Highest rankings of all the former Indian players please????

[Sin Hombre]

Before Kei came along, Vijay was universally considered along with Paradorn as amongst the 2 best Asian tennis players ever. Most of the amateur era is seemingly for good reason not considered.

of course, putting the Ramanathan sr is #136 is indeed utter BS. I would exclude him completely.

[PKBasu]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Gr ... x_(tennis)
Ramanathan krishnan at 136 continues to bug me. As per the ATP site that was in 1978. In 1978, senior Krishnan did not play on the tour. Check outthe link. Ramesh Krishnan did play and reached the semis at Hong Kong and quarters at Calcutta. So he was probably ranked 136 that year.
In fact, Krishnan senior won 2 titles in 1968 after tennis went open- at Canada and Stuttgart. These are not reflected on the ATP site. Can we get them to correct the mistakes?

Unfortunately, ATP rankings only began in 1973 -- well after Ramanathan Krishnan was a serious international player (1954-1969). I mentioned this caveat when I started this thread. One cannot compare pre-Open era rankings to the formalized ATP rankings, but this thread only covers the formal ATP rankings.

[PKBasu]

To my mind, Ramanathan Krishnan's achievements were greater than Vijay Amritraj's. The latter had a top ranking of 16, while Krish was ranked in the top-5 world amateurs for at least two years (implying that he would have been among the top-15 or so players if all the professionals were to be included). Krish made the Wimbledon semifinal twice, the QF at Roland Garros once, and won both the Queens Club tournament (on grass) and the US Hard Court championships in 1959 (at a time when the US championships -- the precursor to the USO -- was played on grass). That Krish beat Roy Emerson (the best amateur of that era, who won 12 Slams in the pre-Open era) as many as 8 times is testament to his quality. And he beat Laver at least 3 times. Vijay made the USO QF twice (1973 and 1974) and the Wimbledon QF twice (although the first time, 1973, was in a depleted field boycotted by most of the top pros, a la the pre-Open era tournaments). Ramesh Krishnan made the Wimbledon QF once and the USO QF twice, so I would say he is just a step behind Vijay.
Ramanathan Krishnan was a much more consistent player than Vijay. The latter had some excellent tournaments, but he also lost early (R2) at Wimbledon in most years other than 1973 and 1981 -- and similarly at other tournaments, while Krish did consistently well in the 1959-1963 period, making QFs or better in most of the top-level tournaments he played (other than the Slams).

[rajitghosh]

Actually Krishnan won a few other big events also- River Oak and St. Petersburg in USA in 1965, Canadian Open and Stuttgart in 1968, Manchester in 1958 (beating Laver in the quarters), also reached Italian Championship semis in 1958, Bad Neuenahr in 1958 (beating Drobny in the quarters), Bristol in 1959 beating Drobny in the finals, Queens in 1959 (where he beat Olmedo in the semis and Fraser in the finals- Olmedo beat Krishnan in the 3rd round of Wimbledon the same year and went on to win the tiltle and turn professional). Later in 1959 he reached the finals of 2 major events in the US- Pacific Coast and Pacific Southwest, in one of which he beat Laver again. These were bigger events than the US Hardcourts that he won. He also won the Asian Championships later that year beating Barry Mackay. In 1961 he had a golden run winning Wiesbaden, Dusseldorf, Hilversum, Oostende, Knokke Le Zoute. In 1962 he lost the Hilversum final to Laver.
He definitely had a more consistent run winning a lot of events but the only caveat is that the top professionals were playing on a different tour.

[prasen9]

We can remove the Senior Krishnan, who perhaps is the only non-open era player and just name the list to be rankings of open-era players. I think #136 or whatever it is is a misnomer for the RK (senior).

[arjun2761]

Yes, hard to compare the peaks across eras especially when the top pros didn't compete in the GS and the other tournaments during RK sr's achievement. At his peak, Vijay was likely at least as good as RK Sr., as is manifested in his record against the top players. Also, Vijay at his best was a great mixture of shot making and power for his era. However, Vijay was also very inconsistent with lot's of losses in R1 and R2 against lower ranked opponents. Not sure if this was a mental focus issue or whether his game had a narrow margin for errors as he is someone who went for the lines and would lose to lower ranked players on a day when he was missing them.

Based on the record, RK Sr. was a more consistent high level player than Vijay. I believe he was a finesse player (he was before my time) who probably did not have the highest gear that Vijay had but was likely far more consistent and hence did not have the many early losses that Vijay had in his career. BTW, I also see the same difference between Ramesh and Vijay (i.e., Ramesh was generally the more consistent player but Vijay had the higher level of play when playing at his best).

[PKBasu]

I would broadly agree with Arjun, re consistency. But Ramanathan Krishnan's achievements (consistency plus top-level tournament wins) were the greatest we've ever had, followed closely by Vijay (less consistent, but more wins over top-level players, not quite as many top-level tournament wins -- nothing akin to Krish's US Hard Court and Queen's titles) and then by Ramesh. Oh, to have another Ramesh at least again! Apart from Kei Nishikori and Paradorn Srichaphan, I would say that the trio of Ramanathan/Vijay/Ramesh make up the top-5 Asian male tennis players of all time.

The difference between those three and the rest of our male players (since the 1970s) is massive. Prior to the 1970s, we did have quite a few other top-level players (Dilip Bose, Ghaus Mohammed, Jaideep Mukerjea, Premjit Lall, Naresh Kumar, Sumant Mishra) who were consistently in the top-50 players globally for multiple years. The closest to that level in recent times was Somdev (and Leander could probably have made top-50 in singles if he hadn't become a doubles specialist).

Sania Mirza achieved almost as much as Ramesh on the women's side -- but she too was somewhat short of his achievements. Ramesh made two USO QFs and one Wimbledon QF, while Sania's best was last-16 at the USO (not quite as good as Jaideep, who made four last-16s at Wimbledon, albeit in the pre-Open era). Ramesh reached a career-high of 23, and was consistently a top-50 player for nearly a decade, while Sania reached a career-high of 27, and was in the top-50 was slightly less than five years. Of course, as a doubles player Sania surpassed Ramesh, Vijay and Ramanathan, and Leander was our greatest doubles achiever, followed closely by Mahesh.

[rajitghosh]

I would broadly agree with Arjun, re consistency. But Ramanathan Krishnan's achievements (consistency plus top-level tournament wins) were the greatest we've ever had, followed closely by Vijay (less consistent, but more wins over top-level players, not quite as many top-level tournament wins -- nothing akin to Krish's US Hard Court and Queen's titles) and then by Ramesh. Oh, to have another Ramesh at least again! Apart from Kei Nishikori and Paradorn Srichaphan, I would say that the trio of Ramanathan/Vijay/Ramesh make up the top-5 Asian male tennis players of all time.

The difference between those three and the rest of our male players (since the 1970s) is massive. Prior to the 1970s, we did have quite a few other top-level players (Dilip Bose, Ghaus Mohammed, Jaideep Mukerjea, Premjit Lall, Naresh Kumar, Sumant Mishra) who were consistently in the top-50 players globally for multiple years. The closest to that level in recent times was Somdev (and Leander could probably have made top-50 in singles if he hadn't become a doubles specialist).

Sania Mirza achieved almost as much as Ramesh on the women's side -- but she too was somewhat short of his achievements. Ramesh made two USO QFs and one Wimbledon QF, while Sania's best was last-16 at the USO (not quite as good as Jaideep, who made four last-16s at Wimbledon, albeit in the pre-Open era). Ramesh reached a career-high of 23, and was consistently a top-50 player for nearly a decade, while Sania reached a career-high of 27, and was in the top-50 was slightly less than five years. Of course, as a doubles player Sania surpassed Ramesh, Vijay and Ramanathan, and Leander was our greatest doubles achiever, followed closely by Mahesh.

Good summation. You mentioned about Jaidip Mukerjea. He has an unique record. He is the only Indian to reach the last-16 of all the 4 Grand Slams (though in the Australian Championship, not Open, it was a 3rd round because of the depleted field). It is unfortunate he never reached a quarter final. He also beat a number of top players during his time and won a few good tournaments. Ghaus Monammed was a Queen's runner up. His best years were lost because of the World War. Otherwise he may have had some stupendous achievements. During the war, tournaments continued to be held in undivided India and he won most of them. Even Dilip Bose was aging by the time the war ended, otherwise he may have done better.

[Sin Hombre]

With Ankita hitting a career high, what is the equivalent all-time list on the women's side.

Also CHs for Ram and Sumit which moves both of them a spot or two since the last update.

[sameerph]

We will update those mens rankings once official ones are out on Monday.

I did not find any top WTA ranked Indians at one place. I will try to compile some based on my knowledge.

[sameerph]

So, here your go based on what I gathered. I have put top 400 as qualification criteria for women as there are fewer compared to men .

Sania Mirza - 27
Shikha Uberoi - 122
Sunitha Rao -144
Nirupama Vaidyanathan -147
Ankita Raina -222
Karman Kaur Thandi - 273
Isha Lakhani - 293
Poojashree Venketesh - 306
Rushmi Chakravarthi -310
Manisha Malhotra - 314
Ankita Bhambri -332
Sai Jayalaxmi -333
Tara Iyer - 350
Prerna Bhambri -358
Megha Vakaria -381

I have kept Ankita's ranking at her previous best. Will update after the official ranking update from WTA.

Only 15 players in top 400 so far and only 7 in top 300 compared to 31 in top 300 in men. Curiously, almost all of these players have been at their best ranking in last 20 year or so. Was there not anyone even of top 400 level before that ? If anyone has any details of that or if i missed someone post here and we will update the list.

[rajitghosh]

I thought Nirupama was around 135. What about the other Nirupama- Nirupama Mankad?

[sameerph]

I did not get Nirupama Mankad's ranking anywhere. Were WTA rankings not properly in place when she played ?

[jayakris]

Yes, Niupama Mankad played a few years before WTA started. I think it was in the early 70s that she was at her best. I remember my dad saying around 1973 that Ashok Mankad was doing so badly in test cricket that his wife was more famous than him

[kishash]

Ankita Raina is 197 now. Congratulations on entering the top 200.