Top 50 Tennis Grand Slam Men's Players in Open Era
Guess the 50 best players in the Grand Slam (Wimbledon, Roland Garros, US Open, Australian Open) men's singles during the Open Era (since 1968) according to the criteria written in the comments.
If 2 players have the same number of points, the player in front is the one with the most tournament win, then the most finals, then most semi finals, quarters finals and finally round of 16.
I think the formula could use a bit of a tweak, because this one leaves you with some very strange results and you certainly couldn’t call this an accurate list of the best players. Nishikori, for example, has made one final (which he lost), yet Kuerten (3 slams) and Bruguera (2) are not. He has a similar record to say, Ivanisavic (I.e lots of quarters), except that Goran won his final. He’s arguably not a better than a player than someone like Marcelo Rios, who similarly made and lost one slam final. Rios did win five Masters titles, the year end championships and briefly held the world No. 1 spot. Nishikori’s career high has been World Number 4. I’d also question a few of the others, like Roche, Okker, Martin etc. Good players, sure, but shouldn’t be pushing out actual champions. And Henman? I’m British and raising an eyebrow.
To begin, let's be honest: we can't judge the best player according to stats. So let's see this as a list, with the best players according to a specific criteria. This criteria only takes into account Grand Slam performances, so no Master or N°1 spot. Then, it rewards regularity. A player who reached Round of 16 every year in the 4 Grand Slam will be high ranked. That's the problem with Kuerten and Bruguera whose careers were a bit short, without a lot of great performances in Grand Slam other than Roland Garros. Maybe a should give more points for a win. I will think about this
Criteria:
Elimination in Round of 16 = 1 point
Elimination in Quarters Finals = 2 points
Elimination in Semi Finals = 3 points
Elimination in Final = 4 points
Winner = 6 points
If 2 players have the same number of points, the player in front is the one with the most tournament win, then the most finals, then most semi finals, quarters finals and finally round of 16.
To begin, let's be honest: we can't judge the best player according to stats. So let's see this as a list, with the best players according to a specific criteria. This criteria only takes into account Grand Slam performances, so no Master or N°1 spot. Then, it rewards regularity. A player who reached Round of 16 every year in the 4 Grand Slam will be high ranked. That's the problem with Kuerten and Bruguera whose careers were a bit short, without a lot of great performances in Grand Slam other than Roland Garros. Maybe a should give more points for a win. I will think about this