PDA

View Full Version : Top 3 players of each decade in order.


grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 02:13 PM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

pc1
04-15-2009, 02:26 PM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

Interesting list. I have a bit of a problem with is Emerson number in the 1960's and Courier at number two in the 1990's. Emerson had a lot of major titles but he was never that great. Are we going by majors here? If not I would think Gimeno would be better than Emerson.

I would think Agassi was probably better than Courier in the 1990's.

Steffi was great in the 1980's but was she better than Evert who was around who was around the full decade? I don't know but Graf did win a Grand Slam in 1988 so that counts for a lot.

Interesting and I'm sure it'll bring above a lot of debate.

clayman2000
04-15-2009, 02:28 PM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

Have you been hit on the head or something?
Pancho should be no 2 in the 60's
Agassi behind Courier?
Venus behind Henin

boredone3456
04-15-2009, 02:42 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court 2. King 3.Bueno
70's-1. Evert 2.Court 3.Goolagong
80's-1. Navratilova 2.Evert 3.Graf
90's-1. Graf 2. Seles 3. Vicario(she was truly talented and had to live in the shadows of Graf and Seles during her best years)
00's-1. Serena 2.Henin 3.Venus(because she only won 2 different majors, henin won 3)

Men
60's-1.Laver 2.Pancho 3.Rosewall
70's-1.Borg 2.Connors 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl 2. McEnroe 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras 2.Agassi 3.Courier
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3.Safin/Hewitt

RoddickAce
04-15-2009, 02:45 PM
I would put Agassi in place of Hewitt, both were at the top during the early 2000's and not much of a factor since 2006(obviously for agassi since he retired after the US Open). BUT Agassi won 3 grand slams in the 2000's despite being in his thirties.

Arafel
04-15-2009, 02:45 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court 2. King 3.Bueno
70's-1. Evert 2.Court 3.Goolagong
80's-1. Navratilova 2.Evert 3.Graf
90's-1. Graf 2. Seles 3. Vicario(she was truly talented and had to live in the shadows of Graf and Seles during her best years)
00's-1. Serena 2.Henin 3.Venus(because she only won 2 different majors, henin won 3)

Men
60's-1.Laver 2.Pancho 3.Rosewall
70's-1.Borg 2.Connors 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl 2. McEnroe 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras 2.Agassi 3.Courier
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3.Safin/Hewitt

I'd mostly agree with this. The women's list is completely accurate. I thought the OP was wrong to put Evert second in the 70s and third in the 80s. The men's list, there's a part of me that might put McEnroe ahead of Lendl, because their Slam counts were nearly even and McEnroe's 84 was better than any year Lendl could have hoped to put together.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Have you been hit on the head or something?
Pancho should be no 2 in the 60's
Agassi behind Courier?
Venus behind Henin

I had a hard time deciding between Pancho, Rosewall, and Emerson in the 60s. Well I am pretty sure Emerson is really a weaker player than the other two, but I sort of felt I did have to credit all his amateur slams to some degree.

Courier only won 1 less major than Agassi did in the 90s. I went with Courier since I feel he peaked in a much tougher time period in the early to mid 90s. You had Sampras, Edberg, Becker, all still going strong them. Agassi scalped on some weak draws to win alot of his majors both in the 90s and 2000s, especialy the 94 U.S Open, 99 French Open, and 99 U.S Open talking about just the 90s. There was quite a bit of luck involved like Sampras withdrawing from the U.S Open last minute, Sampras being upset at the 94 U.S Open, too many things to even list that happened at the 99 French. Luck which Courier never really got. Plus Courier owned Agassi head to head.

Henin sure as heck is over Venus. They both won 7 majors. Henin was far more versatile though than grass court queen Venus, she was far more consistent over the whole decade, she ended the year as a legit #1 three different times while Venus never ended a year ranked #1. Their head to head means squat too as all the match but one were before Henin won her first slam. I will be surprised if hardly anyone ranks Venus over Henin this decade.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 02:53 PM
Interesting list. I have a bit of a problem with is Emerson number in the 1960's and Courier at number two in the 1990's. Emerson had a lot of major titles but he was never that great. Are we going by majors here? If not I would think Gimeno would be better than Emerson.

Good points. I dont really think Emerson was the 2nd best but I was crediting his amateur slams since well he did win them. I definitely see your point though.

I would think Agassi was probably better than Courier in the 1990's.


You may well by right. Read the post above to get my take Agassi vs Courier in the 1990s.

Steffi was great in the 1980's but was she better than Evert who was around who was around the full decade? I don't know but Graf did win a Grand Slam in 1988 so that counts for a lot.

I definitely think Graf should be over Evert in the 80s. Yes Graf wasnt a force the whole decade. However she absolutely dominated 3 years of that decade. 1987 she did only win 1 slam but she only lost 2 matches all year. 1988 she won the Grand Slam. 1989 she lost only 2 matches all year and was 1 match away from a 2nd consecutive Calender Slam. That outdoes anything Evert did this decade. Evert's only 2 #1 years this decade in 1980-1981 she was overall dominated head to head by Austin, and lucky Austin didnt play more on clay in 1980 and missed so much time with injury in 1981.

flying24
04-15-2009, 02:56 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court, 2. King, 3.Bueno
70's-1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. King
80's-1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
90's-1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Sanchez Vicario
00's-1. Henin, 2. Serena, 3. Venus

Men:

60's-1.Laver, 2.Rosewall, 3.Pancho
70's-1.Borg, 2.Connors, 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3. Hewitt

pc1
04-15-2009, 02:57 PM
I had a hard time deciding between Pancho, Rosewall, and Emerson in the 60s. Well I am pretty sure Emerson is really a weaker player than the other two, but I sort of felt I did have to credit all his amateur slams to some degree.


I can see your point. I wasn't sure of the parameters of your question.

Rosewall is clearly number two in the 1960's because he and Laver won virtually all the Pro Majors for a number of years and Rosewall won the first Open Major, the 1968 French Open.

CyBorg
04-15-2009, 03:03 PM
Pancho should be no 2 in the 60's

Not even close.

grafrules
04-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Have you been hit on the head or something?
Pancho should be no 2 in the 60's
Agassi behind Courier?
Venus behind Henin

You are the one who has been hit on the head.

Pancho #2 in the 60's, what a stupid statement on your part. Pancho's dominance was all in the 50s. In the 60s he won only 1 pro major, Rosewall won 14. It isnt a much closer call between Laver and Rosewall for #1 in the 60s than between Rosewall and anyone else for #2.

Venus above Henin? Ummm no. The only stat Venus matches Henin in is 7 slam titles, overall Henin's overall record destroys Venus's this decade.

grafrules
04-15-2009, 03:12 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3.King
70's-1. Evert, 2. Court, 3. King
80's-1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
90's-1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
00's-1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus

Men:

60's-1.Laver, 2.Rosewall, 3.Emerson (quite possible even had there been Open tennis this decade he wins equal or 1 or 2 more slams than an aging Gonzales)
70's-1.Borg, 2.Connors, 3.Newcombe
80's-1.McEnroe, 2. Lendl, 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3. Hewitt

grafrules
04-15-2009, 03:19 PM
I would put Agassi in place of Hewitt, both were at the top during the early 2000's and not much of a factor since 2006(obviously for agassi since he retired after the US Open). BUT Agassi won 3 grand slams in the 2000's despite being in his thirties.

Hewitt was the year end #1 in both 2001 and 2002 and outdueled Agassi at the year end Masters both years to get it. Agassi was never the true #1 at years end this decade. Agassi won 3 slams to Hewitt's 2 but all of Agassi's were Australian Opens, while Hewitt won the two biggest events- Wimbledon and the U.S Open. Agassi won many more Masters titles, but Hewitt won the year end Masters twice, the biggest event outside the slams, and Agassi did not win this event this decade. Hewitt lost 7 times to the eventual winner in slams in 2004-2005. It is a tough call between them, actually thinking about it more it probably should be Hewitt.

Agassi being in his 30s doesnt mean anything to the comparision really. This seems to be a thread about the best players in the decade, no mention of it being best for their age. Anyway Agassi was a much worse player from 26 to 28 than what he was in his 30s.

gj011
04-15-2009, 04:19 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court 2. King 3.Bueno
70's-1. Evert 2.Court 3.Goolagong
80's-1. Navratilova 2.Evert 3.Graf
90's-1. Seles 2. Graf 3. Hingis (Seles would have won more GS titles in the 90s than Graf if there was no stabbing)
00's-1. Serena 2.Henin 3.Venus (as said, because Venus only won 2 different majors, Henin won 3)

Men
60's-1.Laver 2.Rosewall 3. Emerson
70's-1.Borg 2.Connors 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl 2. Wilander 3.McEnroe (Surprised nobody mentioned Wilander here so far)
90's-1.Sampras 2.Agassi 3.Courier (Agassi is way ahead of Courier)
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3. Djokovic (just joking, it is Hewitt)

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 05:03 PM
Courier ahead of Andre in the 90s? No way. Courier fizzeled out pretty quick and Andre redeemed himself big time in 99. Andre was definitely 2nd best of the 90s

hoodjem
04-15-2009, 05:19 PM
Men
60's-1.Laver 2.Pancho 3.Rosewall
70's-1.Borg 2.Connors 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl 2. McEnroe 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras 2.Agassi 3.Courier

Rosewall was the no. 1 player in the world for 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964, and probably the no. 2 player for 1964-1969.
I'd say Edberg should be in there in the '90s.

1960—Rosewall/Gonzales
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
1971—Newcombe
1972—Newcombe/Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Connors
1976—Connors
1977—Connors/Borg/Vilas
1978—Connors/Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors/McEnroe
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl
1990—Edberg
1991—Edberg
1992—Courier
1993—Sampras
1994—Sampras
1995—Sampras
1996—Sampras
1997—Sampras
1998—Sampras
1999—Agassi

imalil2gangsta4u
04-15-2009, 05:37 PM
Women:

60's-1. Court, 2. King, 3.Bueno
70's-1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. King
80's-1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
90's-1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Sanchez Vicario
00's-1. Henin, 2. Serena, 3. Venus

Men:

60's-1.Laver, 2.Rosewall, 3.Pancho
70's-1.Borg, 2.Connors, 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3. Hewitt

i like your list

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 05:38 PM
Courier ahead of Andre in the 90s? No way. Courier fizzeled out pretty quick and Andre redeemed himself big time in 99. Andre was definitely 2nd best of the 90s

Courier with his game style was definitely subject to burnout and that is what happened to him indeed. However Courier played his best at a time of much tougher competition than Agassi. The early 90s was the toughest part of the decade by far with Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Ivanisevic, all very strong. The late 90s was by far the worst part of the decade. Agassi won 2 of his 5 slams in 1999 which was nothing like the competition in the early 90s. Also when you analyze the circumstances around Agassi's slams he had pieces of luck Courier never got to win his. Despite this Agassi only has 1 more slam title for the decade than does Courier.

Courier was also the undisputed best player in the world in 1992. Agassi was never this. He wasnt in 1999 where he was 1-4 vs Sampras, and his U.S Open title comes with a huge asterix with Sampras's last minute withdrawal when Sampras had won 7 straight sets (3 on grass, 2 on hard courts) in 3 straight set wins over Agassi leading into the U.S Open, and when Sampras and not Agassi has a history of raising his game further for the U.S Open.

Also their head to head. Courier was owning Agassi in the early 90s when Agassi was already playing great, reaching many slam finals and winning his only Wimbledon. Even by 95-96 Agassi was still having a tough time beating a past his prime Courier.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 05:42 PM
Courier with his game style was definitely subject to burnout and that is what happened to him indeed. However Courier played his best at a time of much tougher competition than Agassi. The early 90s was the toughest part of the decade by far with Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Ivanisevic, all very strong. The late 90s was by far the worst part of the decade. Agassi won 2 of his 5 slams in 1999 which was nothing like the competition in the early 90s. Also when you analyze the circumstances around Agassi's slams he had pieces of luck Courier never got to win his. Despite this Agassi only has 1 more slam title for the decade than does Courier.

Courier was also the undisputed best player in the world in 1992. Agassi was never this. He wasnt in 1999 where he was 1-4 vs Sampras, and his U.S Open title comes with a huge asterix with Sampras's last minute withdrawal when Sampras had won 7 straight sets (3 on grass, 2 on hard courts) in 3 straight set wins over Agassi leading into the U.S Open, and when Sampras and not Agassi has a history of raising his game further for the U.S Open.



While I agree Courier was on top in a very competitive early 90s era, we cant hold the "sampras situation" against Andre. Sampras never really primed until 93. I highly doubt Courier would have had much more success against Prime Sampras from 93 on than Andre did. The field was extremely strong in the very early 90s but again.. Sampras had not yet primed prior to 93. Andre had to deal with pete all throughout the 90s trying to overcome Pete. Courier didnt have to.

Andre's longevity in the 90s along with having to deal with pete the whole decade IMO puts him over Courier who already by the mid 90s was finished .. But thats me.

Would Courier have been the undisputed best for any year had he actually had to of dealt with a prime Sampras? I doubt it. Andre couldnt reach the undisputed best because he had the sampras hurdle to overcome.

That short 2-3 year span Courier had in the very early 90s I dont think is enough to warrant him as the best of the 90s. Where was he the rest of the 90s?

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 05:54 PM
While I agree Courier was on top in a very competitive early 90s era, we cant hold the "sampras situation" against Andre. Sampras never really primed until 93. I highly doubt Courier would have had much more success against Prime Sampras from 93 on than Andre did. The field was extremely strong in the very early 90s but again.. Sampras had not yet primed prior to 93. Andre had to deal with pete all throughout the 90s trying to overcome Pete. Courier didnt have to.

Andre's longevity in the 90s along with having to deal with pete the whole decade IMO puts him over Courier who already by the mid 90s was finished .. But thats me.

Would Courier have been the undisputed best for any year had he actually had to of dealt with a prime Sampras? I doubt it

Cant hold the Sampras situation against Agassi? It is not prime Sampras's fault that Agassi couldnt even beat a 30 year old Gomez, a 19 year old Sampras, and Courier himself in his own first slam final (which was Agassi's 3rd) in 3 of his 90s slam finals.

The thing you are missing is Agassi did not have to deal with Sampras in hardly any of the slams he won. At Wimbledon 92 Sampras was in the draw but he didnt play Agassi. That being said he beat Becker and Ivanisevic so that was by far his toughest draw to win a major overall. At the 94 U.S Open it was Sampras's huge upset loss to Yzaga that cleared an open draw for Agassi to the title. Agassi's final 4 round opponents have combined to win 0 U.S Opens and reach 3 U.S Open finals in their careers (and 0 of them were a multi grand slam champion). At the French Open in 1999 Agassi had an easy draw where he avoided Kuerten (who he never would have beaten), Rios, Corretja, Costa. His only tough opponent was Moya. He got lucky in more than ways than I can list in alot of the matches he won so I wont even begin. His U.S Open title in 1999 was with Sampras's last minute WD in a year Sampras was probably the biggest lock to win he ever was given his summer form. Again his final 4 round opponents have a combined 1 U.S Open final between them, and that was his final opponent Todd Martin who was in only his 2 ever slam final and still took Agassi to 5 sets. Agassi beat Sampras to win the 1995 Australian Open, that and Wimbledon 1992 are his only really impressive slam victories this decade.

The reason I am pointing out the early 90s was tougher is Becker, Edberg, and Courier were all still at their best still. Agassi did not have to face any of those 3 at their best, other than Wimbledon 92. I would say the Sampras situation isnt as big a trump card for Agassi at all given what I just said. Agassi won almost all his 90s slams, well atleast 3 of the 5, avoiding any of the best players.

The one player vs many players goes against your clay court arguments too. Federer had to deal with Nadal who is much better than any of the 90s best on clay, but that means nothing to you when you point out Sampras had it much tougher since there were many more high quality clay courters than today, even though every single one inferior and more beatable than Nadal. However now that the argument is about Agassi's competition vs Courier's all that matters is prime Sampras was there, even though there were alot less great champions in their primes by then than the early 90s? Sorry but which is it. It seems to be altered to favor whichever player is your favorite in each case. Again Agassi hardly dealt with Sampras in any of the slams he won in the 90s anyway so it is moot.

As for how Courier would have fared vs Sampras, probably even worse than Agassi overall as his game wasnt equipped as well to take on a huge server like Sampras. However he had much stronger nerve and resolve in the big matches than Agassi (luckily Agassi had alot of lucky draws to aid him survive this as I said), and he certainly would be just as likely or more to take advantage of that open draws when they came around to win slams. He also was a better clay courter than Agassi IMO, so would be more likely to pick up slams at the one place Sampras certainly wouldnt be winning them, and as the clay court field weakened as the decade went along as well this would have only helped Courier.

Lastly Agassi's consistency in the 90s was just as non existant as Courier so you cant hold that against Courier. Where was Courier the second half of the decade? Where was Agassi atleast half the decade as well. He is no better than Courier in this area.

egn
04-15-2009, 06:05 PM
My list.
1960s women
1. Court 2. Bueno 3. King
1970s women
1. Court/Evert 3. Goolagong
1980s women
1. Narvatilova 2. Graf 3. Evert
1990s women
1. Graf 2. Seles 3. Hingis
2000s women
1. Serena 2. Henin 3. Venus

1960s men
1. Laver 2. Pancho 3. Rosewell
1970s men
1. Borg 2. Connors 3. Newcome
1980s men
1. Lendl 2. McEnroe 3. Willander (fixed thanks grafselesfan lol.)
1990s men
1. Sampras 2. Agassi 3. Courier
2000s men
1. Federer 2. Nadal 3. Guga/Agassi

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:05 PM
The thing you are missing is Agassi did not have to deal with Sampras in hardly any of the slams he won. At Wimbledon 92 Sampras was in the draw but he didnt play Agassi. That being said he beat Becker and Ivanisevic so that was by far his toughest draw to win a major overall. At the 94 U.S Open it was Sampras's huge upset loss to Yzaga that cleared an open draw for Agassi to the title. Agassi's final 4 round opponents have combined to win 0 U.S Opens and reach 3 U.S Open finals in their careers (and 0 of them were a multi grand slam champion). At the French Open in 1999 Agassi had an easy draw where he avoided Kuerten (who he never would have beaten), Rios, Corretja, Costa. His only tough opponent was Moya. He got lucky in more than ways than I can list in alot of the matches he won so I wont even begin. His U.S Open title in 1999 was with Sampras's last minute WD in a year Sampras was probably the biggest lock to win he ever was given his summer form. Again his final 4 round opponents have a combined 1 U.S Open final between them, and that was his final opponent Todd Martin who was in only his 2 ever slam final and still took Agassi to 5 sets. Agassi beat Sampras to win the 1995 Australian Open, that and Wimbledon 1992 are his only really impressive slam victories this decade.

The reason I am pointing out the early 90s was tougher is Becker, Edberg, and Courier were all still at their best still. Agassi did not have to face any of those 3 at their best, other than Wimbledon 92. I would say the Sampras situation isnt as big a trump card for Agassi at all given what I just said. Agassi won almost all his 90s slams, well atleast 3 of the 5, avoiding any of the best players.

The one player vs many players goes against your clay court arguments too. Federer had to deal with Nadal who is much better than any of the 90s best on clay, but that means nothing to you when you point out Sampras had it much tougher since there were many more high quality clay courters than today, even though every single one inferior and more beatable than Nadal. However now that the argument is about Agassi's competition vs Courier's all that matters is prime Sampras was there, even though there were alot less great champions in their primes by then than the early 90s? Sorry but which is it. It seems to be altered to favor whichever player is your favorite in each case. Again Agassi hardly dealt with Sampras in any of the slams he won in the 90s anyway so it is moot.
As for how Courier would have fared vs Sampras, probably even worse than Agassi overall as his game wasnt equipped as well to take on a huge server like Sampras. However he had much stronger nerve and resolve in the big matches than Agassi (luckily Agassi had alot of lucky draws to aid him survive this as I said), and he certainly would be just as likely or more to take advantage of that open draws when they came around to win slams. He also was a better clay courter than Agassi IMO, so would be more likely to pick up slams at the one place Sampras certainly wouldnt be winning them, and as the clay court field weakened as the decade went along as well this would have only helped Courier.



I think it looks worse to be honest. Losing to the same player year in year out at the same slam, and now at this point on all 3 surfaces as it does losing at one slam to various clay court players in Pete's case. Yes I do.. For being as great as Fed has been billed as he should have been able to overcome Nadal somehow, some way. This has no doubt blemished Roger's career big time IMO. Not being able to overcome on player. Yes IMO it looks worse. Regardless of how good Nadal is on clay. A great player like Fed should have been able or be able to improvise in some form and rise to and answer the challenge in front of him and he has been unable to do so. If you think Roger's legacy hasnt taken a major hit from the nadal issue, youre crazy.

I would much rather not win a French Open, in a very steep clay court field, then receive cakewalks in the French Open, and continuously, year after year lose to the same player in the finals. Especially if I am being considered a candidate for GOAT. I think it looks worse in Fed's case that he always fails to overcome one player.

Because at the end of the day.. If Nadal gets even close to the slam record, he will be considered over Roger due to the h2h which will probably only get more lopsided and in Nadal's favor

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 06:11 PM
I think it looks worse to be honest. Losing to the same player year in year out at the same slam, and now at this point on all 3 surfaces as it does losing at one slam to various clay court players in Pete's case. Yes I do.. For being as great as Fed has been billed as he should have been able to overcome Nadal somehow, some way. This has no doubt blemished Roger's career big time IMO. Not being able to overcome on player. Yes IMO it looks worse. Regardless of how good Nadal is on clay. A great player like Fed should have been able or be able to improvise in some form and he has been unable to do so. If you think Roger's legacy hasnt taken a major hit from the nadal issue, youre crazy

Actually I do think Roger's legacy is diminished greatly by his poor performance vs Nadal on clay and even in general. If you had read any of my other posts on this forum despite that I havent been here too long you would know this by now. I also do not even think Roger is the GOAT at all at this moment in time, and I feel more strongly that way than most and have said so many times.

However by the same token Agassi's 0-6 head to head with Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open is a hit on his legacy as well. If you think is somehow meaningless due to Sampras's legacy as a fast court player, you are just as crazy as if I were to think Federer's ineptitude vs Nadal for many years on clay was meaningless (which I never have). This is even in comparision to the 7-8 slam time winners he is compared to in history, never mind the double diget slam winners and/or true GOAT contenders like Sampras, Laver, Gonzales, Borg, or even Federer who he is never going to be compared with.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 06:15 PM
I would much rather not win a French Open, in a very steep clay court field, then receive cakewalks in the French Open, and continuously, year after year lose to the same player in the finals. Especially if I am being considered a candidate for GOAT. I think it looks worse in Fed's case that he always fails to overcome one player

See this is where your double standardizing comes into play. Keep in mind as I said I have dumped on Roger and his poor performance vs Nadal on clay as well, so dont even think of trying to imply otherwise.

However in your case you are here saying it was so much harder to face multiple high quality clay courters in the 90s than just one far more amazing one today. Yet you are dismissive of Courier facing many more great player close to their primes in the early 90s than Agassi did, and only Agassi having to face prime Sampras matters now. So which is it, is facing one more near unbeatable opponent most important, or facing numerous very good quality ones. That is where you are being hypocritical from your arguments on Federer vs Sampras competition on clay and Courier vs Agassi fields faced which is all I was pointing out. I know that you realize I am right and caught you on that, which is why you are now going to try and divert the topic to some nevernever land of sorts.

By the way, my last comments on the matter as it really does not pertain to this topic at all, but if you think Sampras would be making French Open finals year after year even today, or ever would have beaten Nadal even once for a French Open title then you are the one who is now crazy.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 06:19 PM
Because at the end of the day.. If Nadal gets even close to the slam record, he will be considered over Roger due to the h2h which will probably only get more lopsided and in Nadal's favor

Hey I am a much bigger Nadal fan than a Federer fan. I dont even like Federer and find him very overrated. So you will get absolutely no argument from me on that one. I was only pointing out your double standards given your past arguments on clay court fields, yet now only prime Sampras and not the overall field mattering when comparing Courier to Agassi. It had nothing to do with being a Federer supporter or Federer GOAT backer which I am just as far from as you are.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:20 PM
See this is where your double standardizing comes into play. Keep in mind as I said I have dumped on Roger and his poor performance vs Nadal on clay as well, so dont even think of trying to imply otherwise.

However in your case you are here saying it was so much harder to face multiple high quality clay courters in the 90s than just one far more amazing one today. Yet you are dismissive of Courier facing many more great player close to their primes in the early 90s than Agassi did, and only Agassi having to face prime Sampras matters now. That is where you are being hypocritical from your arguments on Federer vs Sampras competition on clay and Courier vs Agassi fields faced which is all I was pointing out.

By the way, my last comments on the matter as it really does not pertain to this topic at all, but if you think Sampras would be making French Open finals year after year even today, or ever would have beaten Nadal even once for a French Open title then you are the one who is now crazy.


Im dismissive of Courier due to the fact that he was essentially finished as soon as Pete took over the reigns at the top. Thats all. Andre went MIA for a few years there, but he did regain the number 1 back in 95 only to lose it at the end of 95 back to Pete after the USO. I just preferred Andre in this case over Courier due to what ANdre was able to accomplish returning back to the top of the heap at 29 years of age. An age where most players were just about washed up and finished yet, Andre came back a house of fire and playing the best tennis in his career. I just find that more impressive.

Andre had almost a story book career. Who the hell would have expected Andre ever to return to #1 considering the depths of mediocrity he descended to? Yet once Courier was done he was esentially done. His time was too short for me to consider over Andre

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 06:22 PM
Im dismissive of Courier due to the fact that he was essentially finished as soon as Pete took over the reigns at the top. Thats all. Andre went MIA for a few years there, but he did regain the number 1 back in 95 only to lose it at the end of 95 back to Pete after the USO. I just preferred Andre in this case over Courier due to what ANdre was able to accomplish returning back to the top of the heap at 29 years of age. An age where most players were just about washed up and finished yet, Andre came back a house of fire and playing the best tennis in his career. I just find that more impressive.

Andre had almost story book career. Who the hell would have expected Andre ever to return to #1 considering the depths of mediocrity he descended to?

Fair enough. I have no problem with that reasoning. As I said Courier plays a game that is condusive to early burnout so it doesnt surprise me he did. He had to work extremely hard while he was at the top, as he doesnt have the natural talent of Agassi or many others. Hewitt in this decade burnt out quickly in a similar fashion to Courier, albeit achieving even less in his time at the top vs a weaker field than Courier did.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 06:30 PM
My list.
1960s women
1. Court 2. Bueno 3. King
1970s women
1. Court/Evert 3. Goolagong
1980s women
1. Narvatilova 2. Graf 3. Evert
1990s women
1. Graf 2. Seles 3. Hingis
2000s women
1. Serena 2. Henin 3. Venus

1960s men
1. Laver 2. Pancho 3. Rosewell
1970s men
1. Borg 2. Connors 3. Newcome
1980s men
1. Laver 2. McEnroe 3. Willander
1990s men
1. Sampras 2. Agassi 3. Courier
2000s men
1. Federer 2. Nadal 3. Guga/Agassi

Interesting lists. It is hard to choose between Court and Evert, or Graf and Evert in the 70s and 80s for me. It comes down to whether you respect greater dominance and sheer peak performance much higher (favoring Court in the 70s and Graf in the 80s) or longevity being near the top and consistent performance over the whole decade (which favors Evert greatly in both decades of course, but virtually impossible for Court and Graf given their age). So really it could go either way in both cases.

I really have no idea how anyone can put Pancho over Rosewall in the 60s though, unless you admire what he was doing at that age (but Rosewall was no spring chicken either by the second half of the decade either).

Laver #1 in the 1980s must be a typo I assume.

egn
04-15-2009, 06:39 PM
Interesting lists. It is hard to choose between Court and Evert, or Graf and Evert in the 70s and 80s for me. It comes down to whether you respect greater dominance and sheer peak performance much higher (favoring Court in the 70s and Graf in the 80s) or longevity being near the top and consistent performance over the whole decade (which favors Evert greatly in both decades of course, but virtually impossible for Court and Graf given their age). So really it could go either way in both cases.

I really have no idea how anyone can put Pancho over Rosewall in the 60s though, unless you admire what he was doing at that age (but Rosewall was no spring chicken either by the second half of the decade either).

Laver #1 in the 1980s must be a typo I assume.


LOL yes it is it is meant to be Lendl.
I favor Graf in the 80s because of 87-89. Her two best years were in the 80s and they were better than Evert. The calendar slam in 88. The 70s was hard. I didn't choose as I felt I could not esaily pick one over the other. I think I just liked Pancho better thats why. Age also has something to do with it.

Honestly I found 2000s the hardest. I wound up going with Guga or Agassi lol I don't know why. I feel Hewitt had two good years 04 and 02. His 01 year I feel he benefited from an awful field. Andre had a huge impact in 00-05 and Guga was a clay giant. I was ready to just do Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Guga 4 way tie. I was hoping for Djokovic to win a few more so I could put him. So many underachieving one slam wonders from 2000 on sigh.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-15-2009, 08:27 PM
Interesting discussion but my problem is the OP's "per decade."

How about a player that peaks end of one decade and begiining of another.

For example Wilander = 7 salms in the 80's

under that theory...wilander in clearly top 3 of the eighties(with mac and lendl)

but becker and edberg don't make the top 3 of either 80's or 90's

in which they won slams across both decades...in edberg case a 3-3 split.

Andre vs courier is a hard one and i agree with sentiments from courier fans
i guess it depends on how high you value lengtivity. i say agassi.

also 8 vs 4 doesn't look good for courier...andre's 2000 and 2001 slams in aussie were still impressive with tough competition on fast surface.

thalivest
04-15-2009, 08:38 PM
also 8 vs 4 doesn't look good for courier...andre's 2000 and 2001 slams in aussie were still impressive with tough competition on fast surface.

Tough competition at the 2001 Australian Open!?! You mean like Arnaud Clement in the final. Or Rafter in the semis whose serve/volley game anchored by a not overpowering kick serve is so ill suited to rebound ace high conditions he hadnt made it past the 4th round his whole career there until this final year.

380pistol
04-15-2009, 09:43 PM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

Agassi is ahead of Courier as far as the 90's is concerned. Agassi won 5 slams(5 slam F), to 4 slam (3 slam F) for JC. Agassi also also won 11 masters in the 90's to 5 for Courier. Dre also won the YEC and played in the finals, while JC lost both finals he played.

Agassi is also a contender for the #3 spot in 2000' He won 3 slmas (to Hewitt's 2), and they each made 2 slam F. Agassi also won 6 masters to 2 for Hewitt. Hewitt does have the 2 yr end #1's and 2 YEC titles while Agassi lost the 2000 final. Hell, Sampras, Kuerten and Safin have the same amount of slams this decade as Hewitt.

What about Wilander for the 80's?? 7 slams he won to Becker's 4. Becker was better overall, but about 40-45% of his career came in the 90's.

380pistol
04-15-2009, 09:48 PM
Tough competition at the 2001 Australian Open!?! You mean like Arnaud Clement in the final. Or Rafter in the semis whose serve/volley game anchored by a not overpowering kick serve is so ill suited to rebound ace high conditions he hadnt made it past the 4th round his whole career there until this final year.

Rafter may have won that match if not for a leg injury after going up 2 sets 1. His not overpowering serve produced 19 aces through 3 sets before said leg injury. Rafter would have a solid 2001 F of Wim (9-7 in 5th), and that serve that poounded 30 aces by Dre in the SF. F of Montreal and Cincinnati that summer and lost to on fire Sampras.

So I don't get what you're saying about Rafa. Well Nadal played no one til the SF, struggled vs Verdaso for 5 hrs, who has done what exactly in his slam life??? And then benefitted from 64 unforced erors (14 in the 5th set) vs Roger' who's 1st serve % was what and was broken 7 times in that final. Anyone can spin it their way, I know you don't like it when it's done to your boy, so give others their due!!

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 02:30 AM
Of course my list could change a little in future years when I will have collected more results and have made numerous new analysis.
Sorry for not listing women but I'm not competent at all

1876-1879 men: 1. Hartley, 2. James Dwight, 3. Hadow
1880's men: 1. W.C. Renshaw 2. J.E. Renshaw 3. Lawford
1890's men: 1. Joshua Pim, 2. R.F. Doherty, 3. Wilfred Baddeley (4. M.D. Whitman)
1900s men: 1. H.L. Doherty, 2. W.A. Larned, 3. R.F. Doherty (4. Brookes who had a top career which started in the mid-1900's and ended in the mid-1910s)
1910s men: 1. Wilding, 2. Johnston, 3. R.N. Williams (?)
1920s men: 1. Tilden, 2. Cochet or Lacoste (4. Johnston)
1930s men: 1. Vines, 2. Perry, 3. Budge or Nüsslein (5. possibly Tilden) (Budge was the greatest of the three if we judge their entire careers but in the 30's Budge was "absent" until 1934 included)
1940s men: 1. Riggs, 2. Budge or Kramer (there is no doubt that Budge and Kramer were better than Riggs but if we select only the years from 1940 to 1949, Riggs was the best in particular because Budge injured in 1943 and Kramer was not a very great in the first half of the 40's)
1950s men: 1. Gonzales, 2. Segura, 3.Kramer
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, ... 3. Gonzales (4. Gimeno)
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, ... 3. Nastase
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier or Agassi
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

60's : Gonzales was possibly the best in 1960, was #2 in 1961 at 90% (or #1 at 10%), #3 in 1964 (and could have finished at #1 or 2 had he played the South African pro tour) and from 1965 to 1967 in the pro ranks didn't play much and in particular didn't enter most of the majors but on one tournament could beat everyone and if we compare him with the best amateurs in 1967 he beat Stolle something like 5-2 in direct meetings, Stolle being close to the amateur #1 spot in 1966 (Emerson, Roche, Stolle and Santana were all very close that year) with his wins in the Davis Cup, the US amateur and the German amateur. In 1968 or 1969 he was still able to win events equivalent to the Super 9 or Masters 1000 (Pacific Southwest and Howard Hugues Open in 69).
Gonzales was better than Gimeno in 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969 (Gimeno was better in 1962-1963 because Gonzales only played 1 match in 2 years and was better than Pancho in 1966-1967 only because he played throughout those years while Gonzales only played half of the time but in direct meetings Gorgo continued to dominate Andres).

When Gimeno played the same circuit than Emerson, Gimeno was slightly better than the Aussie, be it in 1960 (until July) or in 1968 and 1969 so we can guess (but I recognize it isn't a proof at all) the Spaniard was better than Emmo between late 1960 to 1967. We can also guess that in 1966-1967 Emerson and Stolle were close. In 1967 Gimeno had always better results in the pro ranks than Stolle (except in the South African tour in September) and in direct meetings Gimeno beat Stolle that year 8 matches won to 2. In fact in 1967 Gimeno was very close to Rosewall and Stolle was less good than Laver-Rosewall-Gimeno and even Ralston in the pro ranks. So it is very likely that in 1967 Gimeno was superior to Emerson assuming that Stolle and Emerson were close that year (I recognize a great hypothesis).
Gimeno was never the #1 in any given year in the 60's but he greatly rivalled the best pros (for instance in 5 years (1963-1967) Gimeno won 22 tournaments where he beat either Laver or Rosewall and in particular 7 tournaments where he beat both giants. I don't think Emmo would have been able to do that). When Gimeno and Emerson played again the same circuit in 1968 both had equivalent results but Gimeno led 6-2 in head-to-head that year.
In conclusion I don't even see at all Emerson in the Top4 of the sixties. I think that in his very best years Emerson was at best the #4 in the world.
Emerson certainly not : in his best years he was never in the Top3.

Last remark about the 60's :
From 1960 (French Pro) to 1971 (Australian Open) among the 31 majors (here I take into account the 3 Pro Slam tournaments, Wembley-French Pro-US Pro, from 1960 to 1967 and the true Slam events from 1968 to 1971 (I slightly get beyond the pure 60's) where either Rosewall or Laver entered (so it includes majors where both players entered) 29 of them were won by those 2 giants of the game. Astonishing: Rosewall won 16 such majors in that period and Laver won "only" 13... Only Ashe (US Open 1968 ) and Newcombe (Wimbledon 1970) could break that gigantic series!
The advantage of this list is that we have always the same events (at least from 1960 to 1967) but sometimes one of these events hadn't always very strong fields.
If I pick up in my own list (which is of course subjective and therefore debatable) of the 4 greatest events of each year of the 60s (see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2840980&postcount=45 and http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2840980&postcount=46) :
Rosewall won 17 or 18 of them, Laver 17, Gonzales 4, Ashe 1 and Hoad 0 or 1. It is probable that I underrate a little bit the amateur players's feats but I don't think too much.

Of course we can't judge players only on their results in majors because many other criteria (proposed by members of that forum such as urban, jeffrey, and others) shall be used (number of years No. 1 (but some years the #1 is unclear), dominance during peak years, head-to-head records against contemporaries, number of tournaments won (including pro match series), number (and percentage) of matches won/lost (consistency), number of Masters, Super Nine events and their equivalents, consistencsome extra points for different surfaces, especially grass and clay (for versatility),
quality of opposition (the most difficult criterion to rate), etc...).

But when you see how much both Aussies dominated the others in majors there is no doubt at all that Rosewall and Laver were clearly the Top2 of the 60's : neither Gonzales or Gimeno or Emerson are in that Top2.
For the moment I consider Laver as the "top banana" of the 60's but given the last statistics written just above there is a little possibility that Rosewall was perhaps the top player of the 60's.

see the 1970's to 2000's below

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 02:32 AM
In the 70's there is no doubt about Borg the best and Connors his second. The 3rd place is very debatable.
Newcombe would be an obvious choice had he been consistent but if you clearly see his record there are huge "gaps".
In 70, 71 and 73 he won each year the greatest event by far of those years (Wimby 70, 71 and Forest 73) but in each of these years his record outside those events was weak and in my mind he was never the #1 of any of these calendar years. In 1971 he could have been the best but he failed miserably in the US Open (he lost to Kodes who himself in his turn lost to Smith) and because he injured in the doubles of that event he missed nearly all the end of the season. I think that in 70 and 71 Laver was probably the best and in 73 Nastase was without any doubt the best. Let's continue with Newk : in 74 he was perhaps the #2 (very good WCT record), in 1972 he was possibly #6 and in 1975 he was close to the Top10 (except his win from Connors in the Australian he almost did nothing because of injury and mental burnout). So if we consider the entire decade Newk was far from being a top player all along (he was almost absent in the second half of that decade).

I think that Nastase as #3 in the 70's is not a bad choice though Nastase had no consistency at all but however I think he was better than Newcombe. Nastase won 4 or 5 majors (that is equivalent of the modern Slam tourneys) if I consider my own subjective list (US Open 72, Garros 73, Masters 73 and Masters 75 (I don't know if the Italian 73 was one of the majors). It is comparable to Newk's stats (Wimby 70, Wimby 71, US Open 73, WCT 74).

Nastase was globally better ranked than Newk in the whole decade. Nastase was in the Top10, 7 years in a row : from 1970 to 1976. In 1977 he was close to the Top10 (and #9 at the ATP ranking) and in 1978 in the Top20 so Nasty had better years than Newk in the 70's.
For instance in 1973 Nastase lost as many matches as Newcombe (around 16 matches each) but won twice as many matches as Newk (around 114 for Nasty while Newk only won about 57 matches), that year Nastase won 17 tournaments while Newk only won 4 (or 5 or 6 I don't remember).
In 1972 Nastase was #2 but had many successes, 12 tournaments wins including the US Open (the greatest event of the year), the Masters where he beat at last his nemesis of the year (Smith). Newk had never such "full" years. Newk's best year in terms of consistency was 1974 when he won 10 tournaments and was perhaps the #2 behind Jimbo.
In the 70's only, Nastase won 75 tournaments (including 56 "ATP statistics" tournaments) whereas Newk won "only" 32 tournaments (in their whole career Nastase won 87 tourneys and Newcombe 70).

In terms of versatility Nastase won majors on every surface (US Open on grass, French on clay, Masters on indoor court, and also on outdoor hard court (though they weren't majors until Flushing in 78 )) while Newk never won a major on clay (his best win on that surface was the Italian in ... 1969 so outside the 70's).

In head-to-head meetings Nastase led Newcombe something like 5-0 in the 70's (Newcombe's only win from Nasty was in October 1969 at Las Vegas in the 1st round so once again out of the 70's).

In terms of potential on grass, the very best Newk was clearly superior to the best Nasty : Newk was the best grasscourter of the first half of the 70's whereas Nasty was a bit lucky to win Forest Hills because he didn't meet either Smith (beaten by Ashe), Newcombe (defeated by Stolle), Laver (injured), Rosewall (then Nastase's true nemesis) and he sort of distracted Ashe in the 4th set in the final. But on slow surfaces Nastase was clearly better than Newk because Nastase had a very better all-around game than Newk.

I forget other criterias but in my mind there is no doubt that
if we consider only the 70's Nastase was ahead of Newcombe (and Smith who was as Newk pretty absent from 1975 to 1979). But there is no doubt that in the 60's Newk was clearly better than Nasty.

In the 80s Wilander was clearly the #3. Many think that Becker or Edberg should deserve that place but they just forget that around half of Becker's and Edberg's feats were realized in the 90's. If we just consider the 80's Wilander was superior to Boom-Boom and Stefan : in particular Wilander had a great record before 1985 while Becker's and Edberg's was virtually nil in the first half of the 80's.

About the 90's I can't really decide between Courier and Agassi. Both had many downs. Agassi wasn't good at all in 1993, 1997 and Courier in the late 90's. Agassi won on every surface (Courier failed at Wimby in 1993) but Agassi was never a #1 except in 1999 and even in that year it was by default because had Sampras not injured at Indianapolis, Pete would have probably won the US Open and therefore would have been once again #1.
Courier, he, was clearly #1 in 1992 and not by default at all and in 1991 he was perhaps the #1 (for the moment in my opinion Edberg was the best in 91 but I wouldn't swear) and in head-to-head, Courier led Agassi 6-3 in ATP events of the 90's (1-2 in the 80's). So I'm not sure that Agassi was ahead Courier in the only 90's (but in the 2000's Agassi's record is not far from his 90's record while Courier's 2000's record is virtually nil).

In the 2000's apparently almost everyone seems to think that the Federer-Nadal-Hewitt is the winning trio in that order.

SgtJohn
04-16-2009, 03:22 AM
Another day, another list ;)

As 'obsessedtennisfandisorder' pointed out, these decade lists are a bit unfair for players who were very good for periods like xxx8-xxx2, as it will probably be the case for Nadal, but they are still fun.

I don't have much time to go in as much details as Carlo's excellent posts, but here are a few remarks...

1870-1879 : 1. Hartley, 2. Hadow, 3. W Renshaw

As a matter of fact there were tennis events in the early 1870s before the creation of Wimbledon and of the first US tournament oragnised by Dwight, but their winners did not take part in the 'official' ones later in the decade so it is impossible to make a good comparison.
I think American players were far behind the British at this time, as Dwight's and Sears's poor showings in Britain in the 1880s would prove.
I rank Renshaw 3rd for his good showing in the 1879 season, but for this decade I'm relying on the thinnest information...

1880s : 1. W Renshaw 2. E Renshaw 3. Lawford

I agree with Carlo. It's very narrow between Ernest and Lawford though. Lawford was more steady throughout the decade, but Ernest appeared stronger in the years after his brother lost his title, and had a dominating year in 1888.

1890s : 1. Joshua Pim, 2. Wilfred Baddeley, 3. R Doherty

Pim is a no-brainer. I rank Baddeley above Doherty, because he was brilliant through most of the decade (1891-1896), though he was a bit in the shadow of Pim. Doherty won 3 Wimbledon in this decade but only had one very good year, 1899.

1900s : 1. L Doherty, 2. W.A. Larned, 3. R Doherty

The first two are obvious. It's hard to decide agains Brookes for third place, given his reputation, but the fact remains he stayed too much in his native Oceania and his 1900s record amounts to a dominating year and 3 Davis Cup victories. Reggie had one excellent year in 1900, and very good ones until 1903. Afterwards he did not play in England anymore but swept most of the European clay circuit...that is except if he had to play his brother ;)

1910s : 1. Wilding, 2. Johnston, 3. McLoughlin

I definitely rank McLoughlin well above Williams. He dominated the US circuit in 1912 and 1913, beat Brookes and Wilding in the 1914 Davis Cup (no small feat), and won the Cup in 1913.

1920s : 1. Tilden, 2. Cochet 3. Lacoste

Not too difficult for this decade. Johnston was really excellent, but very unlucky his peak coincided with Big Bill's...


I'll write the rest a bit later...

Have a nice day everyone!
Jonathan

BTURNER
04-16-2009, 03:30 AM
Women:

60's-1. Court 2. King 3.Bueno
70's-1. Evert 2.Court 3.Goolagong
80's-1. Navratilova 2.Evert 3.Graf
90's-1. Graf 2. Seles 3. Vicario(she was truly talented and had to live in the shadows of Graf and Seles during her best years)
00's-1. Serena 2.Henin 3.Venus(because she only won 2 different majors, henin won 3)

Men
60's-1.Laver 2.Pancho 3.Rosewall
70's-1.Borg 2.Connors 3.Newcombe
80's-1.Lendl 2. McEnroe 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras 2.Agassi 3.Courier
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3.Safin/Hewitt

I prefer this list. Its shows better historical perspective.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 04:52 AM
Hello Jonathan,
obsessedtennisfandisorder is right but here the point isn't to judge overall players' career. Decades are just concepts invented to make life easier.

1870-1879 : I completely agree with your remark except that I don't think Dwight was so below the British players in the 1870's. If I remember well E.C. Potter, Dwight was already declining in the 1880's so he was probably better in the 1870's than in his showings in Great Britain in the 1880's. On the British side, Spence Gore, Hadow, and even Hartley in the 1870's were nowhere near the Renshaws or Lawford in the following decade. Therefore I'm not so sure there was a huge gap between Dwight and Hartley and Hadow in the 1870's.

About RD Sears there is no doubt that at his best he was probably at the bottom of the Top10 because he reached his peak level in the 1880's and was clearly beaten by the best Britishers.

I won't contradict you about Wilfred Baddeley and RF Doherty in the 1890's especially as I made that entire list on the spot for the very first time.
Just a remark about MD Whitman very unknown and so underrated : the Dohertys were always laudatory about him and he almost always beat Larned but his career was very short : second half of the 1890's then 1900 and lastly 1902 because the USA needed a good player to compete in the Davis Cup.

About Williams and McLoughlin I probably agree with you. My list was conceived so quickly that I forgot that McLoughlin was near the top in the early 1910's before his peak years of 1913-1914.

I little disagree with you about Cochet and Lacoste : I ranked them equal because I have never compared their 20's careers. If I compare their whole careers I would rate Cochet above Lacoste (mainly because Lacoste retired early, due to his illness and his numerous other passions than tennis) but if we restrict our analysis to the 1920-1929 period I'm not sure at all that Cochet wass ahead Lacoste. Without checking anything I would even rate Lacoste ahead but I repeat without any certainty. About Johnston I don't know if I misjudge "his 20's" because he too was a obsessedtennisfandisorder's case (as Edberg, Becker, Nadal in modern times) : pretty good in the second half of the 1910's (number 1 in (at least) 1919 and possibly in 1915) and in the first half of the 1920's. You rightly said that he was unlucky to play with Tilden (but in every generation there was a very great player) nonetheless even in the 1920's, Johnston had some great wins. For instance as I've indicated in other posts he deserved a good claim as the #1 in 1922 and in 1926 he was possibly the best "Davis Cupper" in the world, trouncing Lacoste on the verge of becoming world #1 : two days later Lacoste beat (in a dead-rubber) Tilden in the same Davis Cup (the American had never previously lost a match in that event) and repeat that feat to win the US amateur and thus Jean René "Crocodile" Lacoste was considered for the first time as the #1.

And here what I think about the 1922 ranking :
This is a year which deserves to be deeply analyzed. I miss many results so my opinion can be contradicted by any new argument. But there are some points I want to raise.
At that time the Davis Cup was the biggest tennis event. In that competition Johnston was even better than Tilden. Little Bill crushed his opponents while Tilden was extended to five sets by Anderson. Comes next among the greatest events, the US Chp held at Germantown (for the men). Johnston lost his single match of the year (if I believe "Tennis and Golf") in five sets. Johnston won all the other events he entered including Seabright and the Pacific Coast Chps. In counting East-West tennis matches (those were important because they cost Johnston's selection in Davis Cup in 1924 when he was beaten by Richards), Johnston defeated Tilden 3 times out of 3. Moreover Tilden also lost that year to Richards. So if 1922 can be summarized by those facts my 1922 ranking would be 1 Johnston, 2 Tilden. Many stated that Tilden was the best but in my opinon, affirming that meant that apart from the US Chps no other tennis event counted that year and this is a conclusion that I strongly disagree. But I can accept any other argument. Myers and the New York Times (NYT) ranked Tilden best (in particular the NYT fully ignored European (and Australasian) competitions and ranked Alonso, who had a full season in the US, better than players who had earlier dominated him in Europe). Myers wrote that he thought that Tilden was intellectually superior to Johnston on a court and that made the difference for the journalist. One voice was different : Capt. H. Liddell Hart (I hope I've correctly spelt his name) in The National Review who co-ranked #1 both Bills. "Tennis and Golf" was seduced by the last proposition.

Last word : toujours un plaisir immense de discuter avec vous, Jonathan, notamment car nous acceptons sans aucun problème nos petites divergences de vues (I couldn't prevent myself to write a few words to SgtJohn in Jonathan's and my native language : here is a rough word for word translation "Always a tremendous pleasure to discuss with you, Jonathan, notably for we accept without any problem our little differences of opinion)"

SgtJohn
04-16-2009, 05:00 AM
The rest:

1930s men: 1. Perry, 2. Vines, 3. Budge

The trio will certainly be Vines-Perry-Budge. As for the order it heavily depends on how you would rank the particular years between 1934 and 1938 in a pro-am ranking. I think Budge was probably slightly above the other 2 as soon as 1937, but Vines and Perry were excellent during the whole decade. I always thought that Perry had a narrow edge over Vines when they played on separate circuit.



1940s : 1. Riggs 2. Kramer 3. Budge

Sadly, WW2 meant that Budge would have his peak years taken away from him. He was the best in 1940 and 1942, but not 1941 due to injury. In 1943 and 1944 there was hardly any tennis at all. Riggs was the top player from 1945 to 1947, and Kramer from 1948 to 1949 (they were almost on the same level in 1947).

1950s : 1. Gonzales, 2. Kramer 3.Segura

Sedgman had a very strong case too. record-wise he is equal to Segura, I put him behind because Segura tended to have the edge in their H2H.

1960s : 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall 3. Gonzales

I totally agree with Carlo.

1970s : 1. Borg, 2. Connors 3. Smith

I put Smith over Nastase and Newcombe. He easily won as much big events as any of them, plus he ended as the most likely top player in 1971 and 1972. He won the US Open 1971 and played the Wimbledon final that year, a depleted Wimbledon in 1972 but a very good PSW Los Angeles. He was runner-up at the Masters twice, and won the WCT trophy in 1973, his last good year. Add 2 Davis Cups, that were depleted overall but still featured 2nd best player in the world Nastase...

1980s : 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander

Yes, this one is pretty easy indeed.

1990s : 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi 3. Courier

Agassi was a force during most of the 90s even though he was highly inconsistent. Both him and Courier had a number 1 year, but Agassi was number 2 to Sampras twice, and don't forget his excellent 1990 year when the ATP rankings underrated him massively I think.

2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

Not much to say here. Federer/Nadal dominated the decade as nobody else except Rosewall/Laver. Hewitt was a weak number 1 but he did the job, and 2004-2005 were good years for him, he actually probably played better than in 2002...

Jonathan

crabgrass
04-16-2009, 05:04 AM
Women:

60's-1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3.King
70's-1. Evert, 2. Court, 3. King
80's-1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
90's-1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
00's-1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus

Men:

60's-1.Laver, 2.Rosewall, 3.Emerson (quite possible even had there been Open tennis this decade he wins equal or 1 or 2 more slams than an aging Gonzales)
70's-1.Borg, 2.Connors, 3.Newcombe
80's-1.McEnroe, 2. Lendl, 3.Becker
90's-1.Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
00's-1. Federer 2.Nadal 3. Hewitt

really hard to see how anyone could rate mcenroe over lendl as the top player of the 80s.
atp titles, lendl 83 mcenroe 60
atp finals, lendl 125 mcenroe 86
grand slams titles, lendl 7 mcenroe 6
grand slam finals, lendl 17 mcenroe 10
lendl was also ranked number1 for longer and led in head to head matches.
In addition lendl had 5 seasons were he won over 90% of his matches,
in 1982 he set a record for single year matchwins in the open era with 106.
In 1989 he was 1 match away from being in the final of the end of year masters for the entire decade (he lost in the semis to edberg), would of been 10 straight finals.
5 end of year masters titles, 8 us open finals, 5 french open finals winning 3.
He was ranked no.1 at some point in every year from 1983 through to 1990.

mac should be battling wilander for the 2nd spot (wilander won more slams)
but there's no way he's ahead of lendl.

SgtJohn
04-16-2009, 06:13 AM
Thanks Carlo, it's always a pleasure for me too, and as for the little disagreements, I'd say that on matters so subjective, we can only accept them... tennis rankings are not an exact science, that at least is for sure!

As for Lacoste and Cochet, you're right I dismissed Lacoste a bit quickly. At second thought, Lacoste and Cochet are awfully close in 1920-1929.

Rankings:
-Lacoste was the top player in 1926 and 1927 (though narrowly ahead of Johnston in 1926). He was number 2 in 1928, but I rank him outside the top 3 in 1929, unlike most people. He had been in the top 3 in 1925 though.
-Cochet was clearly number 1 in 1928 and 1929, and had been in the top 3 in 1926 and 27.

---> it's a tie.

Major events:
-Lacoste won 6 clearly major tournaments (Wimbledon '25 '28, French Championships '27 and '29, Forest Hills '26 '27), plus the first French Internationals in 1925, that were very depleted.
-Cochet won (French '26 and '28, Wimbledon '27 '29, Forest Hills '28) plus the World Claycourt Championships in 1922, not a real Major event.
-they were both runner-ups twice in big events (Cochet at the Olympics '24 and Wimbledon '28, Lacoste at the French '26 and '28.

--->Slight advantage Lacoste.

Davis Cup:
-Lacoste took part in 2 wins, but Cochet to 3 (in the 20s). Cochet won both his singles twice, but Lacoste only once. We should note that Lacoste took part in unsuccessful, but admirable campagins in 1924 and 1925, when Cochet was not yet in the team. Still...

---->Advantage Cochet.

Significant tournaments: (by my count at least, there might be more)
-Lacoste: French indoors 1924-25, Cannes 1925, US Indoors 1926, British Hardcourt 1927-8
-Cochet: Cannes 1922, 1926-9, Monte-Carlo 1928-9, PSW Los Angeles 1928, Berlin 1929

---->Slight advantage Cochet.

Overall I stand by my ranking, but by the most narrow of margins as you see...


As for Johnston in 1922, thank you for these details! I agree this is one of the most difficult years to rank, but I usually choose Tilden. I find it very hard not to choose a player who won both the best individual tournament in the world (Forest Hills) and the Davis Cup (even though he was not the best performer in the team). Actually I feel that I don't know enough on this year to really rank them. I have a list of tournament winners and draws for the majors, but that's it. I would like to know how Tilden did in all these tournaments won by Johnston : was he in the draw at all? was he the runner-up? did he often lose early? and have a sense of their respective win-loss record...

Jonathan

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 06:29 AM
really hard to see how anyone could rate mcenroe over lendl as the top player of the 80s.


Lendl was awfully unpopular whereas Mac's was (and is) almost everyone's idol but I totally concur with you. Lendl was ahead of Mac without any doubt in the 80's and also if we consider their whole careers.

Here is an extract of what I wrote in another thread about Mac (compared to Lendl (and Borg and Connors)):

...McEnroe who was #1 "only" 3 years and except in 1984 Mac (who however didn't win Roland) wasn't a great player on clay. Yes McEnroe mourned Borg in 1982 but nonetheless McEnroe had no answer to Lendl's artillery : even though Borg hadn't retired in 1982 McEnroe would have endlessly lost to Lendl that year (1982). McEnroe wasn't in the same league as Borg and even Connors and Lendl. When Mac faced Borg he rivalled the Swede only on medium and fast courts but never on slow courts as clay. And Borg's record in great events is largely superior to Mac's. Once Lendl beat Mac in the US Open final in 1985, John never came close to Lendl after that very deciding match. And Connors has a much more impressive record in the Slam tournaments : Jimbo played many more finals, semifinals and quarterfinals than Mac in those very great events. Some will say that Mac won many Davis Cup events but who did he beat ? Never the very great : he didn't face Borg, he lost to Lendl in straight sets in the 1981 edition and he lost to Becker in 1987 (Mac beat Wilander in 1982 but at that time Wilander couldn't beat anyone on a fast surface, even baby Leconte beat easily Wilander in Stockholm though Henri's game suited Wilander so well as future meetings demonstrated; and Mac once again beat Wilander in 1984 but in a dead rubber and Mac lost the match which really counted to Sundström). So Mac's record in the Davis Cup is much less impressive than many think.
I admit that at his very best Mac was superior to Connors at his very best : one of the best example would be their 1984 US Open semifinal when both probably played one of their most impressive match with Mac winning in five sets : the first 3 games of the decisive set making the little difference between them. I also think that Mac was better than Björn on fast courts (though I'm not so sure now, see for instance Borg's performance at the Sydney Akai event in 1982) but certainly not on clay : the best Borg in 1977-1980 would have almost certainly beat "Mac Forest Hills-Düsseldorf-Roland Garros 1984". At last the very best Lendl was probably as good if not superior to the best Mac on outdoor hard courts and on indoor supreme court. On clay their 1984 Roland Garros final is a good example : Mac had a weak VO2 max and couldn't beat Lendl in five while he would have beat Ivan in a best of three set match (as he had done at Forest Hills and at Düsseldorf). And even on grass Lendl in 1989 (Wimby) or 1990 (Queen's) was not so far from the best Mac (Wimby 1983-1984).
So in conclusion Mac was a great player but he is overrated because he was so popular (due to his horrible manners on the court (and off) which unfortunately made the spectacle : a man who has a tantrum on a court attracts the public's interest). If you compare Lendl's achievements with Mac's you will see that Lendl was probably superior to Mac but the problem was that Lendl wasn't the most pleasant person, he came from an Eastern Republic which was hated during the cold war by the Occident, hadn't much humour on court (off court he had a sort of black humour), had a bad reputation since Connors referred to Lendl as "chicken" because Lendl blatantly tanked to Connors in the Masters 1980 (played in January 1981) to avoid facing Björn Borg. And even if Mac wasn't a cute sexy boy, Lendl wasn't at all whereas Borg in his young days had much sex appeal.
So in almost every match he played Lendl was the outcast while Mac was watched because many expected a spectacular rage to add spice to the matches. This explains why Lendl is so underrated while Mac is overrated.
However I recognize that Mac's great play was very often ignored. How many times have I heard the public commenting Mac's outbursts but never talking about his superb game ? Too many.

hoodjem
04-16-2009, 06:35 AM
1950s: 1)Gonzales 2)Kramer 3)Rosewall
1960s: 1)Laver 2)Rosewall 3)Gonzales/Emerson
1970s: 1)Borg 2)Connors 3)Rosewall/Newcombe
1980s: 1)Lendl 2)McEnroe 3)Wilander/Becker
1990s: 1)Sampras 2)Agassi 3)Edberg
2000s: 1)Federer 2)Nadal 3)Hewitt

crabgrass
04-16-2009, 07:01 AM
Lendl was awfully unpopular whereas Mac's was (and is) almost everyone's idol but I totally concur with you. Lendl was ahead of Mac without any doubt in the 80's and also if we consider their whole careers.

Here is an extract of what I wrote in another thread about Mac (compared to Lendl (and Borg and Connors)):

...McEnroe who was #1 "only" 3 years and except in 1984 Mac (who however didn't win Roland) wasn't a great player on clay. Yes McEnroe mourned Borg in 1982 but nonetheless McEnroe had no answer to Lendl's artillery : even though Borg hadn't retired in 1982 McEnroe would have endlessly lost to Lendl that year (1982). McEnroe wasn't in the same league as Borg and even Connors and Lendl. When Mac faced Borg he rivalled the Swede only on medium and fast courts but never on slow courts as clay. And Borg's record in great events is largely superior to Mac's. Once Lendl beat Mac in the US Open final in 1985, John never came close to Lendl after that very deciding match. And Connors has a much more impressive record in the Slam tournaments : Jimbo played many more finals, semifinals and quarterfinals than Mac in those very great events. Some will say that Mac won many Davis Cup events but who did he beat ? Never the very great : he didn't face Borg, he lost to Lendl in straight sets in the 1981 edition and he lost to Becker in 1987 (Mac beat Wilander in 1982 but at that time Wilander couldn't beat anyone on a fast surface, even baby Leconte beat easily Wilander in Stockholm though Henri's game suited Wilander so well as future meetings demonstrated; and Mac once again beat Wilander in 1984 but in a dead rubber and Mac lost the match which really counted to Sundström). So Mac's record in the Davis Cup is much less impressive than many think.
I admit that at his very best Mac was superior to Connors at his very best : one of the best example would be their 1984 US Open semifinal when both probably played one of their most impressive match with Mac winning in five sets : the first 3 games of the decisive set making the little difference between them. I also think that Mac was better than Björn on fast courts (though I'm not so sure now, see for instance Borg's performance at the Sydney Akai event in 1982) but certainly not on clay : the best Borg in 1977-1980 would have almost certainly beat "Mac Forest Hills-Düsseldorf-Roland Garros 1984". At last the very best Lendl was probably as good if not superior to the best Mac on outdoor hard courts and on indoor supreme court. On clay their 1984 Roland Garros final is a good example : Mac had a weak VO2 max and couldn't beat Lendl in five while he would have beat Ivan in a best of three set match (as he had done at Forest Hills and at Düsseldorf). And even on grass Lendl in 1989 (Wimby) or 1990 (Queen's) was not so far from the best Mac (Wimby 1983-1984).
So in conclusion Mac was a great player but he is overrated because he was so popular (due to his horrible manners on the court (and off) which unfortunately made the spectacle : a man who has a tantrum on a court attracts the public's interest). If you compare Lendl's achievements with Mac's you will see that Lendl was probably superior to Mac but the problem was that Lendl wasn't the most pleasant person, he came from an Eastern Republic which was hated during the cold war by the Occident, hadn't much humour on court (off court he had a sort of black humour), had a bad reputation since Connors referred to Lendl as "chicken" because Lendl blatantly tanked to Connors in the Masters 1980 (played in January 1981) to avoid facing Björn Borg. And even if Mac wasn't a cute sexy boy, Lendl wasn't at all whereas Borg in his young days had much sex appeal.
So in almost every match he played Lendl was the outcast while Mac was watched because many expected a spectacular rage to add spice to the matches. This explains why Lendl is so underrated while Mac is overrated.
However I recognize that Mac's great play was very often ignored. How many times have I heard the public commenting Mac's outbursts but never talking about his superb game ? Too many.

not sure about mcenroe being everyones idol, ive met plenty who can't stand him.......regardless, when rating a player popularity shouldnt really be a factor...otherwise agassi would rate above sampras, kournikova above davenport etc.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 07:18 AM
Next answer to SgtJohn

About the 30’s I think we have to agree to disagree about Vines (whom I consider superior to Perry from 1934 to 1938 except in 1936 when Vines didn’t play the whole summer (about 6 months) because he was injured and the first quality of a sportsman is to be strong and healthy.

About the 50’s I’ve completely and wrongly forgotten Sedgman. I can’t decide between Segura and Sedgman for the 2th place but I still think that Kramer is behind them because from 1954 to 1957 I only rank him in the Top20 outside the Top10 (except perhaps in 54 and 57) because he played too little each year (except in 1957) and in 1958-1959 I’m not even sure he was in the Top20. Kramer was only a very top player from 1950 to 1953 whereas Segura and Sedgman were very close to the top each year of that decade.

About the 70’s my thinking hasn’t much changed after your new post (but I rate Smith higher since I read your arguments a few minutes ago) because Smith had a huge decline after 1974 (mainly due to his injuries) and he, even more than Newcombe, wasn’t a great claycourter. He never reached the quarters of a major on clay except the Italian in 71 (but even there missed Rosewall and Nastase among the top claycourters) (he also reached the quarters at Roland in 71 but it wasn’t a true major because 16 of the 32 WCT players were missing). Smith’s only great performance on clay was his defeat of Nastase in Bucharest in the Davis Cup 72 (and eventually in the Davis Cup 71 but this time Smith was favoured by playing on his home ground and besides Nastase has never been a great “Davis Cupper”). So Smith had a poor record on clay and therefore wasn’t as versatile as Nastase. This combined with the fact that Nasty was close to the top until 1976-1977 while Smith quit it after 1974, makes me think that Nasty was slightly superior (however I keep in the back of my mind your opinion which one day will perhaps change mine).
And though Smith won the US Open and reached the Wimbledon final in 1971 I have been convinced at 90% by jeffrey's arguments that Smith wasn't the #1 in 1971 (as I thought before) but that Laver was #1, Rosewall #2 and Smith only #3, because even in my system of ranking,(which differs from his), jeffrey obtained that same order for the first three at last.

About the 1990’s I don’t know too if I will change my opinion but I’m a little seduced by your arguments.
In 1990 Agassi was probably #3 or #2 in my opinion, behind Edberg and more or less tied with Lendl. And most of the specialists ranked these players in the same order, Becker being placed #4 (Not remembering the ATP rankings I’ve just seen that Agassi was only #4 while Becker was possibly overrated at #2).

Thanks for your detailed analysis of the Lacoste-Cochet feats in the 20’s.

Here are the (incomplete but however wonderful) results that Károly (Elegos7) gave me about events where either Johnston or Tilden played in 1922 and his own ranking as well (he too placed Tilden first). For instance Tilden played the US Clay Courts the same week as Wimbledon ended. Below are also the US doubles champs won by Tilden (and Richards).
One remark the dates are not the ending dates but the Sundays of the week of play:

1922
Apr 2 1922
Middle States Indoor Championship, Philadelphia USA (I): Vinnie Richards (USA) - Bill Tilden (USA) 2-6 6-1 6-4
East-West tennis matches, Berkeley USA (H):
Bill Johnston (USA) – Bill Tilden (USA) 2-6 6-4 7-5 5-7 6-3
May 14 1922
Pacific Coast Championships, Berkeley USA (H):
Bill Johnston (USA) - Bill Tilden (USA) 7-5 7-9 6-1 6-0
Helen Wills (USA) - Leachman (USA) 6-1 6-0
May 28 1922
Philadelphia USA (G): Bill Tilden (USA) – Wallace Johnson (USA) 2-6 2-6 6-4 6-2 6-3
Jul 9 1922
US Clay Court Championships, Indianapolis (C): Bill Tilden (USA) - Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) 7-5 6-3 6-1
Jul 16 1922
Rhode Island State Championships, Providence USA (G):
Bill Tilden (USA) - Vinnie Richards (USA) 6-3 6-1 6-0
Leslie Bancroft (USA) – Helen Wills (USA) 4-6 6-4 6-3
Jul 23 1922
Longwood Bowl, Boston USA (G): Bill Tilden (USA) - Dick Williams (USA) 6-1 8-6 5-7 6-0
Newport Women’s Invitational, Newport USA (G): Leslie Bancroft (USA) – Helen Wills (USA) 6-3 6-4
Aug 6 1922
Seabright USA (G):
Bill Johnston (USA) - Dick Williams (USA) 6-0 6-2 6-3
Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (USA) – Leslie Bancroft (USA) 6-1 6-2
Aug 20 1922
Newport Casino USA (G): Bill Johnston (USA) – Hugh Kelleher (USA) 6-1 6-3 6-2
Aug 27 1922
US Doubles Championship, Boston USA (G):
D: V. Richards (USA) / B. Tilden (USA) – P. O’Hara Wood (AUS) / G. Patterson (AUS) 4-6 6-1 6-3 6-4
North of England Championships, Scarborough GBR (G):
Gordon Lowe (GBR) – Randolph Lycett (GBR) 6-2 5-7 7-9 6-1 6-2
Kitty McKane (GBR) - Elizabeth Ryan (USA) 6-2 6-2
Sep 3 1922
Davis Cup Challenge Round, USA - ANZ 4-1, New York USA (G):
Bill Tilden (USA) - Gerald Patterson (ANZ) 7-5 10-8 6-0
Bill Johnston (USA) - James Anderson (ANZ) 6-1 6-2 6-3
D: P. O’Hara Wood (AUS) / G. Patterson (AUS) - V. Richards (USA) / B. Tilden (USA) 6-4 6-0 6-3
Bill Johnston (USA) - Gerald Patterson (ANZ) 6-2 6-2 6-1
(Bill Tilden (USA) - James Anderson (ANZ) 6-4 5-7 3-6 6-4 6-2)
Sep 17 1922
US Championships (gentlemen), Philadelphia USA (G):
4: Bill Tilden (USA) - Pat O’Hara Wood (AUS) 6-2 6-3 6-2
Q: Bill Johnston (USA) - Manuel Alonso (ESP) 6-0 6-2 7-5
Q: Vinnie Richards (USA) - James Anderson (AUS) 6-4 6-2 7-5
Q: Gerald Patterson (AUS) - Dick Williams (USA) 6-3 6-3 6-4
S: Bill Tilden (USA) - Gerald Patterson (AUS) 4-6 6-4 6-3 6-1
S: Bill Johnston (USA) - Vinnie Richards (USA) 8-6 6-2 6-1
F: Bill Tilden (USA) - Bill Johnston (USA) 4-6 3-6 6-2 6-3 6-4
Sep 24 1922
East-West tennis matches, Forest Hills, NY USA (G):
Bill Johnston (USA) – Bill Tilden (USA) 6-3 4-6 8-6 6-0
Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (USA) - Mary Browne (USA) 6-3 6-3

Rankings:
Tilden and Johnston are practically equal. 1st Tilden won their US Champs encounter, but lost to 2nd Johnston 3 times. 3rd is Richards ahead of 4th Patterson (as opposed to Myers), as Richards beat 5th Anderson comfortably, while Patterson lost to him in Australia (a result that Myers did not take into account) and could barely beat him at Wimbledon. The remaining places are occupied by Williams, Cochet and German champ Froitzheim (who could still beat the leading Spanish players in Barcelona). Kingscote is just outside, he played little but was only beaten by Patterson. Professionals Darsonval (next year he lost to Cochet) and Rendall are not good enough to be included.
After Lenglen and Mallory I place 3rd US2 Bancroft who always beat 4th US3 Wills, although the former is not on Myers’ list. Then I follow Myers and award the next four places to McKane, Mrs Beamish, Mrs Paecock and Ryan. Mary Browne played only at two tournaments at the end of Sep and was not ranked in the USA (although she played very well against Mrs Mallory). Mrs Molesworth who won the inaugural women ANZ title, was not dominant in Australia (lost the NSW final) and is outside the Top8.

Arafel
04-16-2009, 08:07 AM
Doesn't anybody think maybe Vilas should be #3 for the 70s? He won four Slams on two different surfaces (clay and grass), and also made three more Slam finals in that decade, losing two to Borg and one to Tanner.

hewittboy
04-16-2009, 10:09 AM
wrong thread.

Borgforever
04-16-2009, 03:59 PM
Great discussions between Sgt John and Carlo. Just great, detailed and well-reasoned posts by both -- while I very much respect both views -- and I concur with Sgt John and Carlo on their lists except in two instances:

30s 1) Vines 2) Perry 3) Budge -- which is Carlo's view but not Sgt Johns and:

70s 1) "Burken" 2) "Belleville Basher" 3) "Newk" -- why Newk and not the excellent choices Smith and "Nasty"?

Well, as I see it, Newk is a genius and one of the strongest match-players ever during his peak. Growing up in the total eclipse of the greatness of Rodman and Kenny -- he battled on and won Wimby twice against supremely competitive opponents in extremely tough five-setters and being one of the best doubles players ever. And Newk was robbed of several Wimby-starts to increase his records during the turmoil that was the Pro scene in the 70s. To cap it off for me was Newk's 1974. Being the No. 1 guy on the WCT-circuit he lost two draining battles at Wimby and US Open that clearly for me drained Kenny's batteries in the coming finals against Jimbo.

And I also think he under-performed at Wimby and USO 1974 -- these circumstances paved the way for Jimbo's great success. And Newk, the spring-No. 1, and Jimbo, the summer and fall No. 1 never met H2H until their AO-final on January 1st 1975 (which to me counts as the last match of 1974 -- when it was broadcast live to USA it was in fact in the evening of December 31st 1974 -- their only match-up that strange year.

Newk had the toughest road to the GS-final at Kooyong that I've heard about. So many grueling five-setters and even doubles matches in just one week (the last week of 1974) that logically Newk should've lost that final against Jimbo simply out of fatigue. Newk had no memories of the last set against Roche the day before that's how flattened he had become (add to that that Newk only had ten days prep before the tourney and his achievement is simply beyond anything)...

Newk faces a Jimbo who has won three straight GS-titles in 1974 on grass and had a win-loss record that was just a shade lower than Mac's of 1984.

And Newk, the man who lost twice to the finalist that Jimbo crushed at Wimby and USO (Rosewall), beat the "invincible" Jimbo in one of the finest matches I've seen. Amazing.

So many "clutch"-moments by Newk at important stages he's got to be my 70s third guy.

Smith and Nastase -- very good choices also...

Borgforever
04-16-2009, 04:04 PM
Carlo -- just a thought -- as stated may times here before -- Tilden was so amazingly dominant in the early 20s -- how come (in your opinion) Johnston suddenly could reach Tilden's level in 1922?

pc1
04-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Great discussions between Sgt John and Carlo. Just great, detailed and well-reasoned posts by both -- while I very much respect both views -- and I concur with Sgt John and Carlo on their lists except in two instances:

30s 1) Vines 2) Perry 3) Budge -- which is Carlo's view but not Sgt Johns and:

70s 1) "Burken" 2) "Belleville Basher" 3) "Newk" -- why Newk and not the excellent choices Smith and "Nasty"?

Well, as I see it, Newk is a genius and one of the strongest match-players ever during his peak. Growing up in the total eclipse of the greatness of Rodman and Kenny -- he battled on and won Wimby twice against supremely competitive opponents in extremely tough five-setters and being one of the best doubles players ever. And Newk was robbed of several Wimby-starts to increase his records during the turmoil that was the Pro scene in the 70s. To cap it off for me was Newk's 1974. Being the No. 1 guy on the WCT-circuit he lost two draining battles at Wimby and US Open that clearly for me drained Kenny's batteries in the coming finals against Jimbo.

And I also think he under-performed at Wimby and USO 1974 -- these circumstances paved the way for Jimbo's great success. And Newk, the spring-No. 1, and Jimbo, the summer and fall No. 1 never met H2H until their AO-final on January 1st 1975 (which to me counts as the last match of 1974 -- when it was broadcast live to USA it was in fact in the evening of December 31st 1974 -- their only match-up that strange year.

Newk had the toughest road to the GS-final at Kooyong that I've heard about. So many grueling five-setters and even doubles matches in just one week (the last week of 1974) that logically Newk should've lost that final against Jimbo simply out of fatigue. Newk had no memories of the last set against Roche the day before that's how flattened he had become (add to that that Newk only had ten days prep before the tourney and his achievement is simply beyond anything)...

Newk faces a Jimbo who has won three straight GS-titles in 1974 on grass and had a win-loss record that was just a shade lower than Mac's of 1984.

And Newk, the man who lost twice to the finalist that Jimbo crushed at Wimby and USO (Rosewall), beat the "invincible" Jimbo in one of the finest matches I've seen. Amazing.

So many "clutch"-moments by Newk at important stages he's got to be my 70s third guy.

Smith and Nastase -- very good choices also...

Newk had a presence about him that made you think that he owned the court. It's always been interesting to me that while Newk didn't win too many tournaments in 1973, I believe he did win two majors, the Australian and the U.S. Open. Newcombe played a young (but great) Jimmy Connors in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open that year and won 6-4 7-6 7-6 on just one service break of Connors the entire match. Connors, despite his awesome service return did not break Newcombe once! The two tiebreaks went to 4-4 and whoever won the next point would win the set and Newcombe won both crucial points. The third set tiebreak had a simultaneous match and set point for both players. The match was of extremely high quality.

Another super clutch performance that year was his defeat of Stan Smith in the Davis Cup final opening match. It went to five sets and Smith, if I recall correctly had a break and match point against him in the last set in the ad court. Newcombe, as he often did on big points, moved well over into the alley to show Smith that he was going to belt his forehand if at all possible. I think this may have psyched Smith as he went for it on second serve and double faulted the match away. Of course Australian won the Davis Cup. Newcombe was just a big match player.

He won five majors in the 1970's including two Wimbledons.

Not that it means anything but I think it's a shame how forgotten Newcombe is nowadays. The guy had a serve comparable to Sampras, a great volley, stamina and a forehand that could compare to anyone.

CEvertFan
04-16-2009, 08:28 PM
1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Evert, 2.Court, 3. King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Evert, 3. Graf (only because Graf only really dominated from 87-89 whereas Evert was at #1 or #2 for most of the entire decade - 7 years > 3years - I'll acknowledge that one could argue for Graf at #2 because of the 1988 Grand Slam)
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker/Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg/Courier
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

NadalandFedererfan
04-16-2009, 08:31 PM
1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson or Gonzales
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong or King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Nastase
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Nadal, 2. Federer, 3. Hewitt

CEvertFan
04-16-2009, 08:35 PM
1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson or Gonzales
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong or King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Nastase
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Nadal, 2. Federer, 3. Hewitt


LOL Nadal over Federer at this point in time? Not likely. How many weeks at #1? How many majors? Enough said. Nadal can't come close to matching what Federer did this decade. He might in the next decade though.

NadalandFedererfan
04-16-2009, 08:43 PM
LOL Nadal over Federer at this point in time? Not likely. How many weeks at #1? How many majors? Enough said. Nadal can't come close to matching what Federer did this decade. He might in the next decade though.

It is pretty simple for me. Nadal's ownership of Federer is so extreme, during a long time period they were #1 and #2 in the world (despite Nadal being ranked #2 the majority of the time) that I just cant consider Federer better than Nadal. I am a big fan of both, but it is how I see it. Anyway the decade isnt over yet. Nadal certainly will win more slams before the decade is done, Federer will not.

9 slams and the Calender Slam, dominant head to head vs biggest rival > 13 slams and no French Open, terrible head to head vs biggest rival

CEvertFan
04-16-2009, 08:50 PM
It is pretty simple for me. Nadal's ownership of Federer is so extreme, during a long time period they were #1 and #2 in the world (despite Nadal being ranked #2 the majority of the time) that I just cant consider Federer better than Nadal. I am a big fan of both, but it is how I see it. Anyway the decade isnt over yet. Nadal certainly will win more slams before the decade is done, Federer will not.

9 slams and the Calender Slam, dominant head to head vs biggest rival > 13 slams and no French Open, terrible head to head vs biggest rival

Nadal would need to win the calendar Grand Slam this year to even be in contention because this is the last year of the decade, next year is 2010 which is the first year of a brand new decade. Just because he has a winning record over Federer doesn't mean as much as you make it out to be, considering that most of those wins are on clay and Nadal is well on his way to being the all time GOAT on clay. Federer is on the decline right now which is why Nadal has started winning on hard and grass against Federer but that still doesn't make him better. The younger player is always eventually going to start dominating the older player.

NadalandFedererfan
04-16-2009, 08:57 PM
Nadal would need to win the calendar Grand Slam this year to even be in contention because this is the last year of the decade, next year is 2010 which is the first year of a brand new decade. Just because he has a winning record over Federer doesn't mean as much as you make it out to be, considering that most of those wins are on clay and Nadal is well on his way to being the all time GOAT on clay. Federer is on the decline right now which is why Nadal has started winning on hard and grass against Federer but that still doesn't make him better. The younger player is always eventually going to start dominating the older player.

Give me a break on the age thing. Federer is only 27 now. He has been in the last 4 slam finals so would have won the non calender slam the last year without Nadal. Federer certainly did not have the age disadvantage when he was losing multiple times to a teenage Nadal on both clay and hard courts from 2004-2006.

Even if you exclude clay their head to head is almost tied. When you exclude one players best surface, one player worst, and you still have a virtual tie it is clear who has the edge. Not to mention the fact Federer has most of his wins over Nadal on non-clay surfaces from 2004-2006 when Nadal wasnt nearly as good a player non non-clay surfaces yet. Lets say outdoor hard courts are the most neutral surface for them to meet on. Nadal is 3-1, Federer's only win he was on the verge of a 3 straight sets loss, and Nadal even beat him when he was only 17 years old and a nobody on tour in 2004.

Nadal will win the Calendar Slam this year. You can mark my words and come back to this thread in September if you wish, but it will happen.

Borgforever
04-16-2009, 09:01 PM
Newk had a presence about him that made you think that he owned the court. It's always been interesting to me that while Newk didn't win too many tournaments in 1973, I believe he did win two majors, the Australian and the U.S. Open. Newcombe played a young (but great) Jimmy Connors in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open that year and won 6-4 7-6 7-6 on just one service break of Connors the entire match. Connors, despite his awesome service return did not break Newcombe once! The two tiebreaks went to 4-4 and whoever won the next point would win the set and Newcombe won both crucial points. The third set tiebreak had a simultaneous match and set point for both players. The match was of extremely high quality.

Another super clutch performance that year was his defeat of Stan Smith in the Davis Cup final opening match. It went to five sets and Smith, if I recall correctly had a break and match point against him in the last set in the ad court. Newcombe, as he often did on big points, moved well over into the alley to show Smith that he was going to belt his forehand if at all possible. I think this may have psyched Smith as he went for it on second serve and double faulted the match away. Of course Australian won the Davis Cup. Newcombe was just a big match player.

He won five majors in the 1970's including two Wimbledons.

Not that it means anything but I think it's a shame how forgotten Newcombe is nowadays. The guy had a serve comparable to Sampras, a great volley, stamina and a forehand that could compare to anyone.

I fully agree. Newcombe has my highest respect and I continually find (for me) new interesting matches to watch of him. That first serve of his is just amazing -- and that second serve as well...

He could even slay with his BH -- at important stages of a match -- like that instant return BH-winner he just rips on set-point in the third in the AO-final of 1975.

Very, very inspiring and sensational player to watch. Although I rank him lower than Björn, Pancho and Rod -- he's just as great a competitor as they are in my eyes...

CEvertFan
04-16-2009, 09:04 PM
Even if you exclude clay their head to head is almost tied.

Enough said.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-16-2009, 11:44 PM
Hello gentlemen,

Jonathan I've slightly edited the previous post to indicate that I don't think anymore that Smith was #1 in 1971 (but #3 behind Rod and Kenny).

Borgforever and pc1,
there are several reasons why I don't choose Newk as 3rd player of the 70's (Nastase being my choice) :
as I've said before in my mind he was never the #1 in a calendar year. His mental strength could be very strong as you've stated (and it is very well explained in his own book "Newk" published in 2002 where he indicated all his thinkings during some of his great matches) except against Laver. When I was young many told me that the champion of the early 70's was Newcombe but when I've discovered his record on the ATP Website I was so disappointed by his so numerous defeats even at his peak and when I found that even in the 70's he trailed Laver, the latter being past his peak I couldn't believe it.

In the long term Newk hadn't a great mental strength : he was a sort of Agassi (but I recognize not so low, far from that) with many downs. The really first one came at the US Open 1971 when he injured in the doubles. He didn't go to the doctor and therefore played badly until the spring in 1972 and then he told to his countrymen (I don't remember who but there were two, it's written in "Newk") that he wanted to retire. They answered that he behaved like a coward. So Newk got to the doctor, was healed and came back and in a few weeks won the Vegas tournament and reached 8th place just to qualify for the WCT Finals.
And next year after the Wimbledon disaster he wanted again to retire but this time this is his wife who told him to think about it and after a night Newk once again decided to come back, then he won the US Open, beat Smith in Davis Cup, apparently one of the best matches of the year, but lost to Hrebec (and Sakai in the spring), won the WCT Finals but as he was to reach the #1 spot at the end of the year he didn't win either Wimby or Forest and let the 1st place to Jimbo. Yes he beat Connors superbly in the Australian 1975 but it was an ordinary tournament with only two players among the Top20 (but it is true that those two players were the best two) : I will be hard but except Connors, Newk and Rochey there was no one in that tourney (this is why I don't rate Newk's win from Connors as high as Ashe's win at Wimbledon final).
And once again Newk decided to quietly retired though he was only 30 years old. This time it was the good one (he sort of played for the pleasure afterwards).

About 1973 I won't say he has won two majors. The US Open no doubt it was the only event in the year where all the players came but the Australian Open was so weak : only Rosewall and Newcombe of the Top20 (as in 1972), no Smith, no Nastase, no Laver, no Ashe, no Richey, no Drysdale, no Okker, no Gimeno, no Lutz, no Riessen, no Orantes, no Gorman, no Hewitt, no Connors, no ..., so in my mind Newk has won only 4 majors (2 Wimby, 1 US, 1 WCT).

This is why I don't rate him as high as both of you.

But it is completely true that he had superb 1st and 2nd services (probably the most beautiful service movement of the 70's) very effective, a great forehand, and a great forehand volley (and with Rochey one of the greatest doubles in tennis history).

And it is also clear that his 5th set in the 1970 Wimby final and his come back in the 1971 Wimby final were pure masterpieces. And Newk was also popular because he had much sex-appeal especially since he let his moustache grow late in 1970.

About Tilden and Johnston :
apparently Johnston reached his peak in 1922 and even in June-July 1923 when he won the World Hard Court Chps in Saint-Cloud (next to Paris) and then Wimbledon (Tilden didn't play in Europe). If I believe EC Potter in World Tennis then Johnston came back to the US apparently tired by his European journey and didn't play as well in the US as in Europe so Tilden (besides not tired by a European expedition) won easily enough the US Champs in 1923.
If I also believe AW Myers, Tilden had immensely improved between his 1923 US final and his 1924 US final : at the time Myers (and apparently others as possibly Brookes) and all the witnesses of that last match considered that no one had played as well as Tilden in that 1924 final.
So in conclusion between 1919 and mid-1923 Johnston and Tilden seemed to be quite equal but since 1924, Tilden probably "flew in the sky" while Johnston steadily declined (as apparently proved by his loss to Richards in the East-West matches in 1924).

pc1
04-17-2009, 04:05 AM
Hello gentlemen,

Jonathan I've slightly edited the previous post to indicate that I don't think anymore that Smith was #1 in 1971 (but #3 behind Rod and Kenny).

Borgforever and pc1,
there are several reasons why I don't choose Newk as 3rd player of the 70's (Nastase being my choice) :
as I've said before in my mind he was never the #1 in a calendar year. His mental strength could be very strong as you've stated (and it is very well explained in his own book "Newk" published in 2002 where he indicated all his thinkings during some of his great matches) except against Laver. When I was young many told me that the champion of the early 70's was Newcombe but when I've discovered his record on the ATP Website I was so disappointed by his so numerous defeats even at his peak and when I found that even in the 70's he trailed Laver, the latter being past his peak I couldn't believe it.

In the long term Newk hadn't a great mental strength : he was a sort of Agassi (but I recognize not so low, far from that) with many downs. The really first one came at the US Open 1971 when he injured in the doubles. He didn't go to the doctor and therefore played badly until the spring in 1972 and then he told to his countrymen (I don't remember who but there were two, it's written in "Newk") that he wanted to retire. They answered that he behaved like a coward. So Newk got to the doctor, was healed and came back and in a few weeks won the Vegas tournament and reached 8th place just to qualify for the WCT Finals.
And next year after the Wimbledon disaster he wanted again to retire but this time this is his wife who told him to think about it and after a night Newk once again decided to come back, then he won the US Open, beat Smith in Davis Cup, apparently one of the best matches of the year, but lost to Hrebec (and Sakai in the spring), won the WCT Finals but as he was to reach the #1 spot at the end of the year he didn't win either Wimby or Forest and let the 1st place to Jimbo. Yes he beat Connors superbly in the Australian 1975 but it was an ordinary tournament with only two players among the Top20 (but it is true that those two players were the best two) : I will be hard but except Connors, Newk and Rochey there was no one in that tourney (this is why I don't rate Newk's win from Connors as high as Ashe's win at Wimbledon final).
And once again Newk decided to quietly retired though he was only 30 years old. This time it was the good one (he sort of played for the pleasure afterwards).

About 1973 I won't say he has won two majors. The US Open no doubt it was the only event in the year where all the players came but the Australian Open was so weak : only Rosewall and Newcombe of the Top20 (as in 1972), no Smith, no Nastase, no Laver, no Ashe, no Richey, no Drysdale, no Okker, no Gimeno, no Lutz, no Riessen, no Orantes, no Gorman, no Hewitt, no Connors, no ..., so in my mind Newk has won only 4 majors (2 Wimby, 1 US, 1 WCT).

This is why I don't rate him as high as both of you.

But it is completely true that he had superb 1st and 2nd services (probably the most beautiful service movement of the 70's) very effective, a great forehand, and a great forehand volley (and with Rochey one of the greatest doubles in tennis history).

And it is also clear that his 5th set in the 1970 Wimby final and his come back in the 1971 Wimby final were pure masterpieces. And Newk was also popular because he had much sex-appeal especially since he let his moustache grow late in 1970.

About Tilden and Johnston :
apparently Johnston reached his peak in 1922 and even in June-July 1923 when he won the World Hard Court Chps in Saint-Cloud (next to Paris) and then Wimbledon (Tilden didn't play in Europe). If I believe EC Potter in World Tennis then Johnston came back to the US apparently tired by his European journey and didn't play as well in the US as in Europe so Tilden (besides not tired by a European expedition) won easily enough the US Champs in 1923.
If I also believe AW Myers, Tilden had immensely improved between his 1923 US final and his 1924 US final : at the time Myers (and apparently others as possibly Brookes) and all the witnesses of that last match considered that no one had played as well as Tilden in that 1924 final.
So in conclusion between 1919 and mid-1923 Johnston and Tilden seemed to be quite equal but since 1924, Tilden probably "flew in the sky" while Johnston steadily declined (as apparently proved by his loss to Richards in the East-West matches in 1924).

Carlo my friend, I didn't pick Newcombe as the third best player of the 1970's. Frankly I'm not sure who it is yet because I haven't studied all the possibilities. Nastase is one, Newcombe, Smith, Rosewall and Ashe are also possibilities among others. Clearly Connors and Borg are the top two.

Since Borgforever mentioned Newcombe I thought it gave me the opportunity to discuss him. I always found him to be an interesting player in his ability to rise to the occasion for one match but very boring to watch overall. However I respected Newcombe's ability.

You may very well be correct about his inability to commit himself to tennis. The best form I have ever seem for Newcombe was from the 1973 U.S. Open to about the middle of 1974 in which he probably was the best player in the world. Winning the WCT in those days was probably considered a better accomplishment than winning the Australian. But that, aside from his amazing 1975 Australian win over Connors was really his last harrah as a top player.

I don't think Newcombe had the talent of a Nastase, Hoad, Laver and I believe his doubles partner Tony Roche but he got a lot out of his talent, which was a lot. But I think you are correct, he could have done more.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-17-2009, 05:10 AM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

You should have Edberg and Wilander as nr 2 or 3 on the 80s men and 90s men.

thalivest
04-17-2009, 05:23 AM
You should have Edberg and Wilander as nr 2 or 3 on the 80s men and 90s men.

Wilander wouldnt even be on the radar screen for the 90s men. He achieved nothing in the 90s. He wouldnt even be in the top 30 men of the 90s. The 80s maybe.

Edberg's accomplishments were split over 2 decades, 3 slam titles in the 80s and 90s each. Thus he couldnt be in the top 3 for the 80s with what Lendl, Mcenroe, Wilander, and Becker achieved. The 90s maybe.

pc1
04-17-2009, 06:03 AM
Wilander wouldnt even be on the radar screen for the 90s men. He achieved nothing in the 90s. He wouldnt even be in the top 30 men of the 90s. The 80s maybe.

Edberg's accomplishments were split over 2 decades, 3 slam titles in the 80s and 90s each. Thus he couldnt be in the top 3 for the 80s with what Lendl, Mcenroe, Wilander, and Becker achieved. The 90s maybe.

I was surprised Edberg declined so rapidly in the mid 1990's. If you had to pick a player up to the mid 1990's, he was up there with Sampras.

He was still fairly young when he won the U.S. Open over Sampras and you would have figured he was good for at least one more major, perhaps several more.

jean pierre
04-18-2009, 01:27 AM
Doesn't anybody think maybe Vilas should be #3 for the 70s? He won four Slams on two different surfaces (clay and grass), and also made three more Slam finals in that decade, losing two to Borg and one to Tanner.

Absolutely ! Vilas is n°3 for the 70's.

DunlopDood
04-19-2009, 06:15 PM
Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

I think you may have made a mistake, shouldn't it read 1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Courier ?

droliver
04-19-2009, 06:32 PM
The consideration of Edberg, who kind of straddles the mid 80's-90's got me thinking. Just for fun, let's change the periods to

1975-85
1985-95
1995-05+

boredone3456
04-19-2009, 06:38 PM
The consideration of Edberg, who kind of straddles the mid 80's-90's got me thinking. Just for fun, let's change the periods to

1975-85
1985-95
1995-05+

I like Edberg but by changing the times to accomodate for one player could possibly hurt other players chances, now I dunno off the top of my head whether it does but I say leave it the way it is. You can't pick times to make every player in history fit, wish you could but its not possible.

droliver
04-19-2009, 06:57 PM
Well, as any 10 year period is kind of arbitrary, shifting to mid decade changes your perspective. I think the 1985 break is kind of interesting as that kind of represents the modern raquet and power game era being thrust upon tennis. I think Becker's 1985 wimbledon is kind of a symbolic genesis of contemporary tennis. Lendl & Wilander kind of get the short stick with this time period breakdown I'd think.

Just for fun.

1975-1985
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. McEnroe

1985-1995
1. Becker
2. Edberg
3. Courier vs. Lendl(?)

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-20-2009, 12:26 AM
... The best form I have ever seem for Newcombe was from the 1973 U.S. Open to about the middle of 1974 in which he probably was the best player in the world. Winning the WCT in those days was probably considered a better accomplishment than winning the Australian. But that, aside from his amazing 1975 Australian win over Connors was really his last harrah as a top player. ...

Absolutely right. If we have to choose 12 months in a row as "July 1973 - June 1974" Newcombe was absolutely the best player of that period (and for once I agree the usually bad ATP ranking of the time who rightly ranked "Newk" n°1 in June 1974). But if we get back to calendar years, he was #2 in 1973 and probably in 1974.

crabgrass
04-20-2009, 02:30 AM
Well, as any 10 year period is kind of arbitrary, shifting to mid decade changes your perspective. I think the 1985 break is kind of interesting as that kind of represents the modern raquet and power game era being thrust upon tennis. I think Becker's 1985 wimbledon is kind of a symbolic genesis of contemporary tennis. Lendl & Wilander kind of get the short stick with this time period breakdown I'd think.

Just for fun.

1975-1985
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. McEnroe

1985-1995
1. Becker
2. Edberg
3. Courier vs. Lendl(?)

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

actually lendl would still be the clear number 1 for the 85-95 period also,
7 slam titles, 13 slam finals and something like 250 weeks at number1 leaves everyone else way behind.

grafselesfan
04-23-2009, 06:20 PM
1975-1985
1. Borg
2. McEnroe
3. Connors

No way Connors is over McEnroe eliminating his 3 slam year in 1974, and keeping the span of all McEnroe's real achievements. They are close enough as it is.

1985-1995
1. Lendl
2. Edberg
3. Becker

Removing 1 Frenchie in no way would put Edberg or Becker over Lendl, the true dominant player of 85-87, something Becker and Edberg never were to that extent let alone for 3 consecutive years. Removing 1 hard court slam from Becker (96 Australian Open) would make it an easier call between him and Edberg as Edberg's record is now much more blanced.

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

I guess I go with Federer over Agassi as Agassi's Wimbledon title was not in this span and even though only 6 of Federer 13 majors are that matches Agassi's 6 in this span, and Federer dominated in a way Agassi never did during 2004-2005.

1975-1985

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Austin

Evert loses alot less just removing 1974 and her pre-slam very good years than Navratilova does removing 86, 87, and her historic 1990 Wimbledon. Mandlikova loses 1 major and is now definitely enough to put Austin even with 2 slam titles to Hana 3 slam title over her now since she was a #1 player who did better vs Chris and Martina than Hana ever did. Heck I might put Tracy over Hana even as it is, although not as sure as I am when removing Hana's 87 Australian Open and 2nd Wimbledon final in 1986.

1985-1995

1. Graf
2. Seles
3. Navratilova

These seem pretty straightforward. Seles's won 8 of her 9 slams during this period, Navratilova 7 of her 18. Navratilova's most dominant years were 1982, 1983, and 1984, not included in this period.

1995-2005

1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Henin

Graf dominated completely 1995 and 1996. Serena dominated only 2002 the same degree. Serena's longevity aided more by weak competition rather than sustained excellence of play doesnt impress me all that much. JMO though. I almost want to rank Henin over Serena too but cant really.