PDA

View Full Version : What are the criterias for being a good player


jukka1970
07-06-2005, 01:42 AM
I've noticed through the threads that there seems to be a vast difference amongst everyone on criterias of good or excellent players. you see this in comparing different players.

I've always wonder what people felt makes an excellent player. I mean in my mind for the women my pick would be Graf, and my criteria would be her all court game and domination at each slam. But at the same time you have Navratilova, who I also thought was and is an excellent player. she's still playing at 48. She has 9 wimbledon titles, which for someone to now break is going to be awfully hard. She has the most wins overall. But just between these two players different criterias cause a different choice.

The same is true for the men's side. Sampras comes to mind first, an excellent player, 14 slam titles, but he never won the french open. Borg won 11 titles between the French and Wimbledon.

What do you consider criterias, or what makes you pick one over the other

Marius_Hancu
07-06-2005, 01:49 AM
Both Graf and MN are not just good players, they are extraordinary players.

For the sake of argumentation, the most frequently used criteria seem to be:

- number of Grand/Golden Slams (taking all 4 slams, achieved in a calendar year): Graf has one

- number of Slams (Graf has 22 I guess, MN has 18]

However, different authors (and posters!) have different criteria, thus the differences:-)

littlelleyton
07-06-2005, 01:57 AM
I've noticed through the threads that there seems to be a vast difference amongst everyone on criterias of good or excellent players. you see this in comparing different players.

I've always wonder what people felt makes an excellent player. I mean in my mind for the women my pick would be Graf, and my criteria would be her all court game and domination at each slam. But at the same time you have Navratilova, who I also thought was and is an excellent player. she's still playing at 48. She has 9 wimbledon titles, which for someone to now break is going to be awfully hard. She has the most wins overall. But just between these two players different criterias cause a different choice.

The same is true for the men's side. Sampras comes to mind first, an excellent player, 14 slam titles, but he never won wimbledon. Borg won 11 titles between the French and Wimbledon.

What do you consider criterias, or what makes you pick one over the other



im sorry but am i reading you right here, are you saying Sampras NEVER won Wimbledon??? ??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

AAAA
07-06-2005, 03:43 AM
I mean in my mind for the women my pick would be Graf, and my criteria would be her all court game and domination at each slam. But at the same time you have Navratilova, who I also thought was and is an excellent player. she's still playing at 48. She has 9 wimbledon titles, which for someone to now break is going to be awfully hard. She has the most wins overall. But just between these two players different criterias cause a different choice.


You've answered your own question by realising yourself there are different and equally valid ways to judge great players. However there will always be those who refine the judging method(s) to yield the result they want.

baseliner
07-06-2005, 04:36 AM
I think he meant Roland Garros. Sampras may not have won the French Open but he won Wimbledon repeatedly. Think Becker mentioned that Sampras owned the lawns of the All England Club.

littlelleyton
07-06-2005, 08:18 AM
I think he meant Roland Garros. Sampras may not have won the French Open but he won Wimbledon repeatedly. Think Becker mentioned that Sampras owned the lawns of the All England Club.

i thought that was what he meant, i hope that is what he meant either that or that was one long sleep through the 90s for someone :rolleyes:

fedex27
07-06-2005, 08:20 AM
well its simple, you have to win. its like someones sig, i forget who, "tennis is simple, all you have to do is win the last point"

Camilio Pascual
07-06-2005, 11:06 AM
I've noticed through the threads that there seems to be a vast difference amongst everyone on criterias of good or excellent players. you see this in comparing different players.
What do you consider criterias, or what makes you pick one over the other

I'll go with your original question about a "good" player. I would call Todd Martin or Anna Kournikova good singles players. To be a good player, you must not have won a Majors singles title and have spent some time in the Top 20 and preferably never been higher than #3, though a short stay @ #2 might be okay. Michael Chang was briefly @ #2, but won 1 Major, so he is not just good player, but a very good player.

jukka1970
07-09-2005, 12:32 AM
Yes, did mean to write that he never won the French Open. I think I typed to fast going into Borgs winning. Yes, Sampras won wimbledon 7 times, and you're right would have been a long sleep through the 90's if I didn't know that. Thanks others for making the correction. I fixed it in the original post

littlelleyton
07-09-2005, 10:27 AM
Yes, did mean to write that he never won the French Open. I think I typed to fast going into Borgs winning. Yes, Sampras won wimbledon 7 times, and you're right would have been a long sleep through the 90's if I didn't know that. Thanks others for making the correction. I fixed it in the original post

hey we have all been there, typing too fast for our fingers to keep up with the brain.

i think there have been some really fair points here. if you take a touring pro who has been top 50 even lower, they may not have ever won a grand slam and rarely make inpacts in the tour events but they are playing tennis for a living, maybe not a fantastic one, but they are doing it, living the childhood dream of playing tennis for their job. i consider them good players. they i would think would considering themselves good players. the fact that they dont make millions is nothing to them after all it only takes a 1st or 2nd round draw once in a while that pairs them with Fed or Lleyton or A-Rod and give them the dream that we all have, to compete with our heros and i would imagine that would make them happy. course no one like losing but if it werent for these good players who would the wonderfully gifted people play.
it takes something more to go that extra step and be top 10 and win consistantly.