Tennis: Players Records Vs. Top 10 at Slams ...

Exactly right. Djokovic has much more across all surfaces and will be Fed's main rival this year onwards I feel. Nadal's only ace surface is clay and he's very overrated on hardcourt, even though he's very good on grass when on it there are more than a few who can match him there (first week of Wimbledon last year he was vunerable at times). :yep

 

Yep. I reckon Murray will step up to the plate this year, off the back of his victory at the Qatar Open. His performances from the get-go in that tournament were very good, especially from the quarter finals onwards. On his very best days he can beat anybody, his shotmaking is top notch and his serving and stamina have markedly improved (same goes with much of the top 20)

The guy has far more overall than Henman ever did. Providing he has an (relatively) injury free year he'll break into the Top 6 sooner or later I think.

 

I'd give the edge to the present era in terms of depth, no doubt. Sampras' may have had the big name guys you mentioned but it must be said that Becker was begining to fade by the time Pete was hitting his absolute best, Lendl was more or less totally finished at the top level- nowhere near his 80's pomp. Edberg was still a biggish force for a few years I suppose.

However Agassi was more or less the main major threat to Pete for the long haul across all surfaces (even with the alarming brief blip period he had). Other than that there was the likes of Stich, Ivanisivic, Rafter, Phillipousis, Courier and Krajeck. Most of whom were either very fine players on their day, but either had short lived primes, were chokers on the very biggest stage or were too inconsistent to threaten in the very later stages of Grand Slams on a really consistent basis.

Guys like Djokovic, Nadal, Roddick, Davydenko, Murray and Ferrer amongst others all have more overall ability than say Pioline, Korda, Kafelnikov and Martin. I do think Goran and Rafter on their best form would give any of the current Top 10 a serious run for their money. Maybe the Stich of '91 as well.

 

The guy's a great of the game no question (along with Rosewall and Emerson in that regard), though despite me including Laver towards the very top given his 'Slams' record I overall regard the Open era onwards as being a definitel step up in standard and depth compared to what went before.

I suppose that's natural given the technological and other changes in the sport, but still there ain't too many from my list I could see the aforementioned guys beating regularly given the same circumstances. :good

 

Yeah, Novak is definitely his biggest threat. It's funny that I'd forgot to mention Nal: that's indeed correct he did beat Roger (who admitedly was a bit out of sorts) a few times at the tail end of last year. He's definitely a threat when iN tip-top form, the same applies to Gonzalez.

 

It's mighty hard to gauge who's the best out of those three guy's, they're all pretty much neck and neck in terms of ability and achivements. I suppose it depends on what criteria you use and this differs from person to person.

I suppose I'd give Mac the slight edge given his fantastic record at the two biggies Wimbledon and the US Open (where he won three and four titles respectively).

Connors held the all-time record for consecutive weeks as World #1 until Fed broke it as well as taking two Wimbeldon titles and quite a number of US Open victories.

Agassi may have totalled more GS singles titles but only won once at Wimbledon which despite grass not being his ace surface falls a hairs breadth short of the other two. In his defence he did reach countless US Open finals but only won a few (due to Sampras being the sole obstacle in his way more often than not).

Borg is ahead these three given his five consecutive Wimbeldon titles (on his least natural surface and the fact that he was one of the finest claycourters ever. Becker is just below McEnroe/Connors/Agassi but was perhaps as good a player at his peak. He reached seven Wimbledon finals winning three, but won less GS titles was weak on clay and had less longevity overall.

Difficult decisions to make but that's my reasoning. What d'ya reckon yourself? What would your list look like etc?