Men’s and women’s tennis are unique among the top-100 lists because unlike football, hockey, basketball, baseball, and MMA where there are pretty clear-cut GOATs (Greatest of All-Time), men’s and women’s tennis have three worthy candidates each. For the men, it’s Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal. For the women, it’s Serena Williams, Steffi Graf, and Martina Navratilova. There are GOAT arguments to be made for each of the six, although some are stronger than others. Let’s take a look…
The Men
Novak Djokovic
Djokovic is first in the most important categories. He has more majors, more major finals appearances, more year-end #1 rankings, more weeks at #1, and more Tier I titles. Heck, the 428 weeks at #1 alone are probably enough to give him the crown. However, there is more brilliance to Djokovic’s GOAT resume than what shows up in a table. For instance, he defeated Rafael Nadal nine times on clay. No other player defeated Nadal more than four times on clay. His winning % on clay vs. Nadal is 31%; everyone else’s winning % on clay vs. Nadal is a miniscule 8%. Djokovic reached a major final in 16 different years. That’s something that even Martina Navratilova, the model for longevity, didn’t do. In fact, Djokovic has been so good for so long that he found himself playing with (and beating) a whole new generation of players. With Federer and Nadal’s flames extinguished, Djokovic has defied the aging process. He has made 10 major finals appearances since he last faced Federer or Nadal in a final. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that Djokovic has been on average 11 years older than his opponents in those 10 matchups, and he has still managed a 7-3 record.
In 2021, Djokovic made it to all four major finals at the age of 34, and then he did it again at the age of 36. Overall, he accomplished the feat three times in his career, which has only been matched by Steffi Graf and Roger Federer. In addition to Djokovic, there have only been 14 instances in the Open Era, man or woman, when a player made all four majors in the same season. That list includes Roger Federer (x3), Steffi Graf (x3), Martin Navratilova (x2), Rod Laver, Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Monic Seles, Martina Hingis*, and Justine Henin. Their average age in the year they reached all four major finals was just 25. Djokovic isn’t just accomplishing incredibly rare things in the most competitive era in history, he’s doing it while being 10+ years older than his competition.
Djokovic is also on the cusp of putting up a record that could rival the greatest records in sports. He is currently the only player in history with at least 80 wins at all four major tournaments. As if that’s not impressive enough, he’s on pace to eclipse 100 wins at all four majors. That’s liable to have the staying power of Wayne Gretzky’s career points record and Pete Rose’s career hits record. For perspective, Federer and Nadal are the only others with even 60 wins at three majors.
*Potentially the most astonishing statistic (of many) on this page: In 1997, Martina Hingis reached all four major finals in the same year at the age of 16.
Roger Federer
The argument for Federer as the men’s GOAT needs to revolve heavily around his peak dominance. He won five consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Nobody else in the Open Era (since 1968) has won five consecutive U.S. Open titles, and only Bjorn Borg won five consecutive Wimbledon titles. Even Djokovic never won a major event more than three times in a row. There was a stretch from 2004-2010 when Federer made the final in 10 consecutive majors (14 if we include the ATP Finals), and the semifinal in 23 consecutive majors. Both are, by far, the most all-time. Federer even has the second longest streak (8) for consecutive major finals appearances, and his 36 consecutive major quarterfinals appearances are, far and away, the most all-time. This is a level of sustained dominance that even Djokovic never approached. Djokovic’s best stretch was six consecutive major finals and 14 consecutive semifinals appearances.
While nobody has ever had a run like Federer’s six-year stretch, there are two factors that hurt his claim as the GOAT. First is the “elephant in the room” whenever Federer’s legacy is discussed, and that’s his success, or lack thereof, at the French Open. While he won at least five titles each at the U.S. Open, Australian Open, and Wimbledon, he only managed one French Open title. It’s worth highlighting, however, that he made five appearances in the French Open final, which trails only Nadal, Djokovic, and Borg for most all-time. He also made it to four consecutive French Open finals; only Nadal has a longer streak in history. Federer’s winning percentage at the French Open is 81.1% which puts him at roughly the same percentage as all-time great clay court players like Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier, and Sergi Bruguera, and ahead of clay greats like Guillermo Vilas, Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes, and Thomas Muster. The only players in history with a higher winning % than 82% at the French Open are Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, and Wilander, and that doesn’t factor in the fact that Federer had to compete against Nadal–the greatest clay court player who ever lived. Nobody, from any era, would have had a chance of maintaining their French Open winning percentage while playing in the same era as Nadal. Federer’s record at the French Open against everyone else was 73-11 (87%). Only Nadal, Borg, and Djokovic (if only counting his non-Nadal matches, too) exceed that winning %.
Despite the shade that Federer often receives for his underwhelming success at the French Open, he is likely the 4th greatest clay court player of all-time behind Nadal, Borg, and Djokovic. This is an important distinction to make because Federer’s perceived weakness actually turns out to be a strength. His success on clay makes him arguably the most versatile player of all-time. He’s the only player in history with 10 titles on hard court, grass, and clay.
The other factor that might hurt Federer’s claim as the GOAT is timing. While his six-year run is the most dominant stretch in tennis history, it started before Djokovic and Nadal entered their primes. In fact, Federer won 11 majors before having to face Djokovic in a major final, and seven majors before having to face Nadal. While Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with each other and Federer during their primes, Federer did not have to contend with peak Djokovic or Nadal for most of his dominant run. That gives Federer a slightly lower degree-of-difficulty. However, this may be a case of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Djokovic didn’t start winning major titles in earnest until Federer hit 30, and Nadal didn’t start winning non-French Open titles in earnest until Federer hit 29. It would seem awfully coincidental that both started to see their major title tallies skyrocket during their respective age-24 seasons as Federer reached his 30s. Did Federer’s dominant run end because Djokovic and Nadal reached their peak, or did Djokovic and Nadal start piling up majors because Federer’s skills and athleticism began to wane ever so slightly? The answer could hold the key to the GOAT argument. Unfortunately, it’s likely somewhere in the Lost City of Atlantis, scrolled on a piece of paper inside the Holy Grail at the foot of the Fountain of Youth.
Rafael Nadal
The argument for Nadal is similar to Federer’s, but in a different way. While Fed’s unique peak dominance was across several different events and surfaces, Nadal’s was on a single surface. Nadal is, of course, the King of Clay, and it’s hard to imagine that he’ll ever be dethroned. No player in tennis history has won a major more times than Nadal’s 14 at the French Open. His career record at Roland Garros is an absurd 112 – 4, which amounts to an inhuman 97% winning percentage. Nadal was so dominant that he won the French Open without losing a set on four different occasions. Borg (3) and Federer (2) are the only other players since 1955 to win multiple majors without losing a set. Nadal’s career record on clay is 484-51 (90%), which is the highest winning percentage any men’s player has on any surface in the Open Era. Federer’s the best on grass at 87%, and Djokovic’s the best on hard court at 85%.
In light of Nadal’s clay court mastery, it would be easy to ignore his grass and hard court success. Nadal won Wimbledon (x2), the U.S. Open (x4), and the Australian Open (x2) multiple times, which puts him with Djokovic as the only men’s players in the Open Era to win each of the four majors multiple times. He also finished in the top-2 of the year-end rankings 13 times, which is the most in men’s history (Djokovic and Federer did it 11 times each). Nadal had the misfortune of facing Djokovic and Federer 46 times in the finals of major championships, ATP 1000 events, and the ATP Finals, which does support the notion that he may have had a more difficult road than his counterparts. Djokovic faced Federer and Nadal 40 times in those finals, while Federer faced Djokovic and Nadal 38 times.
Despite Nadal’s clay-court dominance, overall versatility, and longevity, Djokovic and Federer won more than twice as many titles at the other three major events. Given the fact that only ¼ of the major tournaments and ⅓ of the ATP 1000 tournaments are played on clay, it would seem that Nadal could’ve bolstered his GOAT claim by having slightly more success on other surfaces.
The Verdict
Djokovic has unmatched raw totals and longevity, while playing in the most competitive era in history. He is the GOAT. Federer gets the slight nod over Nadal at the second spot based on peak dominance and surface versatility. However, I’d have no problem being assigned to argue Nadal’s side in a debate.
The Women
The women’s triumvirate is significantly more difficult to unravel. Since Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal all played at the same time, we don’t have to wonder how each would have fared playing against similar competition. Their whole careers were spent playing against similar competition, and the result was a remarkable 20+ majors for each of them. They played in the most difficult era in men’s tennis history, and still managed to outperform every other player who ever lived. With the three men’s GOAT candidates coming from the same generation, it’s easier to parse the data and settle on a pecking order. We have no such luxury with the women’s triumvirate. How Martina Navratilova would have fared against the same players who Serena Williams had to contend with will remain a mystery until the end of time. Navratilova is 12 years older than Graf who is 12 years older than Williams, which means we’ll have to apply a degree-of-difficulty consideration to the comparisons. Like the men’s triumvirate, there are strong arguments to be made for all three of the women.
Serena Williams
Serena Williams has the most majors (23) and the most finals appearances (33) of any women’s tennis player in the Open Era. Among her 23 major victories were wins over 10 different women who won at least one major and seven women who won multiple majors. She faced 18 different opponents in her 33 major appearances. Not only does S. Williams own the Open Era record for major wins and appearances, but she did it against the most diverse collection of talent the women’s game has ever seen.
The only data points that keep S. Williams from being the unequivocal GOAT are inconsistency and inactivity. Her career spanned from 1998-2022, and over that time she missed 17 major tournaments and lost before the quarterfinals 27 times. In contrast, Graf only missed 11 major tournaments and lost before the quarterfinals just 12 times. The relative lack of activity from Williams not only impacted her quest to put distance between herself and Graf, but it also affected her year-end rankings. Graf finished in the top-3 of the year-end rankings for 11 consecutive years. S. Williams’s longest stretch was five years, and her next longest after that was just two. Navratilova, for her part, did it for a remarkable 14 consecutive years.
Steffi Graf
At face value, Graf’s career accomplishments are every bit as strong as S. Williams’s. While Williams barely eclipsed Graf in majors (23 – 22) and major appearances (33 – 31), Graf was consistently more dominant. There was a stretch from 1987-1990 when Graf made 13 consecutive major finals. Williams never made more than four in a row. Graf is the only player since 1970 (man or woman) to win a Grand Slam (winning all four majors in the same year), and the only player since 1970 (man or woman) to win five consecutive majors. She’s also the only player in history to win the Golden Slam (winning all four majors and an Olympic gold medal in the same calendar year) and a non-calendar year Super Slam (winning all four majors, an Olympic gold medal, and the WTA Finals consecutively). She’s the only player (man or woman) since 1970 to win at least three majors in five different years, and the only player ever to win a combination of four majors and year-end championships in the same year on five different occasions.
There is no question that Graf was the greatest player in the world for a significant stretch of her career. What is in question is the caliber of Graf’s competition. Of Graf’s 22 major victories, she defeated seven different women who won at least one major and five who won multiple majors. She faced just 11 different opponents in her 31 major final appearances. In contrast to S. Williams, Graf was seeing and defeating the same group of players. She faced Aranxta Sanchez Vicario seven times in major finals, Martina Navratilova six times, Monica Seles five times, and Gabriela Sabatini three times. It’s important to note that Navratilova was 12 years older than Graf and well past her prime, Seles was never the same after the stabbing attack in ‘93, and Vicario and Sabatini were a combined 5-10 in major tournament finals. This is all to say that Graf’s competition was nowhere near the level that Williams faced over her career. A quick look at S. Williams and Graf’s ages compared to their opponents in major finals drives this point home. Of S. Williams’s 33 opponents in major finals, 28 of them were in their 20s, when athletes are typically in their prime. On the other hand, only 14 of Graf’s 31 major finals opponents were in their 20s. Graf was, on average, a year younger than her average opponent in major finals while S. Williams was almost four years older than her average opponent. This means that S. Williams was not only playing players in their primes, she was doing so without the advantage of youth.
Additionally, there is an argument to be made that while she certainly had the best career of her generation, Graf may not have been the best player of her generation. After her magnificent run from 1987-1990, Graf won just two of the next 12 major tournaments, signaling a significant drop-off in performance. Graf was floundering, in large part, because Monica Seles was dominating. Of those same 12 tournaments that saw Graf win just two, Seles won eight and reached the final of a ninth. The baton had seemingly been passed to Seles, and then she was horrifically stabbed at the ‘93 Citizen Cup in Hamburg, Germany. Seles would miss the next 10 major events, and would never regain her dominant form. In Seles’s absence, Graf would go on to win 10 of her next 13 major tournament appearances, cementing her spot as a bona fide GOAT contender. Graf did what she was supposed to do, which is to defeat the competition in front of her. However, it’s hard to envision her achieving the same career major totals with a healthy Seles to contend with.
Martina Navratilova
The argument for Navratilova as the GOAT is all about volume and an elite peak run, which are plenty of ammunition to give her the crown. She reached the finals of 250 tournaments. To put that number in perspective, S. Williams and Graf combined to reach 238 finals. Navratilova also won an astounding 177 titles. S. Williams and Graf combined to win 181. Navratilova played 701 more career matches than S. Williams, and still finished with a higher career winning percentage (86.3 – 83.2). Navratilova finished in the top-5 of the year-end rankings in 19 consecutive seasons. Nobody has come close to duplicating that feat, and nobody likely ever will. She finished as the year-end #1 player for five consecutive seasons which is the longest streak in history. Her nine Wimbledon titles and eight WTA Finals titles (world championship) are, by far, the most in the Open Era. Nobody won more, and nobody did it for longer than Martina Navratilova.
Navratilova’s case as the GOAT doesn’t solely stand on volume. The run that she had from Wimbledon ’83 to the ’87 U.S. Open is arguably the most dominant stretch anyone has ever had in the sport of tennis. Over those five years, Navratilova entered 22 majors/world championships and reached the finals in 21 of them. Her record in majors/world championships from 1983-1987 was 133-7 (95%), which means for those five years she was essentially Rafael Nadal on clay, but on all surfaces. Graf’s 13 consecutive major finals appearances would be hailed as the greatest stretch in women’s tennis history, if not for Navratilova’s 14 consecutive major finals appearances and 18 consecutive majors/world championships finals appearances.
However, much like Graf, the competition that Navratilova faced wasn’t in the same stratosphere as S. Williams’s. Navratilova appeared in 32 major finals, and she faced off against Chris Evert in 14 of them. This speaks volumes to the competition on the tour at the time. Of her 32 major finals appearances, Navratilova saw only 11 different opponents. Of her 18 major tournament titles, she only defeated three different women who won at least one career major. Similar to the dynamic that Graf had with Seles, Navratilova was also not far and away the best player of her era. Evert’s resume isn’t far off Navratilova’s. They are less than two years apart in age so their careers coincided. They each won 18 majors and Evert appeared in more major finals (34-32). In fact, Evert has the record for most finals appearances. Evert finished in the top-3 of the year-end rankings for 17 consecutive years which is a mark that most likely will never be broken. Navratilova and Evert faced each other 80 times, with Navratilova holding a slim 43 – 37 margin. The argument here isn’t that Evert had the better career, it’s merely to show that as great as Navratilova was, there was someone in her own era who was nearly as good. Given how weak that particular era was in terms of competition, that’s a tough blemish to overcome in the GOAT conversation.
The Verdict
There are plenty of arguments to be made for Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova as the greatest women’s tennis player of all-time. However, each had a rival that was nearly as good in a comparatively weak era. For Graf, it was Monica Seles. For Navratilova, it was Chris Evert. There is nobody even close to Serena Williams from her generation. In the 25 tennis seasons from 1998-2022, S. Williams won as many majors as the next four most successful women combined [Venus Williams (7), Justin Henin (7), Maria Sharapova (5), and Kim Clijsters (4)]. She played in the most talent-rich era the women’s game has ever seen, and she still managed to win more major tournaments than Graf and Navratilova. S. Williams gets the nod on volume and degree of difficulty.
Head-to-head
Noticeably missing from the GOAT discussion is any mention of head-to-head results. While Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal had significant overlap in their respective careers, it would be a disservice to Federer to ignore the fact that his prime came well before Djokovic and Nadal’s. Federer is five years older than Nadal and six years older than Djokovic. With age gaps that siginficant, head-to-head comparisons can quickly become red herrings. In contrast, a comparison like Nadal and Djokovic does add value considering they are less than a year apart, and their careers lasted long enough for them to play 60 times. For what it’s worth, Djokovic barely edged out Nadal, 31-29. As one would expect, Nadal dominated on clay (20 – 9), while Djokovic dominated on hard court (20 – 7). They were even on grass (2 – 2). Similarly, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert were less than two years apart. They played 80 times, with Navratilova getting the edge, 43 – 37. Neither of those margins do much of anything other than to confirm that both rivalries were pretty darn competitive.
However, those are examples of head-to-head data points that could prove to be meaningful. The Martina Navratilova-Steffi Graf rivalry (as well as the Federer-Djokovic rivalry), on the other hand, is fraught with logic traps if taken at face value. Navratilova is 12 years older than Graf. The rivalry ended in a 9-9 stalemate in 18 matchups. Navratilova’s first victory in the series came when Graf had just turned 16. Navratilova would jump out to a 5-1 series lead before Graf turned 18. A 29-year old superstar like Navratilova should’ve mopped the floor with a high schooler, and she did. As Graf improved, the series turned in her favor which is what would be expected of a blossoming prodigy like Graf against an aging player like Navratilova. The series went the way it should’ve based on age and experience. There’s not much to glean from those results, except for one interesting note: Navratilova won two of their last four matchups when she was 34 and 36, respectively, while Graf was ranked #1 or #2 in the world. That is a head-to-head data point that matters. Despite being 12 years older and well past her prime, Navratilova went shot-for-shot with the greatest player in the world. While there are several factors that need to be considered in a player comparison, this one at the very least refutes any notion that peak Navratilova wasn’t in peak Graf’s league.
Head-to-head tallies can be used to add perspective in a player comparison, but few competitors see their career timelines match up so closely to make those results meaningful. In most cases, the fairer measure is how players fare in a head-to-head age comparison. For instance, what did Federer at age-26 accomplish compared to Djokovic at age-26? There are two other situations where head-to-head results–even with an age variance–can add value: 1). The comparison is between two players who played so long ago that additional data from the era is limited, and 2). Player resumes are virtually indistinguishable.
The Eras Tour
The common thread for all the lists on this site is that the strength of competition has to be front and center when compiling a list of the greatest athletes in a sport. In the early days of any sport, the talent pool is mostly regional. As a sport becomes more popular, the talent pool expands to the whole globe, which results in the competition level skyrocketing. With few exceptions, it is more difficult to dominate a sport today than it has ever been. Tennis is no different. While its roots can be traced back to the 12th century, tennis began in earnest as a popular sport for the wealthy in the late 1800s. Interestingly, the sport evolved concurrently, but separately, in both England and the United States, with France soon to follow.
To get a feel for the competition level at the time, we just need to take a look at the list of tournament champions to see who was winning these events. The first of the major tournaments to launch was Wimbledon in 1877. The first 42 years of Wimbledon’s existence saw zero players outside of the United Kingdom or its territories win the tournament. The U.S. Open began in 1881, and a similar pattern emerged as only one non-American won the tournament over its first 48 years. The French Open got its start in 1891 and, unsurprisingly, a Frenchman won all but one of the first 41 championships. From 1877-1953, the winners of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open came from England (or Australia, a British territory at the time), the United States, or France. That trend would continue from 1954-1971 as 32 of the next 36 winners of the premier tournaments in England and the United states were, in fact, from England (or Australia) or the United States.
Contrast that dynamic to the current state of tennis and the competitive landscape could not be more different. The 2024 men’s tennis year-end rankings saw 14 different countries represented by the top-20 players, while the women’s top-20 included 13 countries. Even more revealing, from 2004-2024, 38 of the 41 men’s winners of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open were won by competitors who were not from England (or Australia), the United States, or France.
Tennis’s evolution from a regional niche sport to a global competition was a slow one, with some tangible movement beginning to take shape in the 70s and 80s. The first 100 years of tennis at the professional level was largely contested by a homogenous pool of athletes from the same small group of wealthy countries. When putting together a list like this, that dynamic has to lead the discussion, and it’s why a disproportionate portion of the list comes from just the last 35 years. Winning a major has never been more difficult because the pool of talent has never been deeper.
It’s not just the majors, Tom!
When determining where a player rates on the all-time tennis list, the conversation starts with major tournament titles. However, it doesn’t end there. While winning majors is the quickest way to build a killer resume, there are several other data points that can bolster a resume. Let’s use Denmark’s Caroline Wozniacki and Russia’s Svetlana Kuznetsova’s respective careers to illustrate. Wozniacki famously won just one major in her career, but you will find her rated higher than several athletes who won more majors, including Kuznetsova, because Wozniacki’s resume has strong data points in other areas that help offset the fact that she won just a single major. She was the year-end #1 ranked player for two consecutive years which 12 women have accomplished. Kuznetsova is not one of them, nor did she achieve a year-end ranking of #1. Wozniacki also won six Tier I tournaments and made it to the final in six others. In contrast, Kuznetsova won just two Tier 1 tournaments.
On the other side of the spectrum is Naomi Osaka. Despite winning four major championships, Osaka is rated behind several players who won fewer majors because her overall resume pretty much ends with those four majors. In the ultimate boom or bust career, Osaka has never made it past the 3rd round in any of the other 25+ majors that she competed in. She finished in the top-10 of the year-end rankings just three times, won just two Tier 1 titles, and reached the finals and semifinals at Tier I events only 4 and 5 times, respectively. Simona Halep, despite winning just two majors, is rated higher than Osaka because her overall resume is more impressive. Halep not only finished in the top-10 of the year-end rankings eight times, she finished in the top-4 seven times. She won 9 Tier I events, and made the finals and semifinals 18 and 29 times, respectively. If majors were the only data point, we could simply head to the all-time majors list and copy that down, but there’s more to a tennis resume than a singular data point. Below is a resume checklist that does a decent job of ordering data points in order of importance, although reasonable minds may differ on the exact ordering.
1). Strength of Era
2). Major Championships
3). Major Championship Finals Appearances.
4). ATP/WTA Finals Titles
5). ATP/WTA Tier 1 Titles
6). Year-end Rankings/Longevity
7). Olympic Medals
8). ATP/WTA Tier 1 Finals Appearances
9). Major Championship Semifinals Appearances
10). Highest Ranking Ranking Achieved in Career
11). Strength of Opponent in All Titles
12). Surface Diversity
13). Wins over Top-5 Players
14). Major Championship Quarterfinals Appearances
15). ATP/WTA Tier 1 Semifinals Appearances
16). Head-to-Head
Andy Murray
While nobody is going to confuse Andy Murray with the aforementioned holy trinity of men’s tennis, there is a strong argument to be made that he is the most underrated player in men’s tennis history. Murray’s relatively meager major championship total (3) sticks out as a potential deal-breaker when discussing his place in history. However, the gap between the three GOATs and Murray is arguably the same as the gap between Murray and everyone else from the 21st century. No player in the history of tennis had a more difficult strength of schedule than Murray. His career coincided with the primes of the three greatest players who ever lived. Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal won a combined 66 major championships, and nearly all of them came while Murray was active. This puts some perspective to Murray’s 11 major finals, 21 major semifinals, and 30 major quarterfinals. In fact, over the course of Murray’s career (2005-2024), no player outside of the Big Three came close to those numbers. The next closest for each is six major finals (Daniil Medvedev), nine major semifinals (Medvedev, Stan Wawrinka, and Alexander Zverev), and 18 major quarterfinals (Wawrinka).
There was a stretch from 2011-2015 when Murray made it to the quarterfinals in 18 straight major appearances. In the history of tennis, only Federer, Djokovic, Jimmy Connors, and Bill Tilden had longer streaks. At face value, Murray’s totals don’t jump off the screen, but the fact that he was able to carve out that much success while the three greatest tennis players of all-time were in their primes speaks volumes. In addition to his success in major tournaments, Murray also won 14 Tier 1 titles, reached 21 Tier 1 finals and 33 Tier 1 semifinals, and is the only man in history to win two Olympic individual tennis gold medals. His 14 ATP Masters Series titles trail only the Big Three and Andre Agassi for most all-time, and his 20 ATP Tour titles (majors, ATP-1000, ATP Finals, and Olympics) are the 6th most all-time behind only the Big Three, Pete Sampras, and Agassi. He’s also the only player outside of the Big Three to debut since 1990 who has won at least 200 career matches at the majors. Perhaps most remarkably, Murray achieved a year-end #1 ranking while the holy trinity were active. While the kings of the 80s like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and Mats Wilander won more majors, they would’ve been hard pressed to accomplish what Murray did in the era of the GOATS.