PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Top 10 Male Singles Players (A sensible list)


Chopin
06-05-2009, 05:09 PM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.

Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.

EDIT: Hey guys, I know that I told some of you to listen to the Revolutionary Etude (fits your posting moods well) but I've reconsidered and decided that you'd be better off listening to the Waltz in C-Sharp Minor as you view this thread. It might relax some of you guys. I would post my own recording, but I suspect many of you aficionados would be quite critical, and I know how much you guys like the old timers, so here's The Man playing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WpDH5zbhIk

zagor
06-05-2009, 05:21 PM
I think there's no way Agassi should be ahead of Borg and Laver for starters and this is coming from someone who likes Dre's game.

Steve132
06-05-2009, 05:35 PM
I think there's no way Agassi should be ahead of Borg and Laver for starters and this is coming from someone who likes Dre's game.

I agree. Agassi, for all his achievements, never dominated the game the way that Borg and Laver did.

Lendl is also rated too low - he was a formidable competitor for most of the 80's.

Datacipher
06-05-2009, 06:03 PM
Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.

One has to love how troll boy got thrashed so soundly by other posters in his "Laver" thread that he ended up having to put his tail between his cowardly legs and beg people not to take him seriously...but then can't help but put in another bitter cheap shot in yet another troll thread. So pathetic, but hilarious!

zagor
06-05-2009, 06:45 PM
I agree. Agassi, for all his achievements, never dominated the game the way that Borg and Laver did.

Lendl is also rated too low - he was a formidable competitor for most of the 80's.

Agree,I would put Lendl ahead of Agassi,Mac and Connors.The guy was amazingly consistant week in week out and had much tougher competition(IMO)than both Fed and Sampras.People seems to have a knack for underrating Lendl all the time from what I've seen.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 06:46 PM
One has to love how troll boy got thrashed so soundly by other posters in his "Laver" thread that he ended up having to put his tail between his cowardly legs and beg people not to take him seriously...but then can't help but put in another bitter cheap shot in yet another troll thread. So pathetic, but hilarious!

Here, let me help you clear up your misconceptions.

1) I didn't start the Laver thread, someone else did. It was not "my" Laver thread.

2) I didn't tell anyone to not take me seriously, I suggested that they were taking themselves and the GOAT question too seriously. When one guy told me, "this isn't about tennis" and to "do the decent thing" I deduced (correctly) that some people we're taking it too seriously--not to mention I received a barrage of personal insults for suggesting that Laver is no GOAT. I noticed you referring to me as "pathetic" in your post--seems a little harsh in a discussion of Rod Laver's greatness playing tennis. Hmm...

3) It's no troll thread. It's a legitimate GOAT list. I know many posters would rate Laver ahead of Borg, but I think the guy is way over-rated (as many other posters are suggesting). Besides, it's not that radical to put him at #4. Take a poll of the tennis world and most will rate Laver behind Federer & Sampras, at the least.

Game, set, & match.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Agree,I would put Lendl ahead of Agassi,Mac and Connors.The guy was amazingly consistant week in week out and had much tougher competition(IMO)than both Fed and Sampras.People seems to have a knack for underrating Lendl all the time from what I've seen.

Where would Lendl be on your list? (I'm asking out of genuine curiosity).

egn
06-05-2009, 06:51 PM
even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.


Really..This is ridiculous and absurd you can not even back this up. Your excuse is height...do not make statements that you can not factually back up.


Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher).


Once again you show you lack complete knowledge of tennis history. During the 50s and 60s the best players on the tours were unable to play the slam which explains why Laver won 11 with a 7 year gap. There were equivalent majors that can be taken into account and various other factors as in who dominated the pro tour during this decade. Also it should be taken into account that the Australian Open was skipped by many top competitors such as Connors, Borg, McEnroe etc. for a duration of the mid to late 70s and early 80s and there were times in the late 70s that there we considered to be 3 majors by Borg and that many did not venture to Australia. Borg himself only would venture to Australia requiring he won the first three in the year as he did not deem it worthy and would only do it for tradition sake. Considering the Australian Open was the last slam and was played in a very awkward time late December right around Christmas. Also it must be noted there was points when players such as Connors and Borg were banned from playing the French Open due to contracts with organizations such as World Team Tennis. So although we like to use slams to judge modern players now there are players who came from a time when standards were different. A lot of other factors are important such as titles, records against other top players, weeks and years at number 1 and domination of the tour that need to be taken into account. For example Lendl was a far stronger player than Agassi and although lacking Wimbledon lost it to very tough grass players. He also held a stranglehold on the tour that was similar to Federer in regards and lost out on possibly a slam when the Australian Open was canceled in 86. Lendl also dominated Connors, McEnroe at points in time and the three all should be ahead of Agassi, they all dominated the tour and were stronger more consistent players in my opinion. Although Agassi has the career slam it more saves him from being pushed into the Wilander, Becker, Edberg range than vaults him ahead of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. Agassi spent a ton of time being inconsistent and his last few Australian Opens came against fields that were in so much confusion. It was a time with aging greats like himself and Sampras, upcoming yet still inconsistent players in Hewitt, Safin, JCF and Federer and a tour with a clay court specialist leading the way in Kureten and a time when Thomas Johansson would even win a slam. While if you look at Connors, McEnroe and Lendl they were beating up tons of top players including themselves for slams having to compete with guys like Borg, Wilander, Becker and Edberg for their slams along with strong guys like Cash, Mecir and Vilas. The 80s was one tough decade.

Also you left out guys like Pancho and Tilden which I guess is understandable as it is hard to rank them, but it is weird to rank Rosewell so low considering he won a slam in the 50s and the 70s and dominated on the pro tour all the time in between. The guy had a 20+ top tier career. That is definitely valuable any era.

zagor
06-05-2009, 07:00 PM
Where would Lendl be on your list? (I'm asking out curiosity, not to be a jerk).

Well I don't know enough about pre open era tennis(although I have been reading more about it in the last few months,I lurk here in former pro section from time to time) to really form a GOAT list but as I said for me Lendl is definitely ahead of Agassi,Mcenroe and Connors on the best ever list,I think he has accomplished more than any of them.

I also can't decide whether Borg is ahead of Sampras or not on the GOAT list.I mean Borg did some of the most amazing things in tennis ever,to dominate 2 surfaces which where then complete polar opposities to such extent never fails to amaze me.It's a true testament to his versality and adaptability as a player.Even though the guy is known as a baseliner to most people,that is very false,the guy was a true all-courter who played a lot of S&V at Wimbledon.He also did way better at his worst slam-USO(3 finals) than Pete ever did at his-FO(one SF).

As for Fed,I'll wait until he finishes his career to compare his achievements to other greats who are long retired.People on this board seem to either put him on a pedestal or really take a **** on his achievements depending on how well the Fed is doing at the moment.

Chopin
06-05-2009, 07:06 PM
Really..This is ridiculous and absurd you can not even back this up. Your excuse is height...do not make statements that you can not factually back up.



Once again you show you lack complete knowledge of tennis history. During the 50s and 60s the best players on the tours were unable to play the slam which explains why Laver won 11 with a 7 year gap. There were equivalent majors that can be taken into account and various other factors as in who dominated the pro tour during this decade. Also it should be taken into account that the Australian Open was skipped by many top competitors such as Connors, Borg, McEnroe etc. for a duration of the mid to late 70s and early 80s and there were times in the late 70s that there we considered to be 3 majors by Borg and that many did not venture to Australia. Borg himself only would venture to Australia requiring he won the first three in the year as he did not deem it worthy and would only do it for tradition sake. Considering the Australian Open was the last slam and was played in a very awkward time late December right around Christmas. Also it must be noted there was points when players such as Connors and Borg were banned from playing the French Open due to contracts with organizations such as World Team Tennis. So although we like to use slams to judge modern players now there are players who came from a time when standards were different. A lot of other factors are important such as titles, records against other top players, weeks and years at number 1 and domination of the tour that need to be taken into account. For example Lendl was a far stronger player than Agassi and although lacking Wimbledon lost it to very tough grass players. He also held a stranglehold on the tour that was similar to Federer in regards and lost out on possibly a slam when the Australian Open was canceled in 86. Lendl also dominated Connors, McEnroe at points in time and the three all should be ahead of Agassi, they all dominated the tour and were stronger more consistent players in my opinion. Although Agassi has the career slam it more saves him from being pushed into the Wilander, Becker, Edberg range than vaults him ahead of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. Agassi spent a ton of time being inconsistent and his last few Australian Opens came against fields that were in so much confusion. It was a time with aging greats like himself and Sampras, upcoming yet still inconsistent players in Hewitt, Safin, JCF and Federer and a tour with a clay court specialist leading the way in Kureten and a time when Thomas Johansson would even win a slam. While if you look at Connors, McEnroe and Lendl they were beating up tons of top players including themselves for slams having to compete with guys like Borg, Wilander, Becker and Edberg for their slams along with strong guys like Cash, Mecir and Vilas. The 80s was one tough decade.

Also you left out guys like Pancho and Tilden which I guess is understandable as it is hard to rank them, but it is weird to rank Rosewell so low considering he won a slam in the 50s and the 70s and dominated on the pro tour all the time in between. The guy had a 20+ top tier career. That is definitely valuable any era.

The problem is that it's absolutely impossible to weigh how a player would have done if they had competed in a slam if he was unable, or unwilling to play in it. Absolutely impossible. That's completely out of my criteria.

And Agassi won slams late in his career due to high level of play, not due to a lack of competition. If anything, Agassi should be given more credit for the amazing longevity of his career in the modern game. Competition has only gone up and up in tennis and the reasons have nothing to do with the talent of a few at the top of the game, but instead due to tennis exploding into a global game with billions of dollars of infrastructure.

I don't have time to respond to your post in length, but I will point out that the older generations universally acknowledges that tennis is tougher today than ever before. Every guy acknowledges it, right down to the most arrogant ones like Mac and Connors. Personally, I think these guys understand the game better than TW historians.

kimbahpnam
06-05-2009, 07:11 PM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.

Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.


Where would Nadal rank?

Chopin
06-05-2009, 07:12 PM
Where would Nadal rank?

Too early to say.

egn
06-05-2009, 07:14 PM
The problem is that it's absolutely impossible to weigh how a player would have done if they had competed in a slam if he was unable, or unwilling to play in it. Absolutely impossible. That's completely out of my criteria.

And Agassi won slams late in his career due to high level of play, not due to a lack of competition. If anything, Agassi should be given more credit for the amazing longevity of his career in the modern game. Competition has only gone up and up in tennis and the reasons have nothing to do with the talent of a few at the top of the game, but instead due to tennis exploding into a global game with billions of dollars of infrastructure.

I don't have time to respond to your post in length, but I will point out that the older generations universally acknowledges that tennis is tougher today than ever before. Every guy acknowledges it, right down to the most arrogant ones like Mac and Connors. Personally, I think these guys understand the game better than TW historians.

However at the same time guys like Sampras have called Laver the greatest of all time...so how would that rank?

Chopin
06-05-2009, 07:22 PM
However at the same time guys like Sampras have called Laver the greatest of all time...so how would that rank?

I know he admires Laver, but I've never heard him say that. I honestly don't think that's Sampras opinion at the moment. I truly thought that the last time he spoke about it he said it was between him and Roger.

I know for a fact that Federer, while saying there is no such thing as GOAT, has said that things were different in Laver's era and that Pete and him are really the frontrunners.

380pistol
06-05-2009, 10:28 PM
I know he admires Laver, but I've never heard him say that. I honestly don't think that's Sampras opinion at the moment. I truly thought that the last time he spoke about it he said it was between him and Roger.

I know for a fact that Federer, while saying there is no such thing as GOAT, has said that things were different in Laver's era and that Pete and him are really the frontrunners.

No, Sampras has said Laver is the best to him. Now he's more diplomatic saying Laver, himslf, Federer and Borg, and "it's hard to say", but Pete has said Laver is the best ever.

tonyg11
06-05-2009, 11:01 PM
i like your list. I have no problem with you putting Agassi 3rd. You could shuffle Agassi from 3rd to 6th and it you could make an argument for him being in any of those positions.

Pete and Andre played in what could easily be considered the strongest era of tennis ever. Not to mention you could argue that Agassi's career spanned 3 different eras. His longevity, his growth as a player into his 30s, his ups and downs, his career golden slam with the Olympic gold medal and his influence on the game of tennis could easily be arguments for him being 3rd

I don’t know anyone who could do what Andre did. He could have retired in 93 with his wrist injury and surgery, or in 96 with personal problems and further injuries. Both times he came back strong. He came back and improved as a player at an age when most pros consider retirement. That is something Borg couldn’t do and something I doubt Sampras, Federer or Nadal could do. He brought the human element to the game of tennis. Something Sampras couldn’t do and something Federer could never do even if he wins 20 grand slams.

Even though his career was side by side with someone that could be argued as the GOAT, you could argue that Agassi did more for tennis than Sampras.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-05-2009, 11:02 PM
No, Sampras has said Laver is the best to him. Now he's more diplomatic saying Laver, himslf, Federer and Borg, and "it's hard to say", but Pete has said Laver is the best ever. And Laver said Fed is the best ever.

Cesc Fabregas
06-05-2009, 11:20 PM
And Laver said Fed is the best ever.

Laver said Pete is the best ever.

380pistol
06-05-2009, 11:24 PM
Laver said Pete is the best ever.

And Billie Jean King cosigned it.

nfor304
06-06-2009, 03:54 AM
I very much doubt that any of the players you mentioned would beat Laver "soundly and routinely".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

Connors doesnt seem to be beating him very soundly here, despite the fact laver is in his late 30s.

McEnroe, Llendl and Connors always had very close matches and both held their own against young Sampras and Agassi when they first appeared on tour and would have matched up well with them if their career peaks coincided.

To say Laver would have been beaten "Soundly and Rountinely" is very disrespectful and ignorant of Lavers abilities and accomplishments.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 04:40 AM
I like the Nocturnes best.

Rubinstein is the GOAT.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 04:47 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 04:50 AM
Nice list GSF. Don't overlook Lendl. He's a contender.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 04:58 AM
Nice list GSF. Don't overlook Lendl. He's a contender.

Yeah for sure. I have a hard time picking picking between him and Connors. I think both are above McEnroe though as much as I respect McEnroe's talent.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 06:39 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors

Good list.

egn
06-06-2009, 06:49 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors

A bit harsh on Fed. If he wins the French he will have 14 slams and a career slam losing record against Nadal or not he definitely deserves a higher position than you have him at as Pancho himself was never good on clay and has a losing record against Laver career wise..Tilden is hard to rate and Budge as well but you can't make any claim for Sampras and Borg being ahead and than find a way to turn it around and use it against Federer. Federer had the dominant years, will have than tied the slam record, has the longest string of good performances in a slam and holds the record for longest consecutive number 1 period. Let alone he will have done what Borg and Sampras failed to do win a slam on all the major surfaces. If your only claim to holding Fed at 8 is his losing record against Nadal that is a weak one. He is definitely not number 1 but he definitely deserves at least a top 5 spot. Just my argument to the matter.

Also where is Fed without the French? And I hope as you being a Graf fan than don't have Graf 1 on the female GOAT list as if anyone was more lucky than Fed it was clearly Graf.

CEvertFan
06-06-2009, 07:10 AM
A bit harsh on Fed. If he wins the French he will have 14 slams and a career slam losing record against Nadal or not he definitely deserves a higher position than you have him at as Pancho himself was never good on clay and has a losing record against Laver career wise..Tilden is hard to rate and Budge as well but you can't make any claim for Sampras and Borg being ahead and than find a way to turn it around and use it against Federer. Federer had the dominant years, will have than tied the slam record, has the longest string of good performances in a slam and holds the record for longest consecutive number 1 period. Let alone he will have done what Borg and Sampras failed to do win a slam on all the major surfaces. If your only claim to holding Fed at 8 is his losing record against Nadal that is a weak one. He is definitely not number 1 but he definitely deserves at least a top 5 spot. Just my argument to the matter.

Also where is Fed without the French? And I hope as you being a Graf fan than don't have Graf 1 on the female GOAT list as if anyone was more lucky than Fed it was clearly Graf.

I'd have to agree. Winning the French would definitely put Federer past Borg and Sampras IMO and even if he doesn't win the French tomorrow he still should be in the top 5. Sampras or Borg never dominated like he did for so long.

Arafel
06-06-2009, 08:11 AM
Yeah for sure. I have a hard time picking picking between him and Connors. I think both are above McEnroe though as much as I respect McEnroe's talent.

I agree Connors is ahead of McEnroe, and I put him ahead of Lendl for winning Slams on three surfaces (grass, clay and hard) and for beating Lendl in the two Slam finals they played each other in when Connors was 30 and 31. Lendl really didn't get the upper hand on Connors until he was 33, well past his prime, but still good enough that he could go far in Slam tournaments.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 09:01 AM
I like the Nocturnes best.

Rubinstein is the GOAT.

Yeah, I thought the nocturnes might put some people in a gloomy mood though, and they'd start weeping because Laver is #4 on my list. :-)

Chopin
06-06-2009, 09:04 AM
No, Sampras has said Laver is the best to him. Now he's more diplomatic saying Laver, himslf, Federer and Borg, and "it's hard to say", but Pete has said Laver is the best ever.

Interesting, it looks like he's qualified it. Let's wait until after the French (if Federer wins it) and we'll see what Sampras has to say. I suspect that lots of people will be bothering him about Fed's career slam. Wouldn't you put Sampras and Federer in the top 3?

egn
06-06-2009, 09:19 AM
Interesting, it looks like he's qualified it. Let's wait until after the French (if Federer wins it) and we'll see what Sampras has to say. I suspect that lots of people will be bothering him about Fed's career slam. Wouldn't you put Sampras and Federer in the top 3?

Cases can be made for both it all is how you look at it. I find myself constantly readjusting my list but both are always in my top 7 which consists of usually Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Gonzales, Rosewell and Tilden in no specific order.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 09:25 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=266050

380pistol
06-06-2009, 09:53 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors

I'd have Pancho over Rosewall, Federer a bit higher (irregardless of French Open), but that's just my opinion.

380pistol
06-06-2009, 09:57 AM
Interesting, it looks like he's qualified it. Let's wait until after the French (if Federer wins it) and we'll see what Sampras has to say. I suspect that lots of people will be bothering him about Fed's career slam. Wouldn't you put Sampras and Federer in the top 3?

I don't know what Sampras will say we'll have to wait and see. He said Laver, and more recently Laver, himself Borg and Federer.

Would I have Sampras and Federer in my top 3?? I don't know. I have (in order of appearance) Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer definitely in my top 10. But the order I don't know as there are so many variables to look at.

Some I don't know other than what I've read, and others have holes on their resumes. It's not that simple. But Sampras and Federer are both in running from where I stand.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Yeah for sure. I have a hard time picking picking between him and Connors. I think both are above McEnroe though as much as I respect McEnroe's talent.

Why do you "hate" Federer? It seems odd to be a "proud Federer hater for life," no? I think Laver is over-rated but I certainly don't hate him.

urban
06-06-2009, 10:39 AM
I am very reluctant to participate on this thread. This scientology thing bothers me. To me, those Fedfans with their Fed is God and religious experience **** reminds me more of some religious groups. On New York times online is a good article as usual by Christopher Clarey, who examines the goat talk and the evaluating problems quite precise. Gilbert is cited with his notion, that the pre open era players didn't even know the majors numbers record (then held by Tilden, who stayed amateur for the best years of his career), let alone went after it. The examples of Gonzales and Hoad are mentioned, all time players with only 6 majors combined. That all makes the number game quite problematic.If Federer wins RG, we will certainly see several articles by new press writers, who don't know nothing about the history of the game of tennis. Thank God (allow me that little religious reference), that by the books of McCauley, Sutter and others, and by some internet collaborations by people like Andrew Tas (especially thanks), Carlo or Jeffrey we know more about the real facts of the tennis 'dark age', the pro era before 1968. So all people should be very careful and do a little research for themselves (not only on wikipedia), before they are hailing the next new goat every next month.

DonBudge
06-06-2009, 11:13 AM
I am very reluctant to participate on this thread. This scientology thing bothers me. To me, those Fedfans with their Fed is God and religious experience **** reminds me more of some religious groups. On New York times online is a good article as usual by Christopher Clarey, who examines the goat talk and the evaluting problems quite precise. Gilbert is cited with his notion, that the pre open era players didn't even know the majors numbers record (then held by Tilden, who stayed amateur for the best years of his career), let alone went after it. The examples of Gonzales and Hoad are mentioned, all time players with only 6 majors combined. That all makes the number game quite problematic.If Federer wins RG, we will certainly see several articles by new press writers, who don't know nothing about the hsitory of the game of tennis. Thank God (allow me that little religious reference), that by the books of McCauley, Sutter and others, and by some internet collaborations by people like Andrew Tas (especially thanks), Carlo or Jeffrey we know more about the real facts of the tennis 'dark age', the pro era before 1968. So all people should be very careful and do a little research for themselves (not only on wikipedia), before they are hailing the next new goat every next month.

Very high class post.
About this thread: CRAP.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 11:21 AM
A bit harsh on Fed. If he wins the French he will have 14 slams and a career slam losing record against Nadal or not he definitely deserves a higher position than you have him at as Pancho himself was never good on clay and has a losing record against Laver career wise..Tilden is hard to rate and Budge as well but you can't make any claim for Sampras and Borg being ahead and than find a way to turn it around and use it against Federer. Federer had the dominant years, will have than tied the slam record, has the longest string of good performances in a slam and holds the record for longest consecutive number 1 period. Let alone he will have done what Borg and Sampras failed to do win a slam on all the major surfaces. If your only claim to holding Fed at 8 is his losing record against Nadal that is a weak one. He is definitely not number 1 but he definitely deserves at least a top 5 spot. Just my argument to the matter.

Also where is Fed without the French? And I hope as you being a Graf fan than don't have Graf 1 on the female GOAT list as if anyone was more lucky than Fed it was clearly Graf.

Right now I rate Federer #12 behind all of Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe. If he wins the French he will leapfrog all those to #8. Fine I will ask you then, where do you have Federer now, and behind and ahead of whom exactly, and where would you have him if he wins the French. Would you even have him #2 behind Laver or #3 behind Laver and Rosewall in this case? It sure sounds like it.

While this is off topic in a mens thread since you asked yes I do have Graf as the #1 women player all time. Why should I feel there is anything wrong with just because I am a Graf fan, as many do have her the #1 player all time anyway:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=226893&highlight=greatest+women

I supposed you will say those are all biased Graf fans now, LOL! Granted this is just TW World but amongst experts almost all have she or Navratilova as the greatest women player ever. Evert is the consensus 3rd but very few have her ahead of either of them.

boredone3456
06-06-2009, 11:26 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors

Thats a better list than the OP's, though I would put Fed a bit higher, probably around 5 or 6 right now if he wins the French. The OP's list was way off, Agassi should not have been 3rd, Laver was way to low, and Fed is not number 1 even if he wins the french, at least in my opinion. This list is much better.

CyBorg
06-06-2009, 11:28 AM
I am very reluctant to participate on this thread. This scientology thing bothers me. To me, those Fedfans with their Fed is God and religious experience **** reminds me more of some religious groups. On New York times online is a good article as usual by Christopher Clarey, who examines the goat talk and the evaluating problems quite precise. Gilbert is cited with his notion, that the pre open era players didn't even know the majors numbers record (then held by Tilden, who stayed amateur for the best years of his career), let alone went after it. The examples of Gonzales and Hoad are mentioned, all time players with only 6 majors combined. That all makes the number game quite problematic.If Federer wins RG, we will certainly see several articles by new press writers, who don't know nothing about the history of the game of tennis. Thank God (allow me that little religious reference), that by the books of McCauley, Sutter and others, and by some internet collaborations by people like Andrew Tas (especially thanks), Carlo or Jeffrey we know more about the real facts of the tennis 'dark age', the pro era before 1968. So all people should be very careful and do a little research for themselves (not only on wikipedia), before they are hailing the next new goat every next month.

*gasp* But it's "sensible"! ;)

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 11:29 AM
Thats a better list than the OP's, though I would put Fed a bit higher, probably around 5 or 6 right now if he wins the French. The OP's list was way off, Agassi should not have been 3rd, Laver was way to low, and Fed is not number 1 even if he wins the french, at least in my opinion. This list is much better.

I like Agassi but he is clearly below guys like Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe. He was never dominant like they were, not as consistent as they were, his peak play doesnt compare to McEnroe's especialy, and Connors even surpasses his longevity while Lendl approaches it.

boredone3456
06-06-2009, 11:33 AM
I like Agassi but he is clearly below guys like Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe. He was never dominant like they were, not as consistent as they were, his peak play doesnt compare to McEnroe's especialy, and Connors even surpasses his longevity while Lendl approaches it.

I agree, in terms of players I have grown up playing and watching, Agassi is by far my favorite, but in all honesty the highest i would put him all time is 11. I like him, but I am not about to overinflate him. Connors and Mac were far more consistant and dominant in their best years and across their careers, Lendl makes up for his shortcomings with sheer volume of slam finals as well as longevity. Pete, Laver, Pancho Tilden, Fed and Budge are just higher, and I would say Rosewall is to.

egn
06-06-2009, 11:57 AM
Right now I rate Federer #12 behind all of Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe. If he wins the French he will leapfrog all those to #8. Fine I will ask you then, where do you have Federer now, and behind and ahead of whom exactly, and where would you have him if he wins the French. Would you even have him #2 behind Laver or #3 behind Laver and Rosewall in this case? It sure sounds like it.

While this is off topic in a mens thread since you asked yes I do have Graf as the #1 women player all time. Why should I feel there is anything wrong with just because I am a Graf fan, as many do have her the #1 player all time anyway:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=226893&highlight=greatest+women

I supposed you will say those are all biased Graf fans now, LOL! Granted this is just TW World but amongst experts almost all have she or Navratilova as the greatest women player ever. Evert is the consensus 3rd but very few have her ahead of either of them.

Fed currently is up in the air on my list I actually took a bit of reworking in my list a month or two ago originally I had Fed 6 and Sampras 7 but right now I have moved both of them up so currently I have Fed 5 with Laver, Pancho, Borg and Rosewell ahead of him and Tilden rounding out my top 7 at 7. If Fed wins the French I feel he leapfrogs Rosewell and Borg at chance..(though my opinion on this is bound to change and he might remain right where he is) even with a losing record against his main rival for the following reasons. Rosewell had a losing record against Laver and Borg was on the verge of falling under Mac and quit too early. I still have him behind Laver and Pancho though. I have him ahead of Sampras due to dominance, consistency and being stronger on all the surfaces. I will not say all Graf fans are biased I am just not sure what is your case for Graf being 1 and Fed being 12? That is quite absurd behind Connors, Mac and Lendl? Lendl has the worst slam finals record and only 8, Connors could not beat any of his main rivals of Lendl, Mac and Borg and only has 8 slams sure he hit all the surfaces but green clay plays much more like a slow hardcourt than clay and McEnroe has only 7 slams and was very inconsistent and had only 2 real dominant seasons 1984 and 1981. 1981 itself was not nearly as strong as 84 or any of Fed's 3 best seasons. I am not sure how you can justify any of these players being ahead of Fed as Fed has more slams, more accomplishments, better results on all the surfaces and longer periods of dominance with more convincing dominant seasons than any of those 3. The where Fed falls between Sampras and Borg is clearly up in the air but Fed is definitely more accomplished and deserves to be ahead of Mac, Connors and Lendl that would be putting Fed in the same pool with Wilander, Edberg and Becker in essence..Fed winning the French will tops be 3

On the topic of Graf I have her second to Martina for the whole Seles reason.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 12:50 PM
I am very reluctant to participate on this thread. This scientology thing bothers me. To me, those Fedfans with their Fed is God and religious experience **** reminds me more of some religious groups. On New York times online is a good article as usual by Christopher Clarey, who examines the goat talk and the evaluating problems quite precise. Gilbert is cited with his notion, that the pre open era players didn't even know the majors numbers record (then held by Tilden, who stayed amateur for the best years of his career), let alone went after it. The examples of Gonzales and Hoad are mentioned, all time players with only 6 majors combined. That all makes the number game quite problematic.If Federer wins RG, we will certainly see several articles by new press writers, who don't know nothing about the history of the game of tennis. Thank God (allow me that little religious reference), that by the books of McCauley, Sutter and others, and by some internet collaborations by people like Andrew Tas (especially thanks), Carlo or Jeffrey we know more about the real facts of the tennis 'dark age', the pro era before 1968. So all people should be very careful and do a little research for themselves (not only on wikipedia), before they are hailing the next new goat every next month.

Yes, they are certainly other factors to be considered, not just total slams.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 01:32 PM
I am very reluctant to participate on this thread. This scientology thing bothers me. To me, those Fedfans with their Fed is God and religious experience **** reminds me more of some religious groups. On New York times online is a good article as usual by Christopher Clarey, who examines the goat talk and the evaluating problems quite precise. Gilbert is cited with his notion, that the pre open era players didn't even know the majors numbers record (then held by Tilden, who stayed amateur for the best years of his career), let alone went after it. The examples of Gonzales and Hoad are mentioned, all time players with only 6 majors combined. That all makes the number game quite problematic.If Federer wins RG, we will certainly see several articles by new press writers, who don't know nothing about the history of the game of tennis. Thank God (allow me that little religious reference), that by the books of McCauley, Sutter and others, and by some internet collaborations by people like Andrew Tas (especially thanks), Carlo or Jeffrey we know more about the real facts of the tennis 'dark age', the pro era before 1968. So all people should be very careful and do a little research for themselves (not only on wikipedia), before they are hailing the next new goat every next month.

To be fair, I'm not sure this is about hailing the next new GOAT every month. Federer stands on the brink of history. Whether you guys like it or not, the tennis world at large is going to anoint Federer as the GOAT after tomorrow if he wins (I suspect that this will include the vast majority of past greats, commentators, coaches, insiders, fans ect.). It'll really only be on message boards like this where people will have him at #8 (come on).

Datacipher
06-06-2009, 01:34 PM
Here, let me help you clear up your misconceptions.

1) I didn't start the Laver thread, someone else did. It was not "my" Laver thread.

2) I didn't tell anyone to not take me seriously, I suggested that they were taking themselves and the GOAT question too seriously. When one guy told me, "this isn't about tennis" and to "do the decent thing" I deduced (correctly) that some people we're taking it too seriously--not to mention I received a barrage of personal insults for suggesting that Laver is no GOAT. I noticed you referring to me as "pathetic" in your post--seems a little harsh in a discussion of Rod Laver's greatness playing tennis. Hmm...

3) It's no troll thread. It's a legitimate GOAT list. I know many posters would rate Laver ahead of Borg, but I think the guy is way over-rated (as many other posters are suggesting). Besides, it's not that radical to put him at #4. Take a poll of the tennis world and most will rate Laver behind Federer & Sampras, at the least.

Game, set, & match.

Don't be absurd. I'm not one of the bumpkins off the turnip wagon, so prevalent here. I KNOW what you are and what you are doing. You can't "win" against me. However, as evidenced by the multitude of replies you've received, you are indeed owning the forum. Still, between you and me, as you well know, this is like saying you are the master of manipulating a kindergarten class! Oh well, have fun!

Chopin
06-06-2009, 01:42 PM
Don't be absurd. I'm not one of the bumpkins off the turnip wagon, so prevalent here. I KNOW what you are and what you are doing. You can't "win" against me. However, as evidenced by the multitude of replies you've received, you are indeed owning the forum. Still, between you and me, as you well know, this is like saying you are the master of manipulating a kindergarten class! Oh well, have fun!

This is hilarious. What am I and what am I doing? My GOAT list is quite legitimate (others have agreed with it). Many feel that Agassi is ranked too high (a legitimate argument) and that Lendl is too low (fine), but I still stand by it. You're never going to have a list that pleases everyone. Considering how much Borg dominated the game, I don't think it's unreasonable to place him at #3 either...

Yes, it is a humorous jive in posting the Chopin waltz with the thread, but I'm trying to get posters to lighten up a little bit and not approach the GOAT debate with more hot & angry feelings than they bring to a debate about the scope of the First Amendment's protection. Once again, given the topic of conversation and the medium through which it's taking place, it seems juvenile for you to refer to me as "pathetic" in one of your posts.

Datacipher
06-06-2009, 03:11 PM
This is hilarious. What am I and what am I doing? My GOAT list is quite legitimate (others have agreed with it). Many feel that Agassi is ranked too high (a legitimate argument) and that Lendl is too low (fine), but I still stand by it. You're never going to have a list that pleases everyone. Considering how much Borg dominated the game, I don't think it's unreasonable to place him at #3 either...

Yes, it is a humorous jive in posting the Chopin waltz with the thread, but I'm trying to get posters to lighten up a little bit and not approach the GOAT debate with more hot & angry feelings than they bring to a debate about the scope of the First Amendment's protection. Once again, given the topic of conversation and the medium through which it's taking place, it seems juvenile for you to refer to me as "pathetic" in one of your posts.


You are VERY PATHETIC, but not quite as pathetic as the people responding to you, so I've given you that. Be happy about it. Posting a semi-plausible list along with troll statements eg. "even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.", hardly disguises you from any thinking poster.

Even now, you're weak attempt to continue this "engagement" with me, is....pathetic. That's the best word. I could give you some credit if you could say "hey, Datacipher, what can I say? It's a good time!", but instead you think you can drag me into drawn out, insincere discourse for you to get your jollies. Sorry bud, been around too long, and you're just not very good at it. Yes, you need to hit the average poster with the hammer punches to get their attention, but again, if you want to move up a league in your trolling, you'll have to produce more a subtle touch and recognize those who won't fall for the gimmicks.

Again, have fun.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how many of the threads that you start, that are not equipment related are Federer fan posts? 98%? lol! Ah...kids...


PS. The word you're looking for is "jibe" not "jive".

Chopin
06-06-2009, 03:18 PM
You are VERY PATHETIC, but not quite as pathetic as the people responding to you, so I've given you that. Be happy about it. Posting a semi-plausible list along with troll statements eg. "even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.", hardly disguises you from any thinking poster.

Even now, you're weak attempt to continue this "engagement" with me, is....pathetic. That's the best word. I could give you some credit if you could say "hey, Datacipher, what can I say? It's a good time!", but instead you think you can drag me into drawn out, insincere discourse for you to get your jollies. Sorry bud, been around too long, and you're just not very good at it. Yes, you need to hit the average poster with the hammer punches to get their attention, but again, if you want to move up a league in your trolling, you'll have to produce more a subtle touch and recognize those who won't fall for the gimmicks.

Again, have fun.



PS. The word you're looking for is "jibe" not "jive".

I won't waste my time responding to your rude diatribe in length, but I will point out that the word I was looking for was indeed "jive," not "gibe," and definitely not "jibe," as you wrote. Jive is old jazz slang from the 20s.

2 a: glib, deceptive, or foolish talk

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jive

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/gibe.html

P.S. You're one of the people responding to this thread.

CEvertFan
06-06-2009, 03:24 PM
I have a a couple of questions.

For those of you who have posted in this thread and said that even if Federer wins the French he isn't the GOAT, what would he have to do in your opinion to move up to #1? His accomplishments are already staggering as it is and he'll most likely complete a career Slam tomorrow. Also what are the reasons why you don't consider him to be in the top 5 right now without a French title and why what are the reasons you would still not consider him the best ever WITH a French title? My curiosity is getting the better of me.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 03:35 PM
I have a a couple of questions.

For those of you who have posted in this thread and said that even if Federer wins the French he isn't the GOAT, what would he have to do in your opinion to move up to #1? His accomplishments are already staggering as it is and he'll most likely complete a career Slam tomorrow. Also what are the reasons why you don't consider him to be in the top 5 right now without a French title and why what are the reasons you would still not consider him the best ever WITH a French title? My curiosity is getting the better of me.

This is a good question, especially to posters who currently rank Sampras way above Federer. I'm also curious how that works.

My personal feelings are that many posters don't like Federer and are not looking forward to tomorrow when the tennis world at large proclaims him the GOAT (providing he wins).

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 04:30 PM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.


Frederyk,
This specious list is based on shallow reasoning. It's essentially an Open-era list with a few token pro-Open names. Sorry, poor premises and faulty reasoning; better to let it die.

It is riddled with manifestly erroneous statements, e.g. "but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era." Wrong on three factual points.

By the way, the career slam is a particularly new, next-to-worthless, and silly concept invented by that noted tennis sage, Mary Carillo, specifically to generate interest among American occasional fans in Agassi, for whom it was invented.

For neophytes a GOAT-list seems to be only about quantity of slams. No serious study or understanding of history here. This thread has devolved to the level of numerical pablum.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Specious list based on shallow reasoning. It's essentially an Open-era list with a few pro-Open token names. Sorry, poor premises and faulty reasoning; better to let it die.

Riddled with manifestly erroneous statements: "but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era." A career slam is a particularly new, worthless, and silly concept.

For neophytes it seems to be only about quantity of slams. No serious study or understanding of history here. This thread has devolved to the level of statistical pablum. Exunt.

1) I think most people would beg to differ that a career slam is a "worthless and silly concept." How could that statement possibly stand up to analysis? Winning every major tournament isn't an incredible accomplishment?

2) Statistics don't lie. Federer's achievement (if he wins tomorrow) is the greatest in tennis history. I'm not in the minority here. Let's see what the past greats have to say after tomorrow. This thread will die, yes, but Federer replacing Sampras and Laver as the GOAT in the opinions of the vast majority of tennis insiders, players and analysts is only going to rise. I'm right, and I'll be proved right. There's no stopping history.

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 05:34 PM
1) I think most people would beg to differ that a career slam is a "worthless and silly concept." How could that statement possibly stand up to analysis? Winning every major tournament isn't an incredible accomplishment?

2) Statistics don't lie. Federer's achievement (if he wins tomorrow) is the greatest in tennis history. I'm not in the minority here. Let's see what the past greats have to say after tomorrow. This thread will die, yes, but Federer replacing Sampras and Laver as the GOAT in the opinions of the vast majority of tennis insiders, players and analysts is only going to rise. I'm right, and I'll be proved right. There's no stopping history. Yes, but we can attempt to forestall shallow ignorance.

Most people have never heard of a career slam. Of those on here that have, most were born after 1975, and thus maybe started watching tennis on televsion after 1985.

This is not about Fed and his achievements. It's about the statistics. If you will perform a serious study of the the history of tennis and not simply count up the number of majors, you will realize that there are other factors worth considering.

I appreciate and admire Federer. And yes he will pass Sampras if he wins tomorrow. But as for "replacing Sampras and Laver as the GOAT in the opinions of the vast majority of tennis insiders." I have five things to say:
1) Sampras never was the GOAT
2) Because you say that he was, this tells us more about you than anything else
3) Fed's winning no. 14 will affect only the opinon of newbies and ingenues, not serious students of the game
4) Professional players are exactly that, not deeply versed historians of the game
5) Even television analysts are not serious sudents of the history of the game, they have a capitalist-ratings motive (i.e. one way to raise ratings and thus revenue is to propagandize the "historical" significance of an event)

When all is said and done, I do hope Fed wins tomorrow. I've been rooting for him for a long time.

zagor
06-06-2009, 05:56 PM
1) I think most people would beg to differ that a career slam is a "worthless and silly concept." How could that statement possibly stand up to analysis? Winning every major tournament isn't an incredible accomplishment?

2) Statistics don't lie. Federer's achievement (if he wins tomorrow) is the greatest in tennis history. I'm not in the minority here. Let's see what the past greats have to say after tomorrow. This thread will die, yes, but Federer replacing Sampras and Laver as the GOAT in the opinions of the vast majority of tennis insiders, players and analysts is only going to rise. I'm right, and I'll be proved right. There's no stopping history.

I agree that career slam isn't a worthless concept,it's a great achievement to win all 4 majors on different surfaces and it will certainly boost Fed's legacy quite a bit(IF he wins)but it's seems a bit unfair to disregard the whole tennis history before open era like it never existed don't you think? I mean there were many great players before open era as well,I think they deserve a mention in the GOAT debate as well since they are a part of tennis history.

Tennis comentators,even the ones who are former great players can be pretty fickle and their opinion changes very often from what I've seen.I mean just after AO Wilander and Agassi for example were saying that Fed can't be the best ever because of his H2H against Nadal yet now they changed their tune and say that if Fed wins FO he's GOAT,sorry that's bandwagon jumping to me.

But if you insist that the opinion of the coaches or former or current player is final then know that Fed himself said at the beginning of this year(at the beginning of AO I think)that he could only be the greatest of open era(if he breaks Pete's record),that he couldn't match records guys like Laver,Rosewall etc..

hoodjem
06-06-2009, 06:05 PM
Ken Rosewall--
Slam results
Aus. Open W (1953, 1955, 1971, 1972)
French Open W (1953, 1968 )
Wimbledon F (1954, 1956, 1970, 1974)
US Open W (1956, 1970)

CyBorg
06-06-2009, 06:07 PM
Tennis comentators,even the ones who are former great players can be pretty fickle and their opinion changes very often from what I've seen.I mean just after AO Wilander and Agassi for example were saying that Fed can't be the best ever because of his H2H against Nadal yet now they changed their tune and say that if Fed wins FO he's GOAT,sorry that's bandwagon jumping to me.

It's a business. Tennis commentators will do anything to sell the game - particularly the American ones.

We all know how well the sport is doing down there.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 06:08 PM
Yes, but we can attempt to forestall shallow ignorance.

Most people have never heard of a career slam. Of those on here that have, most were born after 1975, and thus maybe started watching tennis on televsion after 1985.

This is not about Fed and his achievements. It's about the statistics. If you will perform a serious study of the the history of tennis and not simply count up the number of majors, you will realize that there are other factors worth considering.

I appreciate and admire Federer. And yes he will pass Sampras if he wins tomorrow. But as for "replacing Sampras and Laver as the GOAT in the opinions of the vast majority of tennis insiders." I have five things to say:
1) Sampras never was the GOAT
2) Because you say that he was, this tells us more about you than anything else
3) Fed's winning no. 14 will affect only the opinon of newbies and ingenues, not serious students of the game
4) Professional players are exactly that, not deeply versed historians of the game
5) Even television analysts are not serious sudents of the history of the game, they have a capitalist-ratings motive (i.e. one way to raise ratings and thus revenue is to propagandize the "historical" significance of an event)

When all is said and done, I do hope Fed wins tomorrow. I've been rooting for him for a long time.

Ah, if players, analysts, coaches ect. are not "serious students of the game," then who, I ask, will give us a legitimate opinion on the subject? Where are these great tennis historians that are going to liberate us from our ignorance? On the TW message boards? The authors of some tennis biographies? Bud Collins?

Rubbish, tomorrow Federer has a date with history in the eyes of the entire tennis world.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 06:16 PM
I agree that career slam isn't a worthless concept,it's a great achievement to win all 4 majors on different surfaces and it will certainly boost Fed's legacy quite a bit(IF he wins)but it's seems a bit unfair to disregard the whole tennis history before open era like it never existed don't you think? I mean there were many great players before open era as well,I think they deserve a mention in the GOAT debate as well since they are a part of tennis history.

Tennis comentators,even the ones who are former great players can be pretty fickle and their opinion changes very often from what I've seen.I mean just after AO Wilander and Agassi for example were saying that Fed can't be the best ever because of his H2H against Nadal yet now they changed their tune and say that if Fed wins FO he's GOAT,sorry that's bandwagon jumping to me.

But if you insist that the opinion of the coaches or former or current player is final then know that Fed himself said at the beginning of this year(at the beginning of AO I think)that he could only be the greatest of open era(if he breaks Pete's record),that he couldn't match records guys like Laver,Rosewall etc..

Well, nothing is final, I admit. And there is no such thing as the GOAT, but, I think that you'll find that after tomorrow the vast majority of the tennis world will be of the opinion that Federer accomplished more in tennis than Laver or Sampras--that Federer is a greater champion. I personally think that this would only happen if it was legitimate. Of course, you can't prove anything in this type of debate because it's all subjective. To one person, Laver's career is better, while another may prefer Borg's.

I will say, though, that Agassi never said that Federer couldn't be GOAT, he merely said that Federer should improve his record against Nadal to help his GOAT chances. This is quite different.

I also have no problem with people saying that Federer is the greatest of only the Open Era--except I would immediately add that the Open Era of tennis is far, far greater in terms of competition, infrastructure, and level of play than pre-open era. Thus, Federer is GOAT.

Conquistador
06-06-2009, 06:22 PM
Laver said Pete is the best ever.

Laver said that awhile ago.

zagor
06-06-2009, 06:34 PM
Chopin,here's that interview I was talking about that Fed made at AO this year:

Q. But there was somebody called Rod Laver who couldn't play twenty Slams in five years, and Rosewall didn't play 11 years, so 44 Slams. So, you see, press sometimes emphasizes something. What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: I'm very well aware of the problems the old generation of Laver and Rosewall and all those players faced. That's why I always said I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them of what they've done for us. Look where prize money is today and the great sites we have.

Now there's even more money being pumped into the Australian Open. That's all thanks to them for not playing a lot of money and missing out on twenty Grand Slams. Back then, nobody knew what tennis was going to become, so it was also easier to say no to those kind of things.

Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player.

But, still, I think it's fantastic that they named the center court after Rod Laver who did so much for tennis. Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.

I'm very well aware of that. I think it's an incredible opportunity to do well.


So there you go,from the man himself.

thalivest
06-06-2009, 06:47 PM
I have a a couple of questions.

For those of you who have posted in this thread and said that even if Federer wins the French he isn't the GOAT, what would he have to do in your opinion to move up to #1? His accomplishments are already staggering as it is and he'll most likely complete a career Slam tomorrow. Also what are the reasons why you don't consider him to be in the top 5 right now without a French title and why what are the reasons you would still not consider him the best ever WITH a French title? My curiosity is getting the better of me.

I think Federer would need to win 2 Calender Slams, over 20 slams (the former would ensure the latter given his current success), and win slams over atleast a 10 year period to supplant Laver as the greatest ever. That would go for Nadal down the road too.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 06:53 PM
Chopin,here's that interview I was talking about that Fed made at AO this year:

Q. But there was somebody called Rod Laver who couldn't play twenty Slams in five years, and Rosewall didn't play 11 years, so 44 Slams. So, you see, press sometimes emphasizes something. What's your reaction thinking about Laver and Rosewall and your record and Sampras?

ROGER FEDERER: I'm very well aware of the problems the old generation of Laver and Rosewall and all those players faced. That's why I always said I'm one of the players who's most thankful to them of what they've done for us. Look where prize money is today and the great sites we have.

Now there's even more money being pumped into the Australian Open. That's all thanks to them for not playing a lot of money and missing out on twenty Grand Slams. Back then, nobody knew what tennis was going to become, so it was also easier to say no to those kind of things.

Probably never quite know who was the greatest of all‑time in tennis, and I think that's quite intriguing as well. Of course, if somebody goes off and wins 35 Grand Slams then you made your point as a player.

But, still, I think it's fantastic that they named the center court after Rod Laver who did so much for tennis. Yeah, I mean, 14 is more ‑‑ the new generation, the Open era, I could maybe become the greatest of all‑time of that era, but never of all‑time.

I'm very well aware of that. I think it's an incredible opportunity to do well.

So there you go,from the man himself.

Yes, but Roger's words don't really conflict with my point.
A) Federer=greatest of open era.
B) Open era>Non-open era.
C) Federer=greatest of all time.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 07:30 PM
Fed currently is up in the air on my list I actually took a bit of reworking in my list a month or two ago originally I had Fed 6 and Sampras 7 but right now I have moved both of them up so currently I have Fed 5 with Laver, Pancho, Borg and Rosewell ahead of him and Tilden rounding out my top 7 at 7. If Fed wins the French I feel he leapfrogs Rosewell and Borg at chance..(though my opinion on this is bound to change and he might remain right where he is) even with a losing record against his main rival for the following reasons. Rosewell had a losing record against Laver and Borg was on the verge of falling under Mac and quit too early. I still have him behind Laver and Pancho though. I have him ahead of Sampras due to dominance, consistency and being stronger on all the surfaces. I will not say all Graf fans are biased I am just not sure what is your case for Graf being 1 and Fed being 12? That is quite absurd behind Connors, Mac and Lendl? Lendl has the worst slam finals record and only 8, Connors could not beat any of his main rivals of Lendl, Mac and Borg and only has 8 slams sure he hit all the surfaces but green clay plays much more like a slow hardcourt than clay and McEnroe has only 7 slams and was very inconsistent and had only 2 real dominant seasons 1984 and 1981. 1981 itself was not nearly as strong as 84 or any of Fed's 3 best seasons. I am not sure how you can justify any of these players being ahead of Fed as Fed has more slams, more accomplishments, better results on all the surfaces and longer periods of dominance with more convincing dominant seasons than any of those 3. The where Fed falls between Sampras and Borg is clearly up in the air but Fed is definitely more accomplished and deserves to be ahead of Mac, Connors and Lendl that would be putting Fed in the same pool with Wilander, Edberg and Becker in essence..Fed winning the French will tops be 3

On the topic of Graf I have her second to Martina for the whole Seles reason.

Why on earth are you paralleling Graf to Federer. What does Graf's place as the greatest female player ever have to do with Federer's place in mens tennis history. If you insist on me comparing them then fine. Graf was dominant on all surfaces like no man or women in history ever. Over a 12 year period (1987 to 1999) she wins half or more of the slams she participates in at each of the 4 venues. Graf had longevity of dominance like no women ever- 7 of 8 slams played won in 1988-1989, all 6 slams won in 1995-1996. Considering Martina's choking flops at the 83 French and 84 Australia which marred her otherwise spectacular 83-84, Graf's 88 and 89 years are probably the greatest 2 years ever by a women in modern times. Graf never was owned by any main rival ever, even during the Seles dominance, never mind owned to the extent she loses a slam final on every surface to that player in less than a year, and loses a slam final 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. So if you insist on comparing them Federer isnt worthy to carry Graf's racquet bag to the court. That is why she is the GOAT of her gender and he is barely top 10 in his.

Now on to specifically the men I rate Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors above Federer now as their competition was so far superior. McEnroe had to face prime Connors, prime Vilas, and prime Borg from 1979-1981. He had to facing still formidable Connors, Lendl, and Wilander from 1982-1984. Past his prime he was denied still winning some more majors by a super strong field from 1985-1988 of people like prime Lendl, prime Wilander, Becker, and Edberg.

Connors had to face Newcombe, aging Laver, Smith, Ashe, aging Rosewall from 1973-1975. He then had to prime Vilas and prime Borg (well starting in 77) from 1976-1979. He then had to face prime McEnroe and prime Borg, and even up and coming Lendl and Wilander from 1980-1983.

Lendl had to face prime McEnroe, a still formidable Connors, and Wilander from 1981-1984 (well and Borg in one FO final). He had to face Becker, Edberg, prime Wilander from 1985-1988. He then had to face Becker, Edberg, plus up and comers like Sampras and Agassi from 1989 onwards.

Federer scalped almost all his slams from 2003-2007 where he faced 0, 1, or 2 slam champion pretenders at best like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, and baby versions of Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer played in the same era as Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe he would have less slams than them. What would he do vs Connors, Connors is superior to him from the baseline and even better at the net. His only prayer would be to serve him off the court. Lendl would beat Federer forehand to forehand, outserve him, and has a more solid backhand and return of serve. McEnroe's serve-volley game at its peak would be too much for Federer.

CyBorg
06-06-2009, 07:32 PM
Yes, but Roger's words don't really conflict with my point.
A) Federer=greatest of open era.
B) Open era>Non-open era.
C) Federer=greatest of all time.

See? Sensible!

Chopin
06-06-2009, 07:52 PM
See? Sensible!

I know, right? It's the transitive property in use.

OK, tell me honestly though, would you concur with GrafSelesFan here that Federer is "barely top 10" as far as greatest players go?

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:00 PM
Why on earth are you paralleling Graf to Federer. What does Graf's place as the greatest female player ever have to do with Federer's place in mens tennis history. If you insist on me comparing them then fine. Graf was dominant on all surfaces like no man or women in history ever. Over a 12 year period (1987 to 1999) she wins half or more of the slams she participates in at each of the 4 venues. Graf had longevity of dominance like no women ever- 7 of 8 slams played won in 1988-1989, all 6 slams won in 1995-1996. Considering Martina's choking flops at the 83 French and 84 Australia which marred her otherwise spectacular 83-84, Graf's 88 and 89 years are probably the greatest 2 years ever by a women in modern times. Graf never was owned by any main rival ever, even during the Seles dominance, never mind owned to the extent she loses a slam final on every surface to that player in less than a year, and loses a slam final 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. So if you insist on comparing them Federer isnt worthy to carry Graf's racquet bag to the court. That is why she is the GOAT of her gender and he is barely top 10 in his.

Now on to specifically the men I rate Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors above Federer now as their competition was so far superior. McEnroe had to face prime Connors, prime Vilas, and prime Borg from 1979-1981. He had to facing still formidable Connors, Lendl, and Wilander from 1982-1984. Past his prime he was denied still winning some more majors by a super strong field from 1985-1988 of people like prime Lendl, prime Wilander, Becker, and Edberg.

Connors had to face Newcombe, aging Laver, Smith, Ashe, aging Rosewall from 1973-1975. He then had to prime Vilas and prime Borg (well starting in 77) from 1976-1979. He then had to face prime McEnroe and prime Borg, and even up and coming Lendl and Wilander from 1980-1983.

Lendl had to face prime McEnroe, a still formidable Connors, and Wilander from 1981-1984 (well and Borg in one FO final). He had to face Becker, Edberg, prime Wilander from 1985-1988. He then had to face Becker, Edberg, plus up and comers like Sampras and Agassi from 1989 onwards.

Federer scalped almost all his slams from 2003-2007 where he faced 0, 1, or 2 slam champion pretenders at best like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, and baby versions of Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer played in the same era as Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe he would have less slams than them. What would he do vs Connors, Connors is superior to him from the baseline and even better at the net. His only prayer would be to serve him off the court. Lendl would beat Federer forehand to forehand, outserve him, and has a more solid backhand and return of serve. McEnroe's serve-volley game at its peak would be too much for Federer.

Dude, you proclaim that you're a "proud Federer hater for life" in your signature (obviously biased against the guy for some reason) and the stuff you're saying is way out in left field. Here's a hint buddy, those "pretenders" would have a hell of a lot more slams if Federer wasn't winning literally every tournament. I'm not sure if you noticed, but a young Federer was capable of beating Sampras at Wimbledon...hmm...there goes your argument...

Oh and last time I checked, Federer was still winning slams.

In short, you're not going to find anyone who thinks it's reasonable to say he's "barely top 10."

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:09 PM
I think Federer would need to win 2 Calender Slams, over 20 slams (the former would ensure the latter given his current success), and win slams over atleast a 10 year period to supplant Laver as the greatest ever. That would go for Nadal down the road too.

Don't you think that's sort of unreasonable, and impossible given the short careers of tennis players today? Tennis is much more intensive today and players simply don't play as long they did in the past.

CyBorg
06-06-2009, 08:09 PM
I know, right? It's the transitive property in use.

OK, tell me honestly though, would you concur with GrafSelesFan here that Federer is "barely top 10" as far as greatest players go?

Must... choose... between... inane... perspectives.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:12 PM
Must... choose... between... inane... perspectives.

Exactly, you answered my question. It's absurd to say he's barely top 10.

CyBorg
06-06-2009, 08:19 PM
Exactly, you answered my question. It's absurd to say he's barely top 10.

Yes! You win!!!

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:27 PM
Yes! You win!!!

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg

That's really rude--not to me--but to the guy in the photo. I'm serious. It's mean.

jamesblakefan#1
06-06-2009, 08:34 PM
A lot of people writing books in this thread, it seems. Too many...words. :)

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:36 PM
A lot of people writing books in this thread, it seems. Too many...words. :)

Well, it's full of the aficionados--the TW Historians. They're a distinguished crowd.

egn
06-06-2009, 08:37 PM
Why on earth are you paralleling Graf to Federer. What does Graf's place as the greatest female player ever have to do with Federer's place in mens tennis history. If you insist on me comparing them then fine. Graf was dominant on all surfaces like no man or women in history ever. Over a 12 year period (1987 to 1999) she wins half or more of the slams she participates in at each of the 4 venues. Graf had longevity of dominance like no women ever- 7 of 8 slams played won in 1988-1989, all 6 slams won in 1995-1996. Considering Martina's choking flops at the 83 French and 84 Australia which marred her otherwise spectacular 83-84, Graf's 88 and 89 years are probably the greatest 2 years ever by a women in modern times. Graf never was owned by any main rival ever, even during the Seles dominance, never mind owned to the extent she loses a slam final on every surface to that player in less than a year, and loses a slam final 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. So if you insist on comparing them Federer isnt worthy to carry Graf's racquet bag to the court. That is why she is the GOAT of her gender and he is barely top 10 in his.


No offense the parallel I only suggested as the two are similar in many ways they both dominated the game in ways unseen before...


Now on to specifically the men I rate Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors above Federer now as their competition was so far superior. McEnroe had to face prime Connors, prime Vilas, and prime Borg from 1979-1981. He had to facing still formidable Connors, Lendl, and Wilander from 1982-1984. Past his prime he was denied still winning some more majors by a super strong field from 1985-1988 of people like prime Lendl, prime Wilander, Becker, and Edberg.

Connors had to face Newcombe, aging Laver, Smith, Ashe, aging Rosewall from 1973-1975. He then had to prime Vilas and prime Borg (well starting in 77) from 1976-1979. He then had to face prime McEnroe and prime Borg, and even up and coming Lendl and Wilander from 1980-1983.

Lendl had to face prime McEnroe, a still formidable Connors, and Wilander from 1981-1984 (well and Borg in one FO final). He had to face Becker, Edberg, prime Wilander from 1985-1988. He then had to face Becker, Edberg, plus up and comers like Sampras and Agassi from 1989 onwards.



McEnroe has a losing record against Vilas.
McEnroe is dead even with Borg.

Connors never could hang with Borg and McEnroe once they got going and this is shown by his inability to make the finals at wimbledon and the usopen in the late 70s early 80s. Connors actually benefited from McEnroe losing interest and starting to play bad in 82. Connors did well pre prime Borg and McEnroe and when the two were gone/faded. He grabbed 2 slams against Borg one pre Borg's best years and one on Borg's worst surface. However From 77-81 which was when both Mac and Borg were hitting their peaks he managed 1 slam. He was consistently in the semifinals losing to the two big guys so yes he had stronger competition but what slams did he win against this. His first year he was beating up on guys in their late 30s and 40 yr old Ken Rosewell. Come on the top pros in 74 were all hitting 30 or in their 30s or approaching 40s. Connors not to be mean faced a guy twice his age plus 4 in two slam finals. He lost to Ashe in 75 who was far from his best he had not had a good performance for nearly 3 years..You mentioned all those tough competition names well Connors was losing to a bunch of them he was not dominating the tour

Yea Lendl was a great player but he came up short more than a handful of times. He lost to 30+ Connors twice in slam finals after routinely beating him in the tournament prior to the US Open. He has more losing than winning records against top players in slam finals by the way a little know fact.

Borg 0-1
Connors 0-2
Wilander 2-3
Becker 0-3
Cash 0-1

the winning records he has in slam finals against other slam winners are
McEnroe 2-1
Edberg 1-0 and Edberg retired due to injury in a match where Edberg took the first set



Federer scalped almost all his slams from 2003-2007 where he faced 0, 1, or 2 slam champion pretenders at best like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, and baby versions of Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer played in the same era as Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe he would have less slams than them. What would he do vs Connors, Connors is superior to him from the baseline and even better at the net. His only prayer would be to serve him off the court. Lendl would beat Federer forehand to forehand, outserve him, and has a more solid backhand and return of serve. McEnroe's serve-volley game at its peak would be too much for Federer.

Hold on wait you claim Nadal to be baby well weren't McEnroe and Borg in their teens and early 20s when Connors played them. Wasn't Becker just a tennager when he was owning Lendl at Wimbledon in 86? and then just 21 when he beat him at the US Open. Similar to this baby nadal of 05-07 who was 19 in 05 and 21 in 07...deja vu.

Oh and old formidable Connors is quite similar to old formidable Agassi same age, still winning slams..

Wouldn't Mecir, Tanner, Cash, Lewis, Vitas, Orantes be similar to Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic etc.

Baby Nadal was well into his prime anyone who denies this is insane.

The bolded part is unprovable and your opinion.

Chopin
06-06-2009, 08:40 PM
No offense the parallel I only suggested as the two are similar in many ways they both dominated the game in ways unseen before...




McEnroe has a losing record against Vilas.
McEnroe is dead even with Borg.

Connors never could hang with Borg and McEnroe once they got going and this is shown by his inability to make the finals at wimbledon and the usopen in the late 70s early 80s. Connors actually benefited from McEnroe losing interest and starting to play bad in 82. Connors did well pre prime Borg and McEnroe and when the two were gone/faded. He grabbed 2 slams against Borg one pre Borg's best years and one on Borg's worst surface. However From 77-81 which was when both Mac and Borg were hitting their peaks he managed 1 slam. He was consistently in the semifinals losing to the two big guys so yes he had stronger competition but what slams did he win against this. His first year he was beating up on guys in their late 30s and 40 yr old Ken Rosewell. Come on the top pros in 74 were all hitting 30 or in their 30s or approaching 40s. Connors not to be mean faced a guy twice his age plus 4 in two slam finals. He lost to Ashe in 75 who was far from his best he had not had a good performance for nearly 3 years..You mentioned all those tough competition names well Connors was losing to a bunch of them he was not dominating the tour

Yea Lendl was a great player but he came up short more than a handful of times. He lost to 30+ Connors twice in slam finals after routinely beating him in the tournament prior to the US Open. He has more losing than winning records against top players in slam finals by the way a little know fact.

Borg 0-1
Connors 0-2
Wilander 2-3
Becker 0-3
Cash 0-1

the winning records he has in slam finals against other slam winners are
McEnroe 2-1
Edberg 1-0 and Edberg retired due to injury in a match where Edberg took the first set




Hold on wait you claim Nadal to be baby well weren't McEnroe and Borg in their teens and early 20s when Connors played them. Wasn't Becker just a tennager when he was owning Lendl at Wimbledon in 86? and then just 21 when he beat him at the US Open. Similar to this baby nadal of 05-07 who was 19 in 05 and 21 in 07...deja vu.

Oh and old formidable Connors is quite similar to old formidable Agassi same age, still winning slams..

Wouldn't Mecir, Tanner, Cash, Lewis, Vitas, Orantes be similar to Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic etc.

Baby Nadal was well into his prime anyone who denies this is insane.

The bolded part is unprovable and your opinion.

This is a great post because your carefully show that all players have limitations. I also like the parallel between Agassi and Connors.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 09:11 PM
Dude, you proclaim that you're a "proud Federer hater for life" in your signature (obviously biased against the guy for some reason) and the stuff you're saying is way out in left field.

Yeah I am biased against Federer perhaps, although I still try hard to be objective. However many in this thread, you included, are heavily biased in favor of Federer. So it more than balances out.

Here's a hint buddy, those "pretenders" would have a hell of a lot more slams if Federer wasn't winning literally every tournament. I'm not sure if you noticed, but a young Federer was capable of beating Sampras at Wimbledon...hmm...there goes your argument...

Neither Sampras or Federer were anywhere near their primes at the time of that match. It is also only 1 match, too small a sample size. I would have said that match meant virtually nothing if Sampras won too, unless it were a triple bagel or something.

Now onto these other clowns you speak of. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, and Nalbandian had many more chances to win slams from 2000-2003 if they were good enough. You know the time period pre-prime Federer won only 1 slam title. If they were so good, and yet were only stopped by the unstoppable Federer they would have won alot more in the years before Federer took over. Hewitt was at his career peak from 2000-2002. Roddick was a hot up and comer in 2001 and 2002. Safin was at his career peak from 2000-2002 as well. However under their watch instead of bagging more majors they allowed grandpa Agassi to win 3 Australian Opens, grandpa Sampras to win a final U.S Open, Costa to win a slam, busted shouldered Ivanisevic to win a last Wimbledon, Johansson to win a slam. Why didnt this especialy talented group take this opportunity to win more majors without superman Federer around, why were they letting old past their prime greats and mediocrities win slams that they could have taken? Answer they arent that good, and thank goodness something like Federer came along to keep this not so talented group from winning more.

If Federer hadnt been around you would have seen grandpa Agassi perhaps win another 1 or 2 more majors. Prime age Agassi was having trouble with 16 year old Hewitt as early as early 1998, and close to prime age Sampras was having trouble with 18 year Hewitt as early as 1999. Yet despite this a much older Agassi was still playing pretty even with Hewitt in later years. This just shows you what an early bloomer Hewitt was, and how poorly his game developed as the years went on, maxing out his game too quickly, and not making the progress he needed to be a truly great player. Roddick didnt even start playing grandpa Agassi evenly until 2003-2004 when Agassi was really getting long in the tooth, and Roddick was hitting his forehand like he doesnt any other years of his career. Safin is a flake, unstoppable one day, worthless the next, who knows what to make of him, rarely could it come together for 7 matches but those times when it did he could beat anyone.

380pistol
06-06-2009, 09:32 PM
Yeah I am biased against Federer perhaps, although I still try hard to be objective. However many in this thread, you included, are heavily biased in favor of Federer. So it more than balances out.



Neither Sampras or Federer were anywhere near their primes at the time of that match. It is also only 1 match, too small a sample size. I would have said that match meant virtually nothing if Sampras won too, unless it were a triple bagel or something.

Now onto these other clowns you speak of. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, and Nalbandian had many more chances to win slams from 2000-2003 if they were good enough. You know the time period pre-prime Federer won only 1 slam title. If they were so good, and yet were only stopped by the unstoppable Federer they would have won alot more in the years before Federer took over. Hewitt was at his career peak from 2000-2002. Roddick was a hot up and comer in 2001 and 2002. Safin was at his career peak from 2000-2002 as well. However under their watch instead of bagging more majors they allowed grandpa Agassi to win 3 Australian Opens, grandpa Sampras to win a final U.S Open, Costa to win a slam, busted shouldered Ivanisevic to win a last Wimbledon, Johansson to win a slam. Why didnt this especialy talented group take this opportunity to win more majors without superman Federer around, why were they letting old past their prime greats and mediocrities win slams that they could have taken? Answer they arent that good, and thank goodness something like Federer came along to keep this not so talented group from winning more.

If Federer hadnt been around you would have seen grandpa Agassi perhaps win another 1 or 2 more majors. Prime age Agassi was having trouble with 16 year old Hewitt as early as early 1998, and close to prime age Sampras was having trouble with 18 year Hewitt as early as 1999. Yet despite this a much older Agassi was still playing pretty even with Hewitt in later years. This just shows you what an early bloomer Hewitt was, and how poorly his game developed as the years went on, maxing out his game too quickly, and not making the progress he needed to be a truly great player. Roddick didnt even start playing grandpa Agassi evenly until 2003-2004 when Agassi was really getting long in the tooth, and Roddick was hitting his forehand like he doesnt any other years of his career. Safin is a flake, unstoppable one day, worthless the next, who knows what to make of him, rarely could it come together for 7 matches but those times when it did he could beat anyone.

There's some truth and some of it overblown.

As far as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and Nalbandian.

Roddick - was what he was . A decent player, but never going to challenge the best consistently. Not the most talented, but I agree it's not the Fed plague either. I don't think he would be great in any era. Yes he loses to Fed, but in the 90's Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Becker get him....... 80's - Lendl, Mac Connors, Edberg, Wilander..... 70's - Borg, Connors, Ashe, Vilas, Newcombe

Safin - summed it up perfectly, can be great one day and gorrible the next, He would be the same in any era as his inconsistency has plagued him more than anything. May have had a great rivalry with Roger and they could've pushed each other, but with Federer the only one showing up, it never happened.

Hewitt - a better Chang with a bigger window. People here talk about Agassi's draws in slam, has anyone taken a gander at Hewitt's?? Would trail Federer, Nadal and Safin. And Djokovic would probably be too much for him.

Ferrero - bloomed in 2003, contracted chicken pox, and was never the same. Other nagging injuries didn't help.

Nalbandian -was never gonna be a real threat.

Roger's major threats lacked, some due to ability, and some due to circumstance. I would still have Roger the best of the bunch, but what would the margin be if say Nadal and Djokovic peaked sooner, Safin could keep it together and Ferrero didn't fall off harder than... I can't even think of someone right now???

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 09:46 PM
McEnroe has a losing record against Vilas.
McEnroe is dead even with Borg.

Federer has a lopsided losing record with Murray. That is far worse than having a losing head to head with Vilas.

Secondly I wonder if that losing head to head with Vilas you refer to has anything to do with the fact 7 of their 11 matches were on CLAY, and I and few others would ever imply McEnroe was ever a great clay court player. That is an even greater ratio of clay court matches than Federer has played vs Nadal, and we all know the excuse making that comes there. The difference is while Nadal is almost .500 vs Federer on non clay matches, Vilas's only win in his 4 career non clay matches with McEnroe is vs 19 year old pre prime McEnroe in 1978, about a year before McEnroe had even reached his first slam fianl. In his other 3 non clay matches with McEnroe, the first of those in 1979 after Mac's first slam at the U.S Open, Vilas was killed, never getting further than 3-6 in any of the 7 sets. Everything about their matches indicates Vilas has zero shot vs prime McEnroe from 1979-1984 on anything except clay. So poor example there IMO.

Having a tied head to head with the great Bjorn Borg is a bad thing? Are you kidding me.

Connors never could hang with Borg and McEnroe once they got going and this is shown by his inability to make the finals at wimbledon and the usopen in the late 70s early 80s. Connors actually benefited from McEnroe losing interest and starting to play bad in 82. Connors did well pre prime Borg and McEnroe and when the two were gone/faded. He grabbed 2 slams against Borg one pre Borg's best years and one on Borg's worst surface. However From 77-81 which was when both Mac and Borg were hitting their peaks he managed 1 slam. He was consistently in the semifinals losing to the two big guys so yes he had stronger competition but what slams did he win against this. His first year he was beating up on guys in their late 30s and 40 yr old Ken Rosewell. Come on the top pros in 74 were all hitting 30 or in their 30s or approaching 40s. Connors not to be mean faced a guy twice his age plus 4 in two slam finals. He lost to Ashe in 75 who was far from his best he had not had a good performance for nearly 3 years..You mentioned all those tough competition names well Connors was losing to a bunch of them he was not dominating the tour

In 1974 you had a player like John Newcombe in his prime still, a top 20 player all time who won 7 slam titles and was dominant on fast surfaces for awhile once Laver and Rosewall were past their peaks. 39 year old Rosweall beat Newcombe to make those Wimbledon and U.S Open finals so I would still say he wasnt an easy opponent. In 1974 the top 10 included Connors, Newcombe, young Borg (who won the French that year), aging Laver, Vilas, Ashe, aging Rosewall, Stan Smith (a Wim and U.S Open champion), and Nastase. I would say that is a darn strong group, especialy compared to Roddick, Hewitt, and the enigmatic Safin.

You claim Ashe was far from his best in 1975 yet he had probably his best year ever. That doesnt seem to jive with reality.

Borg was already a champion of very high proportions by 1976, a two time French Open winner and a Wimbledon winner. Connors still beat him to win the U.S Open title that year on green clay. In 1977 after dissapointing losses in the Wimbledon final (to Borg in 5 sets) and U.S Open final (to Vilas), Connors won the year end Masters, the true 3rd biggest event of the year, beating Borg in the final. In 1978 Connors won the U.S Open by spanking Borg in the final, yet again denying the great Borg the huge title he never won. From 1979-1981 it is true it looked like Connors champion days might be past. Remember though he has the age disadvantage to the younger Borg and McEnroe (even moreso later Lendl), something you completely ignore.

No excuses please for what Connors did in 1982 and 1983. Now in old age himself winning 3 more Wimbledon and U.S Opens vs the much younger McEnroe and Lendl after the dry spell not winning slams for awhile you pointed out, was just incredible. Then in 1984 in McEnroe's greatest year ever taking McEnroe to an incredible 5 set semifinal at the U.S Open about to turn 32, particularly after being humiliated by McEnroe in god mode in the Wimbledon final only months earlier, was another phenomenal performance.


Yea Lendl was a great player but he came up short more than a handful of times. He lost to 30+ Connors twice in slam finals after routinely beating him in the tournament prior to the US Open. He has more losing than winning records against top players in slam finals by the way a little know fact.

Borg 0-1
Connors 0-2
Wilander 2-3
Becker 0-3
Cash 0-1

the winning records he has in slam finals against other slam winners are
McEnroe 2-1
Edberg 1-0 and Edberg retired due to injury in a match where Edberg took the first set

Yes Lendl's record in slam finals is a huge knock against him, no doubt about that. It is why he doesnt rate even alot higher all time when the guy has a near record 19 slam finals (imagine if he had been a better finals performer especialy early on), 8 straight U.S Open finals, so much time spent at #1. However he still beat a prime McEnroe 7 straight times in 1981-1982 which is tremendous, especialy as he wasnt in his own prime yet. Well I know you have your 1982 excuses for McEnroe, but 3 of those were in 1981 anyway. Beating McEnroe in the U.S Open semis in 1982 was a major achievement. He took Borg to 5 sets in the French Open final in his first ever slam final. He beat McEnroe in his best year ever in the French Open final, regardless how you feel he did it. He then dethroned McEnroe in the U.S Open final in 1985, the loss that went a large way to derailing McEnroe's psyche and motivation, along with all his personal problems, etc....He beat great players like Wilander and Edberg many times in slam finals or semis on the way to his majors during their championship years.

Hold on wait you claim Nadal to be baby well weren't McEnroe and Borg in their teens and early 20s when Connors played them. Wasn't Becker just a tennager when he was owning Lendl at Wimbledon in 86? and then just 21 when he beat him at the US Open. Similar to this baby nadal of 05-07 who was 19 in 05 and 21 in 07...deja vu.

The thing is we know in hindsight Becker's best ever tennis was 1985-1989, regardless how young he was. He had impressive longevity in that he remained a force until 1986, but 1985-1989 was his absolute peak period. With Nadal's performances in 2008 and 2009 we already know his peak was not 2004-2007 as he has already done things he never did then. Such cant be said for Becker.


Lastly summing this all up you are basically belittling each of these great players since they had trouble with each other, their fellow great players. Silly logic. That is why that was such a tough time for mens tennis, multiple great players battling each other, beating up on each other, denying each other titles. Federer instead gets posers like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian to beat up on, other than Nadal.


Oh and old formidable Connors is quite similar to old formidable Agassi same age, still winning slams..

I agree. Connors matches Agassi's longevity and trumps him everywhere else. That is why there is IMHO no question who rates higher between the two, atleast to those who arent biased to more recent players. Agassi himself is a great player anyway too, and Connors is similar to this great player in his greatest career category (other than his versatility perhaps) so how is that a bad thing for Connors.

Wouldn't Mecir, Tanner, Cash, Lewis, Vitas, Orantes be similar to Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Davydenko, Djokovic etc.

Sure but those guy were the good second tier players of the time, who could occasionaly make a slam final, or if getting lucky maybe win one. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Davydenko, were the main competition for Federer during his dominance, the cream of the crop he faced along with pre-prime Nadal. Therein lies the difference.

Baby Nadal was well into his prime anyone who denies this is insane.

Color me insane then. Baby Nadal = 0 hard court slam semis until 2008. How can a player of Nadal's caliber be in his prime when he cant even reach a hard court semifinal in so many attempts. Get real.

The bolded part is unprovable and your opinion.

If Federer gets dominated by Nadal from the baseline, and cant even match Djokovic and Murray from the baseline, how the heck would he do well vs Connors or Lendl from the baseline (never mind Borg). He doesnt even volley or have as much an all court game as Borg or Connors to boot, and Lendl could outserve him also.

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 09:56 PM
There's some truth and some of it overblown.

As far as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero and Nalbandian.

Roddick - was what he was . A decent player, but never going to challenge the best consistently. Not the most talented, but I agree it's not the Fed plague either. I don't think he would be great in any era. Yes he loses to Fed, but in the 90's Sampras, Agassi, Courier, and Becker get him....... 80's - Lendl, Mac Connors, Edberg, Wilander..... 70's - Borg, Connors, Ashe, Vilas, Newcombe

Safin - summed it up perfectly, can be great one day and gorrible the next, He would be the same in any era as his inconsistency has plagued him more than anything. May have had a great rivalry with Roger and they could've pushed each other, but with Federer the only one showing up, it never happened.

Hewitt - a better Chang with a bigger window. People here talk about Agassi's draws in slam, has anyone taken a gander at Hewitt's?? Would trail Federer, Nadal and Safin. And Djokovic would probably be too much for him.

Ferrero - bloomed in 2003, contracted chicken pox, and was never the same. Other nagging injuries didn't help.

Nalbandian -was never gonna be a real threat.

Roger's major threats lacked, some due to ability, and some due to circumstance. I would still have Roger the best of the bunch, but what would the margin be if say Nadal and Djokovic peaked sooner, Safin could keep it together and Ferrero didn't fall off harder than... I can't even think of someone right now???

I think that is a reasonable accessment. It would have been great to see Federer play a more consistent Safin, Nadal closer to his age, Murray or Djokovic closer to his age (although not totally sold on either yet, time will tell), and Ferrero staying the course after 2003. Of course he would still win alot but probably quite a bit less dominant than he was. The fact he is still near his best (he hasnt declined that much and he isnt that old) and is having this much trouble now that Nadal has primed and the competition overall is tougher, certainly indicates he wouldnt completely dominate a tougher field. Roddick deserves respect for being a very solid player and having a solid hard working career, but just isnt good enough to compete with the great players like Roger. Hewitt is IMO better than Roddick, but is just too comfortable a matchup style wise for Roger, and still isnt quite good enough anyway. I agree with you he is a slightly better Chang with a bigger window of opportunity, one that slammed shut once Roger emerged. Nalbandian I agree, he is a talented player no doubt, but very overrated on this forum it seems. He is as inconsistent as Safin, without the same level of insane talent. His success vs pre prime Roger has him overblown, as their head to head wouldnt even be close otherwise. Safin is the kind of player who would probably win his 1 or 2 slams in any era, and when those were would be mostly dependent on him.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-06-2009, 10:02 PM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors All I can do is laugh at this. I have nothing else to say.

nfor304
06-06-2009, 10:32 PM
I have a a couple of questions.

For those of you who have posted in this thread and said that even if Federer wins the French he isn't the GOAT, what would he have to do in your opinion to move up to #1? His accomplishments are already staggering as it is and he'll most likely complete a career Slam tomorrow. Also what are the reasons why you don't consider him to be in the top 5 right now without a French title and why what are the reasons you would still not consider him the best ever WITH a French title? My curiosity is getting the better of me.

I wouldnt say Federer is not in my top 5, but to me picking the greatest of all time is basically impossible.

Winning all 4 slams is obviously a huge achievement as well as winning all 14 majors, but people who judge players purely on these fail to realise that players from the past never chased records in the majors the same way players like sampras and federer have. The Australian especially was always considered fairly lowly prior to the mid 80's and tournaments like the year end masters and the italian open usually attracted higher class fields.

Then there is the fact that evaluating players like this puts professional players in the non open era at a huge disadvantage due to their ineligibility to compete at the slams. Pancho Gonzalez was a pro from his early 20's untill he was 40 years old and only managed 2 majors, and many people have never even heard of him, let alone consider him one of the best of all time. Yet Gonzalez dominated the pro tour, which was by and large far superior to the amateur tour, like no other player and some say he would have been considered the worlds best player up to 9 years in his career.

Then their is Federer's large losing record against Nadal. To have a record like that against one of your current peers vastly decreases your claim to be the greatest of all time. Add to that the fact Federer has lost to Nadal in majors 6 out of 9 times they have met and you have a pretty powerful index of reason for why Federer is not the greatest.

Lastly while Federer winning all 4 majors is huge it is nowhere near the massive accomplishment of winning all 4 in a single year.
That to me is the single greatest and most staggering achievement a player can ever achieve.

Cesc Fabregas
06-06-2009, 10:45 PM
All I can do is laugh at this. I have nothing else to say.

Whats so funny? Its a good list just because you're boy Roger isn't 1st doesn't mean its not a good list.

nfor304
06-06-2009, 10:54 PM
1. Rod Laver
2. Pete Sampras
3. Ken Rosweall
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Roger Federer (if he wins the Fernch)
9. Jack Kramer
10. Jimmy Connors


I think this list is far better than the OPs list, only personally I would put Federer higher into top 3 and have Borg and Gonzalez higher than rosewall and have Llendl in their somewhere

eg.

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Pete Sampras
5. Pancho Gonzalez
6. Don Budge
7. Ivan Llendl
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Bill Tilden
10. Jack Kramer

grafselesfan
06-06-2009, 11:05 PM
I think this list is far better than the OPs list, only personally I would put Federer higher into top 3 and have Borg and Gonzalez higher than rosewall and have Llendl in their somewhere

eg.

1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Pete Sampras
5. Pancho Gonzalez
6. Don Budge
7. Ivan Llendl
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Bill Tilden
10. Jack Kramer

I think you underrate Rosewall alot. The guy had a 20 year career of being near the top of tennis. That is amazing. He was the dominant player in the pros, which then was the dominant player in tennis, for atleast a 4 year span or so. He faced many of the greatest players in history and held his own vs all of them. Lendl is a great player but I would never rate Lendl tied with Rosewall. Even with all the slams Rosewall missed out on by it not being Open tennis back then Lendl with all his major finals he choked away is still only tied with Rosewall!

nfor304
06-06-2009, 11:16 PM
I think you underrate Rosewall alot. The guy had a 20 year career of being near the top of tennis. That is amazing. He was the dominant player in the pros, which then was the dominant player in tennis, for atleast a 4 year span or so. He faced many of the greatest players in history and held his own vs all of them. Lendl is a great player but I would never rate Lendl tied with Rosewall. Even with all the slams Rosewall missed out on by it not being Open tennis back then Lendl with all his major finals he choked away is still only tied with Rosewall!

I kind of just threw that list together then, but yeah I would agree that Rosewall would have to be in front of Lendl, but then I dont know if I could put him ahead of any of the other 6 I had above him

nfor304
06-06-2009, 11:17 PM
By the way I saw Rosewall play a celebrity event a couple of years ago..... and he is still so fast and moves so well! even though he is in his 70's now he still has those super ripped calves

Dean
06-07-2009, 12:52 AM
These discussions about who's the GOAT really are a waste of time. The only way you can look at it is by finding the best of his generation or decade.

Here's the proper list of the greats of the game

1920's - Tilden
1930's - Budge
1940's - Kramer
1950's - Gonzales
1960's - Laver (Rosewall an honourable mention)
1970's - Borg (Connors an honourable mention)
1980's - Lendl (McEnroe an honourable mention)
1990's - Sampras
2000's - Federer (Nadal an honourable mention)

rainman007
06-07-2009, 01:19 AM
its a good post i think even the worlds number number 25 would beat some of the old players posted in the top 10... players are stronger and faster now with better equipment..

however you give current players that little square wooden racquet then the list would remain the same.. but i guess your trying to compare for their era..

with all the majors and slams i think federer would have to be put in the top 3 along with sampress

egn
06-07-2009, 05:11 AM
You claim Ashe was far from his best in 1975 yet he had probably his best year ever. That doesnt seem to jive with reality.


I would differ I felt 68 was Ashe's best year but this is all matter of opinion as I believe both years they had close to the same amount of titles but thats not a huge issue.


Sure but those guy were the good second tier players of the time, who could occasionaly make a slam final, or if getting lucky maybe win one. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Davydenko, were the main competition for Federer during his dominance, the cream of the crop he faced along with pre-prime Nadal. Therein lies the difference.


Well pre-prime Nadal was half the slams from 05 on and pre prime Nadal is definitely one of the best things on clay and a strong force on grass so really fcaing the 2nd tier guys on the hardcourts is not that big deal I feel but then again it is how you look at it and Safin was definitely a bit better than the rest as we all know how much he could do when he was on.


Color me insane then. Baby Nadal = 0 hard court slam semis until 2008. How can a player of Nadal's caliber be in his prime when he cant even reach a hard court semifinal in so many attempts. Get real.


So do you consider 2003-2004 Fed not in his prime? What about McEnroe 79? I would disagree a prime is once a player in my opinion is a slam threat Fed was winning 3 slams but could not make the semi of the french open that year and had yet to be there in numerous attempts yet he was definitely still prime. Nadal is not a Harcourt player primarily so I would not figure a hardcourt semifinal being a sign of his prime more or a less a sign of his peak performance. Again just my opinion.


The rest of your post I agree with but I still differ on my views of where to place Connors, Mac and Lendl but its all a matter of opinion.

If Federer gets dominated by Nadal from the baseline, and cant even match Djokovic and Murray from the baseline, how the heck would he do well vs Connors or Lendl from the baseline (never mind Borg). He doesnt even volley or have as much an all court game as Borg or Connors to boot, and Lendl could outserve him also.[/QUOTE]

egn
06-07-2009, 05:12 AM
I think you underrate Rosewall alot. The guy had a 20 year career of being near the top of tennis. That is amazing. He was the dominant player in the pros, which then was the dominant player in tennis, for atleast a 4 year span or so. He faced many of the greatest players in history and held his own vs all of them. Lendl is a great player but I would never rate Lendl tied with Rosewall. Even with all the slams Rosewall missed out on by it not being Open tennis back then Lendl with all his major finals he choked away is still only tied with Rosewall!

I second that Rosewall is definitely top 5 of all time.

380pistol
06-07-2009, 08:17 AM
I think you underrate Rosewall alot. The guy had a 20 year career of being near the top of tennis. That is amazing. He was the dominant player in the pros, which then was the dominant player in tennis, for atleast a 4 year span or so. He faced many of the greatest players in history and held his own vs all of them. Lendl is a great player but I would never rate Lendl tied with Rosewall. Even with all the slams Rosewall missed out on by it not being Open tennis back then Lendl with all his major finals he choked away is still only tied with Rosewall!

Agree with theory, disagree with logic. Yes Rosewall is underrated (partly to being overshadowed by Gonzales and Laver), but even missing out on slams he's still tied with Lendl.

Well didn't Rosewall win his first 4 slams when other like Gonzales turned pro and was "missing slams". Many always talk about how many slams Laver, Rosewall and others missed out on by turning pro, but you also have to consider that they won slams (before turning pro), that others "missed".

So while I do feel Rosewall is one of the greatest, and sometimes underrated, I think all things should be considered.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 08:23 AM
Agree with theory, disagree with logic. Yes Rosewall is underrated (partly to being overshadowed by Gonzales and Laver), but even missing out on slams he's still tied with Lendl.

Well didn't Rosewall win his first 4 slams when other like Gonzales turned pro and was "missing slams". Many always talk about how many slams Laver, Rosewall and others missed out on by turning pro, but you also have to consider that they won slams (before turning pro), that others "missed".

So while I do feel Rosewall is one of the greatest, and sometimes underrated, I think all things should be considered.
True. If Gonzales, Kramer, Sedgman had been allowed to play in the slams as pros in the 1950s, Rosewall might not have won them in 1953-56. But by 1957 he was just as good and maybe better than these guys.

So we might remove Muscles's first first four slams from 1953-56, but we could add six or seven from 1957-62.

I believe that his longevity counts for a lot, and places him very high indeed on my GOAT-list. Hypothetically, I think (with pros in the slams) he would have won more slams and the longevity would be almost as impressive--say from 1957 to 1972. (We shouldn't forget that in the Open-era he did make it to the Wimbledon finals in 1974.)

Chopin
06-07-2009, 08:44 AM
Well, it's over guys. Federer has accomplished more in tennis than any player in the history of the game. I'm glad to say that it couldn't have happened to a nicer champion.

I thank you all for participating in the thread. In particular, I'd like to thank the TW Historians and aficionados, who, over the past couple of weeks, have taught me that Federer is barely top 10 in the history of the game, that Rod Laver would beat Federer with a wooden racquet (Federer is using his K90 in the scenario), and that I'm "very pathetic" (this poster then proceeded to incorrectly point out my "misuse" of the word "jive").

I'm riding off into the sunset. Game, set & match.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 08:50 AM
Hey, hang out. Tennis history is still being written. What if Fed wins Wimbledon 09 (Rafa's out with knee problems) and surpasses Pete with 15 slams?

Congratulations Roger! I have just updated my GOAT-list. Fed has passed Pete.

I think it'd be fun to give them both Maxplys with gut today, and watch. I've heard that Rosewall at 74 still looks very smooth indeed.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 08:54 AM
Agree with theory, disagree with logic. Yes Rosewall is underrated (partly to being overshadowed by Gonzales and Laver), but even missing out on slams he's still tied with Lendl.

Well didn't Rosewall win his first 4 slams when other like Gonzales turned pro and was "missing slams". Many always talk about how many slams Laver, Rosewall and others missed out on by turning pro, but you also have to consider that they won slams (before turning pro), that others "missed".

So while I do feel Rosewall is one of the greatest, and sometimes underrated, I think all things should be considered.

Well I am not disputing Rosewall (like all the others from that period of time including Laver as you said) won some early slams as an amateur he wouldnt have. However the total # of slams he would have won would be alot more than 8 had it been open tennis, after both counting the slams he likely wouldnt have and the ones he likely would have, pretty much everyone agrees on that. In fact his jump from the 8 he sits at is quite likely more than the jump Laver would have from the 11 he currently sits at (I am definitely not saying he is greater than Laver mind you). I respect Lendl as a player of course but with his choking early on in slams finals, and all the missed opportunities to win more slams, I could never rate him over someone like Rosewall.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 08:54 AM
Hey, hang out. Tennis history is still being written. What if Fed wins Wimbledon 09 (Rafa's out with knee problems) and surpasses Pete with 15 slams?

Congratulations Roger! I have just updated my GOAT-list.

I think it'd be fun to give them both Maxplys with gut today, and watch. I've heard that Rosewall at 72 still looks very smooth indeed.

Where is Roger now on your GOAT list?

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 09:12 AM
6. Roger Federer
7. Pete Sampras
8. Pancho Gonzales
9. Fred Perry
10. Ivan Lendl
11. Elsworth Vines
12. Jimmy Connors
13. Jack Kramer
14. Henri Cochet
15. Lew Hoad

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 09:17 AM
6. Roger Federer
7. Pete Sampras
8. Pancho Gonzales
9. Fred Perry
10. Ivan Lendl
11. Elsworth Vines
12. Jimmy Connors
13. Jack Kramer
14. Henri Cochet
15. Lew Hoad

Hmm interesting. I suspect wherever he is on anyones list now he will probably only move up as bolstered by the confidence of his Madrid and French Open wins I cant see him not winning multiple more majors now, as much as I am not excited about the idea.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 09:19 AM
One thing I am struck with today on this morning, is how ferociously difficult it is to win a true Grand Slam. Earlier this year just after the AO I wondered if Nadal could do it--thinking that he was a shoe-in at RG, and the favorite at Wimbledon, and that he was improving.

In today's game you'd have to be virtually perfect to win exactly 28 matches and not falter or stumle once--no second chances.

You have to win four out of four, 28 out of 28. This is why the true Grand Slam to me dwarfs a career grand slam. Because with a career slam one might have to win 4 out of 40 for example

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 09:22 AM
Hmm interesting. I suspect wherever he is on anyones list now he will probably only move up as bolstered by the confidence of his Madrid and French Open wins I cant see him not winning multiple more majors now, as much as I am not excited about the idea.

If Fed can do a French-Wimby double, a la Borg, then he may more up even more.
But then Borg, who is just ahead of Fed on my list, did it three years in a row.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 09:28 AM
One thing I am struck with today on this morning, is how ferociously difficult it is to win a true Grand Slam. Earlier this year just after the AO I wondered if Nadal could do it--thinking that he was a shoe-in at RG, and the favorite at Wimbledon, and that he was improving.

In today's game you'd have to be virtually perfect to win exactly 28 matches and not falter or stumle once--no second chances.

You have to win four out of four, 28 out of 28. This is why the true Grand Slam to me dwarfs a career grand slam. Because with a career slam one might have to win 4 out of 40 for example

I agree with all that. I think it would be a big challenge for either Nadal or Federer to win the Calender Slam. Roger's next chance at that wouldnt be until next year and he would be 28 to start the year, 29 to finish it. Nadal, Djokovic, even Murray are now all tough competition for him on almost all surfaces each. Granted he might take some huge confidence from the recent turn of events and move his game and play forward again. Still it would seem a big ask.

As for Nadal it would also be a big ask now. His clay court dominance is not as sure a thing going into next year as it was in the past, he is capable IMO of regaining it but will have to fight for it. He still has competition at Wimbledon with Federer atleast, and will even more if Murray improves on grass. On hard courts there are many guys competitive with him and a threat to take him on a given day, despite that overall in the last year he has arguably been the best hard court player in the world. Plus staying healthy and fit the whole year, especialy for the U.S Open which is on his worst surface to begin with if he somehow ever managed to win the first 3 legs. So a big ask for him too.

If either achieve it, it would be a huge achievement indeed.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 09:31 AM
If Fed can do a French-Wimby double, a la Borg, then he may more up even more.
But then Borg, who is just ahead of Fed on my list, did it three years in a row.

Borg never won the U.S Open on 2 different surfaces though (I say 2 practically speaking as thinking he had a real shot from 74 earlier on grass would have been crazy). I think he was terribly unlucky not to looking at the various circumstances, but it is still something that weighs against him now that Roger has won all 4 slams, as much as the "career slam" is overrated I agree. I agree winning the French-Wimbledon title would be another potential step for Roger's place in history, and with Nadal ailing and Federer having the confidence of just beating him on clay he probably has a good shot this year at doing that but we will see.

hoodjem
06-07-2009, 09:36 AM
All good points. Yes, tennis history in the making potentially.

I'd love to see Murray do something this year.

grafselesfan
06-07-2009, 09:39 AM
I like Murray alot. His slam performances have been dissapointing so far though. I know you could reason out alot of that, he wasnt really the Murray we know now until after Wimbledon 2008, the U.S Open final in 2008 was his first slam final, he ran into a red hot Verdasco down under, the French isnt really his surface anyway. However at some point you just have to do it. So far he has 1 slam final and no other semis. Really hoping he can make atleast the semis of Wimbledon if not better. For now I think he has shown alot with his Masters performances, but he does have a bit of a stigma about his slam performances up to now.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-07-2009, 04:17 PM
grafselesfan you seem to hate Federer alot. Is there a reason for this?

World Beater
06-07-2009, 04:31 PM
No, Sampras has said Laver is the best to him. Now he's more diplomatic saying Laver, himslf, Federer and Borg, and "it's hard to say", but Pete has said Laver is the best ever.

hello. please see the following:






What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-07-2009, 04:50 PM
hello. please see the following:






What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's." ***********s put in their place.

dh003i
06-07-2009, 06:34 PM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.

Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.

EDIT: Hey guys, I know that I told some of you to listen to the Revolutionary Etude (fits your posting moods well) but I've reconsidered and decided that you'd be better off listening to the Waltz in C-Sharp Minor as you view this thread. It might relax some of you guys. I would post my own recording, but I suspect many of you aficionados would be quite critical, and I know how much you guys like the old timers, so here's The Man playing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WpDH5zbhIk

Seems like that's an Open-Era only list.

If you're talking all-time, there are quite a few incredible greats -- Budge, Vines, Gonzales, Hoad, Kramer, Tilden -- who also need to be mentioned.

380pistol
06-07-2009, 09:38 PM
hello. please see the following:






What he's done over the past five years has never, ever been done — and probably will never, ever happen again," Sampras said. "Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it."

On hand to give Federer the French Open trophy on Sunday was Andre Agassi, the last player to complete a career Grand Slam sweep, in 1999.

"How do you sort of argue with his numbers? It's pretty incredible," Agassi said of Federer. "A lot of people say it's better to be lucky than good. I'd rather be Roger than lucky."

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

Laver was barred from competing in those tournaments from the time he turned professional in 1963 to the start of the Open era in 1968.

Federer is now Sampras's choice for best ever.

"Now that he's won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion," said Sampras, who retired in 2002.

"I'm a huge Laver fan, and he had a few years in there where he didn't have an opportunity to win majors. But you can't compare the eras, and in this era, the competition is much more fierce than Rod's."

I mean if we want to go into quotes I can pull some from Sampras. "He has the greatest groundstrokes of anyone I've ever played against". Now who did Pete say this about?? Let's go through all those he's played... Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Safin and yes the boy Federer himself, and he wasn't speaking about any of them. He said this speaking of Lleyton Hewitt, and I don't know who will agree here.

Sampras is very diplomatic, and may believe Roger is the greatest based on his French Open victory. I mean what's he gonna say "No, I'm the greatest" or "No, Laver is still the man to me", Wilander said that and he's crucified in another thread. So take Sampras' comments for what it's worth. When he said Laver a lot of it had to do with Rod being his idol, is it what it is. Roger just last fall was saying Sampras was the greates during their exxhibition series. What was he supposed to say??

I mean the competion hthing is a big issue. How come when Sampras spoke his mind on that (more than once), no one took his word, but all of a sudden his word is golden??

380pistol
06-07-2009, 09:48 PM
True. If Gonzales, Kramer, Sedgman had been allowed to play in the slams as pros in the 1950s, Rosewall might not have won them in 1953-56. But by 1957 he was just as good and maybe better than these guys.

So we might remove Muscles's first first four slams from 1953-56, but we could add six or seven from 1957-62.

I believe that his longevity counts for a lot, and places him very high indeed on my GOAT-list. Hypothetically, I think (with pros in the slams) he would have won more slams and the longevity would be almost as impressive--say from 1957 to 1972. (We shouldn't forget that in the Open-era he did make it to the Wimbledon finals in 1974.)

I agree. We'll never no Rosewall's true "slam" count. If I take away the 1st 4 he won as an amateaur, then that leaves us the 4 he won in the open era, and won would have to also consider his major pros (French, US and Wembley) as well, when he couldn't compete in slams. His longevity should warrant him more credit than it does, but at times being overshadowed by Gonzales and then Laver does hurt.

The most logical way (I think) is to take Rosewall from the late 50's to the early 70's and estimate how many slams he would have won, while considering the best players during those times as well. I see him slowing down in the mid 60's, as if people are gonna give slams to Laver, that may take away from Ken's count.

Was Rosewall as good (I don't know about better) than Gonzales in the late 50's??

380pistol
06-07-2009, 09:54 PM
Well I am not disputing Rosewall (like all the others from that period of time including Laver as you said) won some early slams as an amateur he wouldnt have. However the total # of slams he would have won would be alot more than 8 had it been open tennis, after both counting the slams he likely wouldnt have and the ones he likely would have, pretty much everyone agrees on that. In fact his jump from the 8 he sits at is quite likely more than the jump Laver would have from the 11 he currently sits at (I am definitely not saying he is greater than Laver mind you). I respect Lendl as a player of course but with his choking early on in slams finals, and all the missed opportunities to win more slams, I could never rate him over someone like Rosewall.

I agree his slam count would be higher than 8, if the climate and slam conditions were the way they are now. I just think it's always inaccurate to say players missed years and "What If". I mean Laver missed years but what is Rosewall, Hoad and co. were allowed to compete in slam in early 60's?? Rosewall missed time, but what if Gonzales, Seggman, Segura and Trabert were able to compete in mid 50's??

Also as much as I think Rosewall would have benefitted from "open" tennis so would Gonzalez, Hoad, Segman, Segura, Laver etc. from mid 50's oto 1968. So who would get what?? I can estimate but hell if I know.

380pistol
06-07-2009, 09:55 PM
6. Roger Federer
7. Pete Sampras
8. Pancho Gonzales
9. Fred Perry
10. Ivan Lendl
11. Elsworth Vines
12. Jimmy Connors
13. Jack Kramer
14. Henri Cochet
15. Lew Hoad

Who's #1-5?? I summize Laver, Tilden, Budge, Rosewall and Borg (in no particular order).

And what do you base it on??

thalivest
06-07-2009, 11:01 PM
Alot of people bring up competition or lack thereof for anyone in the Open era when discussing greats of both genders. Well when Tilden was dominant his competition was 5"8 Bill Johnston nicknamed "little Bill" and the forever slamless Vinnie Richards. They were still a handful for him, taking him to 5 sets often. Once the great French players- LaCoste, Cochet, and Borota truly emerged his reign immediately ended in 1926. OK he was 33 years old, but was 33 back then really old in athletic terms the way it is now? As late as the 60s you see guys almost 40 on top. Plus he played the U.S Open (the biggest even by far he usually played) without winning until he 27. He rarely ventured overseas to play Wimbledon during his dominance, and never ventured overseas to try the French on clay during his reign. He finally played the French in 1927 when his reign had already been ended by the French, never winning in 3 appearances. Even in this pre historic time his dominance only lasted 6 years, not significantly longer (or longer at all) in some cases compared to more recent greats. I am not saying he isnt an all time great player but I am amazed how much benefit of doubt he gets to be ranked #2 or #3 on some peoples lists.

adidas_wilson
06-07-2009, 11:12 PM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.

Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.

EDIT: Hey guys, I know that I told some of you to listen to the Revolutionary Etude (fits your posting moods well) but I've reconsidered and decided that you'd be better off listening to the Waltz in C-Sharp Minor as you view this thread. It might relax some of you guys. I would post my own recording, but I suspect many of you aficionados would be quite critical, and I know how much you guys like the old timers, so here's The Man playing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WpDH5zbhIk

Wow, you left out soooo many facts.. Way to go!

Laver should be #1, with Roger almost there..

ClubHoUno
06-08-2009, 12:14 AM
Let's assume Federer wins the French.

1) Roger Federer (14 slams)
2) Pete Sampras (14 slams)
3) Andre Agassi (8 slams)--Particular weight should be placed on his career slam, which was achieved in an incredibly competitive modern game on three surfaces--something no one besides Federer has accomplished (including Laver). One also must consider that he played against Sampras.)
4) Björn Borg (11 slams)
5) Rod Laver (11 slams) Great champion, but his Grand Slam consisted of winning grass court tournaments when professional tennis was in its infancy. All in all, he was a great champion who played in a weak era. The truth is, a prime Laver would not match up well with current ATP players. These considerations prevent him from being ranked above Borg, who himself had difficulties keeping up with the rising powers of the modern game.)
6) John McCenroe (7 slams)
7) Jimmy Connors (8 slams)
8) Ivan Lendl (8 slams)
9) Ken Rosewall (8 slams)
10) Roy Emerson (12 slams)--Obviously difficult to place.

Note: Accomplishments are considered first (winning slams is the only legitimate test of a champion), though some emphasis is placed on the strength of the era (hence, Emerson not being ranked higher). Thus, Laver is #5 due to great accomplishments in his era, even though keen observers of tennis understand that Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, ect. would beat him soundly and routinely.

EDIT: Hey guys, I know that I told some of you to listen to the Revolutionary Etude (fits your posting moods well) but I've reconsidered and decided that you'd be better off listening to the Waltz in C-Sharp Minor as you view this thread. It might relax some of you guys. I would post my own recording, but I suspect many of you aficionados would be quite critical, and I know how much you guys like the old timers, so here's The Man playing it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WpDH5zbhIk

My GOAT list:

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Rod Laver
4. Roy Emerson
5. Bjørn Borg
6. Andre Agasssi
7. Ivan Lendl
8. Jimmy Connors
9. Ken Rosewall
10. Johhny Mac

zagor
06-08-2009, 03:29 AM
6. Roger Federer
7. Pete Sampras
8. Pancho Gonzales
9. Fred Perry
10. Ivan Lendl
11. Elsworth Vines
12. Jimmy Connors
13. Jack Kramer
14. Henri Cochet
15. Lew Hoad

Just curious,where do you rank Agassi and Mcenroe on your list?

hoodjem
06-08-2009, 06:27 AM
hello. please see the following:

For a long time, Sampras pointed to his idol Rod Laver, 11-time Grand Slam champ, as the best tennis player in history. Laver was the last man to win all four Grand Slam titles in a single season, a feat he accomplished in both 1962 and 1967.

I see it, but I also note that it is factually incorrect: Laver's second Grand Slam was in 1969--not 1967. In 1967 he won a Pro Slam, being banned from the grand slam tournaments as a Professional.

rolandg
06-08-2009, 10:18 AM
From 1960 onwards. Don't know too much from before that.

1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Ivan Lendl
5. John Mcenroe
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Pete Sampras
8. Roger Federer
9. John Newcombe
10. Stefan Edberg

World Beater
06-08-2009, 10:31 AM
I mean if we want to go into quotes I can pull some from Sampras. "He has the greatest groundstrokes of anyone I've ever played against". Now who did Pete say this about?? Let's go through all those he's played... Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Courier, Muster, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Safin and yes the boy Federer himself, and he wasn't speaking about any of them. He said this speaking of Lleyton Hewitt, and I don't know who will agree here.

Sampras is very diplomatic, and may believe Roger is the greatest based on his French Open victory. I mean what's he gonna say "No, I'm the greatest" or "No, Laver is still the man to me", Wilander said that and he's crucified in another thread. So take Sampras' comments for what it's worth. When he said Laver a lot of it had to do with Rod being his idol, is it what it is. Roger just last fall was saying Sampras was the greates during their exxhibition series. What was he supposed to say??

I mean the competion hthing is a big issue. How come when Sampras spoke his mind on that (more than once), no one took his word, but all of a sudden his word is golden??


these reflect sampras most recent statements. all that other stuff he has said was not as recent and therefore obsolete. I cannot read sampras' mind and i will take his words for what they are...

when he said the competition wasn't what it was, i believed him - not in that he was correct but that this is what he believed sincerely. same thing about what he said today.

nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to call federer the best ever. It is not being diplomatic either - he could have said - "roger is a special player, one of the greatest ever and this is an outstanding achievement".

but out of all the players sampras had the most praise for federer, which is interesting considering how much sampras values his own place in history. sampras does not give free respect and does not throw his words without weight. even when federer was accumulating records, sampras did not budge and jump to the conclusion that federer was the best of all times. he was still skeptical. well it seems like he has come around...

you can certainly interpret his words how you wish, but to me they are pretty clear and certainly he was direct, and showered federer with as much praise as anyone could have.

and yes sampras agrees that federer is the best ever. he actually says it. everything else is conjecture.

CEvertFan
06-08-2009, 10:51 AM
Why does everyone seem to think the "Career Slam" is overrated when only 6 men have accomplished that feat, including the newest member of the club, Federer and 2 of those 6 have won the actual Calander Grand Slam. This isn't the women's game we're talking about here, where it's much more common for the top women to have won all 4 majors at least once - this is the men's game where it's very rare for the men to have won all 4 majors at least once. I personally think it isn't overrated and is a significant achievement, precisely because it is such a rare occurance. If it was much more common among the men like with the women then I would agree that it's overrated, but it's not.

380pistol
06-08-2009, 11:41 AM
these reflect sampras most recent statements. all that other stuff he has said was not as recent and therefore obsolete. I cannot read sampras' mind and i will take his words for what they are...

when he said the competition wasn't what it was, i believed him - not in that he was correct but that this is what he believed sincerely. same thing about what he said today.

nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to call federer the best ever. It is not being diplomatic either - he could have said - "roger is a special player, one of the greatest ever and this is an outstanding achievement".

but out of all the players sampras had the most praise for federer, which is interesting considering how much sampras values his own place in history. sampras does not give free respect and does not throw his words without weight. even when federer was accumulating records, sampras did not budge and jump to the conclusion that federer was the best of all times. he was still skeptical. well it seems like he has come around...

you can certainly interpret his words how you wish, but to me they are pretty clear and certainly he was direct, and showered federer with as much praise as anyone could have.

and yes sampras agrees that federer is the best ever. he actually says it. everything else is conjecture.


There is no denying Fed's greatness, or Sampras' stateents. As you said they are his most recent. All I'm saying he's gone from Laver, to himsself, to Laver, to nobody to, tothe open era is Laver,Borg,himself and Federer to now Federer. If you want to take this cuz it's mo recent go ahead.

But what if he's asked and says something else. If you you want to hold onto anything, he also said "I will never sit here and tell you I'm the best, that's not me. But I know what I beleve even if I haven't said it".

You can easily read between the lines about what he thinks and says. He flat out said there's something (or certain things) he won't outright say, so he even put doubt in his words and belief. He said what he said about Roger, it is what it is.

Like I've said earlier, the last man Federer called the greatest was Sampras. It is what it is.

boredone3456
06-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Why does everyone seem to think the "Career Slam" is overrated when only 6 men have accomplished that feat, including the newest member of the club, Federer and 2 of those 6 have won the actual Calander Grand Slam. This isn't the women's game we're talking about here, where it's much more common for the top women to have won all 4 majors at least once - this is the men's game where it's very rare for the men to have won all 4 majors at least once. I personally think it isn't overrated and is a significant achievement, precisely because it is such a rare occurance. If it was much more common among the men like with the women then I would agree that it's overrated, but it's not.

While I am not positive, I think some people were trying to make the point it shouldn't be made such a big deal of because of its rarity and shouldn't be held over other players heads like it is in the womens game. Not that I completely agree to the extent some take it, but thats what I think some are getting at.

egn
06-08-2009, 11:49 AM
Why does everyone seem to think the "Career Slam" is overrated when only 6 men have accomplished that feat, including the newest member of the club, Federer and 2 of those 6 have won the actual Calander Grand Slam. This isn't the women's game we're talking about here, where it's much more common for the top women to have won all 4 majors at least once - this is the men's game where it's very rare for the men to have won all 4 majors at least once. I personally think it isn't overrated and is a significant achievement, precisely because it is such a rare occurance. If it was much more common among the men like with the women then I would agree that it's overrated, but it's not.


I second that only two men have done it open era for men compared to the six who have done it for women. Only 6 men overall compared to the 9 for women and two of the men were back in the 1930s..it does not happen nearly as often for men as women. You can bet Moody or Lenglen would have accomplished it had they focused on it. At lest Moody she won 13 slams in a row skipping the AO numerous times. The women have seemed to always have one women who shows far more dominance than the field up until now when the most talented athletes are out of shape, retiring or constantly injured. (Serena, Henin, Sharapova) Yet the women is noted for tons of dominant destructive forces who easily racked up 10+ slams. The men however when a guy gets to 6 it is a shocker and forget it when he breaks ten or can manage winning all 4 even if it is once that is definitely noteworthy.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 12:15 PM
1.Laver
2.Sampras
3.Rosewall
4.Gonzales
5.Federer
6.Borg

maximo
06-08-2009, 12:18 PM
1. Agassi

2. Murray

grafselesfan
06-08-2009, 12:41 PM
Why does everyone seem to think the "Career Slam" is overrated when only 6 men have accomplished that feat, including the newest member of the club, Federer and 2 of those 6 have won the actual Calander Grand Slam. This isn't the women's game we're talking about here, where it's much more common for the top women to have won all 4 majors at least once - this is the men's game where it's very rare for the men to have won all 4 majors at least once. I personally think it isn't overrated and is a significant achievement, precisely because it is such a rare occurance. If it was much more common among the men like with the women then I would agree that it's overrated, but it's not.

6 men have won the career slam. It is interesting to try and think how many women have. I believe the ones to do it are:

Graf
Evert
Navratilova
Serena Williams
Jean King
Court
Connolly
Hart
Fry

I could be wrong but I think those are the only 9. So not as many as one might think.

World Beater
06-08-2009, 02:06 PM
There is no denying Fed's greatness, or Sampras' stateents. As you said they are his most recent. All I'm saying he's gone from Laver, to himsself, to Laver, to nobody to, tothe open era is Laver,Borg,himself and Federer to now Federer. If you want to take this cuz it's mo recent go ahead.

But what if he's asked and says something else. If you you want to hold onto anything, he also said "I will never sit here and tell you I'm the best, that's not me. But I know what I beleve even if I haven't said it".

You can easily read between the lines about what he thinks and says. He flat out said there's something (or certain things) he won't outright say, so he even put doubt in his words and belief. He said what he said about Roger, it is what it is.

Like I've said earlier, the last man Federer called the greatest was Sampras. It is what it is.

pete has mentioned that he thinks that he would have split matches with federer had they both played in the same timeframe, which is perfectly reasonable given his own sel-confidence...but yet he says that federer is the greatest ever.

this is the distinguishing point i think. sampras is basing his "greatest ever" on what federer has achieved and on his abilities to beat a variety of players resulting in such consistent performances at slams. He does not however, concede the matchup debate between himself and federer interestingly enough but is willing to concede the "greatest ever" title. this is in contrast to other players like wilander, mcenroe, lendl etc who pretty much acknowledge federer as the superior player in a matchup situation. in fact lendl himself has not acknowledged federer as the greatest ever, but as joint greatest with laver.

this is part and parcel of why i do not think sampras is being diplomatic but realistic given his own standing in the game.

federer did refer to sampras as being one of the greatest if not the greatest - but sampras was before federer. there is no reason for sampras to say federer is unequivocally the greatest when others have not done so...

egn
06-08-2009, 05:11 PM
1.Laver
2.Sampras
3.Rosewall
4.Gonzales
5.Federer
6.Borg

I think we can all agree this plus Tilden is probably the best bet for a top 7 it is all adjusting it now. I have yet to think of a good order and I am going to wait for Fed to finish it out now as we see he still has some gas left. I am thinking we might see a new Federer soon a more relaxed cooled Federer as he now has done what he has always wanted to do.

Steve132
06-08-2009, 05:38 PM
Why does everyone seem to think the "Career Slam" is overrated when only 6 men have accomplished that feat, including the newest member of the club, Federer and 2 of those 6 have won the actual Calander Grand Slam. This isn't the women's game we're talking about here, where it's much more common for the top women to have won all 4 majors at least once - this is the men's game where it's very rare for the men to have won all 4 majors at least once. I personally think it isn't overrated and is a significant achievement, precisely because it is such a rare occurance. If it was much more common among the men like with the women then I would agree that it's overrated, but it's not.

I agree with you on the importance of the career Slam. It shows versatility, because each of the Slams poses its own challenges. It's no accident that few male players have completed a career Slam since the U.S. Open switched to hard courts.

fed_rulz
06-08-2009, 06:07 PM
Laver said Pete is the best ever.

Is it too much to comprehend that Fed came after pete, and Laver could *actually* revise his opinion based on what he watched after Pete?? :confused: