs the mighty Federer.
Lets not Forget Murray JUST TURNED 26.So.. 26, 27,28,29 and 30. Thats 5 years where he can pad his stats EVEN Further.
Its not even close in the present, cause of Murrays impressive run at the master series.
Give Andy 5 more years.
Its just going to look flat embarrassing.
Add in the fact, that if Hewitt had to play in Federer's prime era.
You can kiss Hewitts 2 slams goodbye
Argos. said 05/28, 10:07 PM
Roger was never really ever able to beat Heywitt when he was the best in the world. Roger only started to beat him, after Heywitt started to lose to everyone. When Heywitt was the best (and Roger was still improving), Heywitt won their matches. When Roger was the best (and Heywitt on the decline), Roger won. Heywitt and Roger are the same age too, so they did play each other in their primes.
Besides, I don't see how this makes any difference in the fact that Andy Murray can't beat Novak (the world's best, not Roger), and only has 1 Grand Slam and has never been ranked higher than number two in the world.
Winning 2 Slams and being to 4 finals, is better than 1 in 6. Winning is all that matters in the end.
Maybe if Andy Murray ever becomes a world number 1, or has won at least multiple Grand Slams, we can re-open this topic.
We have no crystal ball, so why mention what happens in the next 5 years, when this TD is best as of now. Besides, he can fall off a cliff, like Heywitt did, at a young age. We aren't here to give Andy 5 more years.
You only argued 1 of my 4 changes, so agree with the other 3?
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia