PDA

View Full Version : The greatest Generation?


JBIMH
10-28-2006, 11:40 AM
Was the Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Chang generation from the US the greatest group of players to come from the same country at the same time in the history of tennis?

I personally think they were with Sampras and Agassi becoming all time greats, Courier being a #1 and winning several slams, and Chang winning a slam and being one of the gutsiest players of all time. But there have also been some great groups from Sweden and Australia. Tell me what you think.

psamp14
10-28-2006, 11:43 AM
with just 8 posts and making threads...what is this world coming to...

but your new thread is i guess "legit"

the greatest generation describes what? a decade? a span of 2 decades?

dont forget the late 70s and 80s with borg, mcenroe, connors, lendl, later on becker, edberg, wilander...

JBIMH
10-28-2006, 11:48 AM
hey I've been reading posts here for months, following tennis for years so stop hating

My definition of generation was a group of players that came from the same country and emerged into tennis around the same time period within 3 or 4 years of one another

oberyn
10-28-2006, 11:51 AM
Was the Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Chang generation from the US the greatest group of players to come from the same country at the same time in the history of tennis?

I personally think they were with Sampras and Agassi becoming all time greats, Courier being a #1 and winning several slams, and Chang winning a slam and being one of the gutsiest players of all time. But there have also been some great groups from Sweden and Australia. Tell me what you think.

I certainly think they're right up there, but my vote would have to go to the Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, and Hoad generation in Australia, IMO.

Rosewall b. 1934 - 4 AO, 2 FO, 2 USO
Hoad b. 1934 -- 1 AO, 1 FO, 2 Wimbledon
Emerson b. 1936 -- 6 AO, 2 FO, 2 Wimbledon, 2 USO
Laver b. 1938 -- 3 AO, 2 FO, 4 Wimbledon, 2 USO

psamp14
10-28-2006, 11:56 AM
i'm not hating, its not new posters like you but some others who just start up unneccessary threads...your thread title is a good topic...i just asked you what you consider to be a generation

i would say then that you've got it...the "fab 4" from the united states is the greatest generation....


chang started it off with a 1989 french open title, courier was up there from 1991 till about 1995 really, winning 4 slams and being #1 in 1992, and sampras there throughout the 1990s, really taking over from 1993 onwards, and although agassi was flashy early on, disappeared in late 1996/1997/1998, he came back strong and made a lasting impression in our minds from 1999 till his retirement

1, 4, 14, 8....

27 slams in total from them 4, 2 davis cup titles in 1992 and 1995 from them, including sampras winning all 3 of his rubbers on clay in moscow, and agassi completing the grand slam in 1999 only to be dominated by sampras a month later at wimbleon....

as of now the fab 4 are the greatest generation of mens tennis

Hops
10-28-2006, 12:21 PM
I certainly think they're right up there, but my vote would have to go to the Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, and Hoad generation in Australia, IMO.

Rosewall b. 1934 - 4 AO, 2 FO, 2 USO
Hoad b. 1934 -- 1 AO, 1 FO, 2 Wimbledon
Emerson b. 1936 -- 6 AO, 2 FO, 2 Wimbledon, 2 USO
Laver b. 1938 -- 3 AO, 2 FO, 4 Wimbledon, 2 USO


also Musketeers

Borotra/Brugnon/Cochet/LaCoste


my vote would go to the Aussies as well. If we compare

Laver = Sampras
Rosewall = Agassi
Emerson > Courier
Hoad > Chang

I know Emerson's 12 slams are not totally legit, but you can't ignore them completely. And Hoad, while his career was cut short by injury, is often cited as having a peak level of abliity up there with the best.

oberyn
10-28-2006, 12:25 PM
also Musketeers

Borotra/Brugnon/Cochet/LaCoste

I forgot about the Musekteers.



I know Emerson's 12 slams are not totally legit, but you can't ignore them completely. And Hoad, while his career was cut short by injury, is often cited as having a peak level of abliity up there with the best.

I agree about Emerson.

As for Hoad, IIRC, Rosewall's the one who stopped him from winning a calendar slam in 1956.

FiveO
10-28-2006, 12:26 PM
I certainly think they're right up there, but my vote would have to go to the Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, and Hoad generation in Australia, IMO.

Rosewall b. 1934 - 4 AO, 2 FO, 2 USO
Hoad b. 1934 -- 1 AO, 1 FO, 2 Wimbledon
Emerson b. 1936 -- 6 AO, 2 FO, 2 Wimbledon, 2 USO
Laver b. 1938 -- 3 AO, 2 FO, 4 Wimbledon, 2 USO

Add to that group these guys. Mix and match the span of years:

Neale Fraser b. 1933 -- 3 AO finals, 1 Wimbledon + 1 final, 2 US titles
Malcolm Anderson b. 1935 -- 1 US + 1 US final, 2 AO finals
Ashley Cooper b. 1936 -- 2 AO, 1 Wimbledon + 1 other final, 1 US + 1 other final
Fred Stolle b. 1938 -- 2 AO finals, 1 RG, 1 US and finalist at Wimbledon twice

joe sch
10-28-2006, 03:34 PM
also Musketeers

Borotra/Brugnon/Cochet/LaCoste


my vote would go to the Aussies as well. If we compare

Laver = Sampras
Rosewall = Agassi
Emerson > Courier
Hoad > Chang

I know Emerson's 12 slams are not totally legit, but you can't ignore them completely. And Hoad, while his career was cut short by injury, is often cited as having a peak level of abliity up there with the best.

I would also vote for the Aussies and if the others had not gone pro, they would have just had more slams and Emerson less. Laver would most probably be the current greatest ever and have the titlles to back it up.

AndrewD
10-28-2006, 07:20 PM
Laver would most probably be the current greatest ever and have the titlles to back it up.

You mean two Grand Slams aren't titles enough for you?

Now, if you'd said Ken Rosewall, that'd be a different matter. If he hadn't been banned from the majors for 12 years there's no doubt he would have won in the vacinity of 20 majors. As it is, he managed to snare 8 but missed his prime years altogether. Laver would have done something similar. Either way, the current 'record' of 14 needs a very, very large asterisk next to it as it is really only applicable to those players who had an uninterrupted career.

As to the greatest generation, the Australian players fell into a couple of different ones but each was very impressive.

NAME DOB Singles Doubles Mixed

Frank Allan Sedgman 1927 6 9 * 8
Ken McGregor 1929 1 7 * 1
Mervyn Rose 1930 2 4 1

Neale Andrew Fraser 1933 3 11 4
Ken Rosewall 1934 8 9 1
Lew Hoad 1934 4 8 1
Malcolm Anderson 1935 1 2 1
Ashley John Cooper 1936 4 4 0
Roy Emerson 1936 12 16 0
Rod Laver 1938 11** 6 1
Fred Stolle 1938 2 10 5
Robert Hewitt 1940 0 9 6

Margaret Court 1942 26* 21 21**
Lesley Bowrey 1942 2 7 4
John Newcombe 1944 7 17 2
Tony Roche 1945 1 12 2


* Denotes Grand Slams won in particular field.

joe sch
10-29-2006, 07:06 AM
You mean two Grand Slams aren't titles enough for you?

Now, if you'd said Ken Rosewall, that'd be a different matter. If he hadn't been banned from the majors for 12 years there's no doubt he would have won in the vacinity of 20 majors. As it is, he managed to snare 8 but missed his prime years altogether. Laver would have done something similar. Either way, the current 'record' of 14 needs a very, very large asterisk next to it as it is really only applicable to those players who had an uninterrupted career.

As to the greatest generation, the Australian players fell into a couple of different ones but each was very impressive.

NAME DOB Singles Doubles Mixed

Frank Allan Sedgman 1927 6 9 * 8
Ken McGregor 1929 1 7 * 1
Mervyn Rose 1930 2 4 1

Neale Andrew Fraser 1933 3 11 4
Ken Rosewall 1934 8 9 1
Lew Hoad 1934 4 8 1
Malcolm Anderson 1935 1 2 1
Ashley John Cooper 1936 4 4 0
Roy Emerson 1936 12 16 0
Rod Laver 1938 11** 6 1
Fred Stolle 1938 2 10 5
Robert Hewitt 1940 0 9 6

Margaret Court 1942 26* 21 21**
Lesley Bowrey 1942 2 7 4
John Newcombe 1944 7 17 2
Tony Roche 1945 1 12 2


* Denotes Grand Slams won in particular field.


AndrewD, I agree with you and would surely throw in a few others like Pancho Gonzales. I do think that Rockets 2 Grand Slams is the greatest feat acheived in tennis history. The record book should and would be completely different !