Aykhan Mammadov

06-27-2006, 02:45 PM

After many arguments, discussions about who and why I came to the conclusion that not a number of GS determine the GOAT despite it certainly influences, otherwise old argument 14 of Sampras but without RG or say 8 of Agassi but with all 4 "what is better ?" rises, and etc..

It could seem to me that 6 victories on clay - slowest surface among which 4 times done consequitively, and 5 times in absolutely contrary surface at W - among which all 5 done conseqitively is something phenomenal. This is GREAT Bjorn Borg with his 11 GS.

Also it seems to me that making 2 times Grand Slam by Rod Laver is also something fantastic.

But the question how to compare really was appearing in my mind again and again.

I came to the very simple mathematical decision. Among all players ( u argue or not - doesn't make a weather) W is considered the main dream ( just ask Fed or Agassi), then RG, then USO, then AO.

So if u give:

W - 4 points

RG - 3 points

USO -2 points

AO - 1 point

and extra 10 points every time u make Grand Slam (= winning all 4 in the same year; is given 10 because I consider it is fair to multiply points of a player to 2 if he win all 4 slams, and their sum is 10):

and give a player 10 points once if he did all 4 in his career.

then u can give some common ranking to players:

Borg = 5x4+6x3 = 38

Rod Laver = 10+10+10+10 = 40

Sampras = 7x4 + 5x2 +2x1 = 40

Agassi - 1x4+1x3 + 2x2 + 4x1 + 10 = 25

Federer at the moment - 3x4 + 2x2 + 2x1 = 18

Don Budge = 10 + 10 = 20

McEnroe = 3x4 + 4x2 = 20

Lendl = 3x3 + 3x2 + 2x1 = 17

Jimmy Connors = 2x4 + 5x2 + 1x1 = 19

U can see Greatest players by today were Laver, Sampras and Borg.

Federer did win Sampras in 2001, so I think Laver and especially Borg with his 5 consequitive !!! victories at W and 6 victories at RG ( 4 consequitive !!!) probably must be most respected players of all times.

It could seem to me that 6 victories on clay - slowest surface among which 4 times done consequitively, and 5 times in absolutely contrary surface at W - among which all 5 done conseqitively is something phenomenal. This is GREAT Bjorn Borg with his 11 GS.

Also it seems to me that making 2 times Grand Slam by Rod Laver is also something fantastic.

But the question how to compare really was appearing in my mind again and again.

I came to the very simple mathematical decision. Among all players ( u argue or not - doesn't make a weather) W is considered the main dream ( just ask Fed or Agassi), then RG, then USO, then AO.

So if u give:

W - 4 points

RG - 3 points

USO -2 points

AO - 1 point

and extra 10 points every time u make Grand Slam (= winning all 4 in the same year; is given 10 because I consider it is fair to multiply points of a player to 2 if he win all 4 slams, and their sum is 10):

and give a player 10 points once if he did all 4 in his career.

then u can give some common ranking to players:

Borg = 5x4+6x3 = 38

Rod Laver = 10+10+10+10 = 40

Sampras = 7x4 + 5x2 +2x1 = 40

Agassi - 1x4+1x3 + 2x2 + 4x1 + 10 = 25

Federer at the moment - 3x4 + 2x2 + 2x1 = 18

Don Budge = 10 + 10 = 20

McEnroe = 3x4 + 4x2 = 20

Lendl = 3x3 + 3x2 + 2x1 = 17

Jimmy Connors = 2x4 + 5x2 + 1x1 = 19

U can see Greatest players by today were Laver, Sampras and Borg.

Federer did win Sampras in 2001, so I think Laver and especially Borg with his 5 consequitive !!! victories at W and 6 victories at RG ( 4 consequitive !!!) probably must be most respected players of all times.