PDA

View Full Version : 15 greatest players of all time


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

capriatifanatic
09-11-2006, 06:13 PM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

The tennis guy
09-11-2006, 06:19 PM
I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

You lost all of your credibility by putting Capriati as No. 15. She got 3 slam titles, and never even finished the year as No. 1.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
09-11-2006, 06:20 PM
lol, putting Pete at 4 and Connors at 13 lost your credibility as well.

quest01
09-11-2006, 06:24 PM
What has Capriati the player been up to lately, has she retired or what?

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-11-2006, 06:28 PM
Women-

1)Evert
2)Navratilova
3)Graf
4)Court
5)Lenglen
6)Wills Moody
7)King
8. Connoly
9)Seles
10)Goolagong
11)Serena Williams
12)Hart
13)DuPont
14)Bueno
15)Venus Williams
16)Gibson
17)Fry
18. Henin Hardenne
19)Douglas Chambers
20)Molla Mallorey

Men-
1)Gonzalez,
2)Laver
3)Sampras
4)Borg
5)Tilden
6)Federer
7)Budge
8. Perry
9)Rosewall
10)Lendl
11)Agassi
12)Connors
13)McEnroe
14)Kramer
15)Cochet
16)LaCoste
17)Newcombe
18. Edberg
19)Crawford
20)Hoad

BigboyDan
09-11-2006, 06:29 PM
Capriati is recovering/rehabbing from shoulder surgery - whether she can come back from that, who knows?

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-11-2006, 06:45 PM
Why I put Evert at #1-

1)Winning atleast 1 Slam title every year for 13 years, longest streak by far of any women.

2)Reaching the semis of 36 consecutive grand slam events, another record

3)Her reaching the finals of 34 grand slam events, a record

3)Her 125 match winning streak on clay, longest streak on any surface

Normaly I would hold not winning more then 2 slams in any one year against her, but she did not play the Australia Open from 1975 to 1980 or the French Open from 1976 to 1978. It is unlikely she would have ever won the Grand Slam since the only year she did not lose in atleast one Grand Slam event was 1976 and beating Goolagong in two grass court finals in the same year(Wimbledon she did 8-6 in the 3rd, Australian Open was played on grass which Goolagong won and Evert did not play)would be unlikely, but she likely would have multiple 3 slam years.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
09-11-2006, 06:47 PM
Steffi and Navraltiova are better than Chrissie

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-11-2006, 06:56 PM
Maybe it is unfair to say but I feel the Seles stabbing taints Grafs career. Winning 10 out of 15 slams in a period directly after you won 2 of 9, after that rival who won 7 of 9 was stabbed in the back, I just have a hard time evaluating her the same way.
That is why I would put Evert over here.

Navratilova may be greater then Evert, I know most feel that way. Even though I rate Chris over, I know I am in the minority, and I would not tell the ones who rate Martina on top that they are wrong. My reasoning though is that I just like Evert's longevity and consistency over so many years alot. Not that Navratilova did not have that as well, heck she is playing high level doubles close to 50, and reached the Wimbledon singles final at 37. However even Navratilova was not one of the clearly two best female players in the World for 13 straight years like Evert was.

Mick
09-11-2006, 07:17 PM
jack krammer once said "the best offensive player will always beat the best defensive player."

A lot of the players on these lists are not "the best offensive players" :)

Haasquet
09-12-2006, 07:37 AM
Yeah, well Tony Trabert once said "show me a pusher, and I'll show you a room full of trophies."

...at least, I think he did. I seem to recall reading that in a Tennis magazine sometime during the nineties. Maybe I'm wrong.

WayneCM
09-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.
Man havn't laughed this much in a while... Capriati, Serena Williams... Yet no Hingis...???

Lleytian3
09-12-2006, 08:37 AM
jack krammer once said "the best offensive player will always beat the best defensive player."

A lot of the players on these lists are not "the best offensive players" :)

i beg to differ. quite. they are numerous defensive players/counter punchers that can be a lot of offensive players. hewitt is a prime example of that, some people say that nadal is an offensive but i think he is a counter puncher as well. i guess im a lil bias because i am a counter puncher, and i can beat numerous players that have the andy roddick, james blake style. the go for broke kind.

as for my top 15 players on all time, i think you got federer way too high. but i cant list them in order, here is my top 15, again not in order

sampras, becker, agassi, borg, connors, lendl, ivanevic, federer, courier, mcenroe, wilander, laver, newcombe, perry, hewitt

__________________
"winning isnt everything...it is the only thing"

"i HATE losing more than i LOVE winning"

dh003i
09-12-2006, 08:44 AM
here is my top 15, again not in order

sampras, becker, agassi, borg, connors, lendl, ivanevic, federer, courier, mcenroe, wilander, laver, newcombe, perry, hewitt

Hahahhahahaha, Hewitt in the top 15 of all time? That's a laugh. By no stretch of the imagination is he one of the greatest ever. Likewise with Ivanevic. LOL.

BluBarry
09-12-2006, 09:06 AM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

You also lost credibility in placing Graf at #7 where I firmly believe she belongs at #1 or #2 depending on if you want to include Doubles Titles.
I'm curiious as what others have suggested but your list (and I don't mean to insult you) is constructed simply to instill argument. You are a JenCap fan granted but that doesn't justify her being in a conversation of the best ever.

You should maybe instead ask the question, Top 15 Most Popular Players. Then I could accept what you've written. And to see Monica Seles at #9 is insane. Monica is clearly a solid #3 or #4 but certainly no lower than that.

So when asking the question GOAT .. you need to establish a criteria for conclusion or this is just going to go on & on like always. Not like we haven't seen these questions on Forums before. They weren't agreed upon then and they certainly won't be agreed upon now.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-12-2006, 09:11 AM
You should maybe instead ask the question, Top 15 Most Popular Players. Then I could accept what you've written. And to see Monica Seles at #9 is insane. Monica is clearly a solid #3 or #4 but certainly no lower than that.

Why should Seles be as high as #3 or #4 on anyones list? She has 9 Grand Slam titles, tied for 8th all time. Granted she suffered the tragic stabbing, but if you were rating her so much higher then her wins merit based on "what would have been", you would not have Graf at #1 or #2 as you claim you would have. So I dont understand your logic at rating Seles #3 or #4 under any basis that would still have Graf at #1 or #2.

BluBarry
09-12-2006, 09:54 AM
Why should Seles be as high as #3 or #4 on anyones list? She has 9 Grand Slam titles, tied for 8th all time. Granted she suffered the tragic stabbing, but if you were rating her so much higher then her wins merit based on "what would have been", you would not have Graf at #1 or #2 as you claim you would have. So I dont understand your logic at rating Seles #3 or #4 under any basis that would still have Graf at #1 or #2.

All you have done is reiterated my question & concerns about this question that can not be answered. First & Foremost a criteria needs to be established as to what constitutes GOAT. Once everyone agrees on that, then we can have this discussion. I have never nor will I ever talk about what Monica may have done if this or that. I can only judge by what was presented to me (The Facts).

However, if you're talking about Greatest Player of All Times .. I would think that discussion has nothing to do with accomplishments but more so technical achievement and application. Or in other words, who played the best game.

I place Steffi Graf high on the list because she dominated through three generations of Players starting with the Navratilova/Evert era onto Her generation of Sabatini/Seles/Sanchez then concluding into the Davenport/Hingis era before she hung it up winning her last Major in 1999 against Hingis and reaching the Finals against Davenport the same year.

Once Graf got her feet firmly planted in this Sport, Navratilova was unable to beat her again. And Evert long before that lost her ability to control Graf's power being the victim of Graf's first title.

urban
09-12-2006, 11:01 AM
If i remember right, Martina was tied with Graf in head to head, and many matches Steffi won, were very close with Martina taking a set. That said, Steffi's best match ever probably was the 88 Wimbledon win over Martina, when Steffi broke clear in the 2nd and 3rd sets, even for once playing a rolled backhand.

flying24
09-12-2006, 11:05 AM
Martina is easily over Steffi. Look at their head to head at the U.S Open to tell this. From 1986 onwards they played 4 times at the U.S Open and Navratilova went 3-1 vs Graf. Considering that Graf was 17 or older in all of these matches, and Navratilova was 29 or older for all of them, it makes it extremely clear Navratilova would have dominated Graf with both in their primes.

Warriorroger
09-12-2006, 12:13 PM
Maybe it is unfair to say but I feel the Seles stabbing taints Grafs career. Winning 10 out of 15 slams in a period directly after you won 2 of 9, after that rival who won 7 of 9 was stabbed in the back, I just have a hard time evaluating her the same way.
That is why I would put Evert over here.

Navratilova may be greater then Evert, I know most feel that way. Even though I rate Chris over, I know I am in the minority, and I would not tell the ones who rate Martina on top that they are wrong. My reasoning though is that I just like Evert's longevity and consistency over so many years alot. Not that Navratilova did not have that as well, heck she is playing high level doubles close to 50, and reached the Wimbledon singles final at 37. However even Navratilova was not one of the clearly two best female players in the World for 13 straight years like Evert was.

Graf already had won the Grand slam and the Olympics before Seles arrived, so please stop that debate, because you (on purpose?) start that same old song again. No one is arguing that Graf's 1993 slam were hollow, but she won almost every slam in 1995 and 1996 and her last grand slam at the age of a couple of days shy of 30, there she proved that she wouod have gained up on Seles any way, please, stop, Seles is a great player, so is Graf.

BluBarry
09-12-2006, 12:44 PM
Martina is easily over Steffi. Look at their head to head at the U.S Open to tell this. From 1986 onwards they played 4 times at the U.S Open and Navratilova went 3-1 vs Graf. Considering that Graf was 17 or older in all of these matches, and Navratilova was 29 or older for all of them, it makes it extremely clear Navratilova would have dominated Graf with both in their primes.
Actually a slight correction. Steffi leads their Head to Head 9-8 and although Martina does lead 3-1 at US Open matches, The only match in a Majors that Martina won after Steffi became so dominant was in 1991 which was a horrible year for Steffi given her father's trouble with having an affair and then being jailed for Tax Evation proved too much emotional trauma for Steffi to handle not to mention her skiing accident. Monica Seles became the dominant player that year by all standards.

I would also include that the 1989 US Open was Steffi Graf's greatest defeat of Martina aside from their 88-89 meetings at Wimbledon which was Martina's best surface. The argument as to who was better Martina or Steffi will go on for ages and I personally lean towards Steffi. But again I fully understand a lot of that lends to whom you like better and you will color your decision accordingly.

So for those that believe Martina was better, I give them their props because it really is a coin toss. My only observation is, Martina was not capable of handling the power as it grew in the Women's Game. Whereas, Steffi was able to not only handle it but thrive as always until she called it quits because her knees were reducing her ability to use her best weapon, her speed.

BluBarry
09-12-2006, 12:54 PM
Maybe it is unfair to say but I feel the Seles stabbing taints Grafs career. Winning 10 out of 15 slams in a period directly after you won 2 of 9, after that rival who won 7 of 9 was stabbed in the back, I just have a hard time evaluating her the same way.
That is why I would put Evert over here.

Navratilova may be greater then Evert, I know most feel that way. Even though I rate Chris over, I know I am in the minority, and I would not tell the ones who rate Martina on top that they are wrong. My reasoning though is that I just like Evert's longevity and consistency over so many years alot. Not that Navratilova did not have that as well, heck she is playing high level doubles close to 50, and reached the Wimbledon singles final at 37. However even Navratilova was not one of the clearly two best female players in the World for 13 straight years like Evert was.

I am never about trying to insult or hurt a person's feeling but where in the World do you get this stuff? Are you just throwing crap out there to start a fight or something ? Because if that's the case, then I'll take your Post in stride, chuckle then move on. Ivan Lendl won the Lipton Internationals as a Walkover due to Tomas Muster getting hit by a car the night before the Finals. Therefore by your standards, that Title should be taken away from Lendl because he didn't earn it. I could go on & on, like maybe Mauresmo shouldn't have been given the Aussy Trophy until an actual match was played. This is Sports and regradless of why a person is or was not available to compete has nothing to do with the outcome. Who's to say that if Monica, Whom I adore, didn't get stabbed that Steffi wouldn't have beaten her anyway ? When Monica did come back full throttle and kicked everyone's butt in the Canadian Tuneups prior to the US Open and then breezed through the draw to meet Steffi in the Finals, I believe since I had a seat in the Player's Box that it was Steffi holding the Trophy.

btw - Sampras played Michael Chang in the Men's Finals and had Michael won, he would have rose to #1 in the World.

thejuice
09-12-2006, 01:11 PM
IMO, the sad thing about the whole Graf/Seles rivalry is that Monica Seles would have won more slams had she not been stabbed. I totally agree with BluBarry that Monica should be no lower than #4 because she and Graf totally dominated probably the best era in women's tennis. I'm not 100% sure but I think she dominated Graf on every surface other than grass. Of course "what ifs" don't count but I believe we can all assume she would have won at least another three or four slam titles had she not been stabbed. That would have put her at 12 to 13 titles that don't include Tier 1 events.

Steffi should be clearly #1 to me because she was so dominant. She won 22 major titles (only two shy of Court) and she played during an era where they were all on different surfaces. I would go so far as to say she is in the top three all time players for both sexes. Let's get this clear, I am not a Steffi Graf fan. Whenever she played Seles I would ALWAYS cheer for Monica but you have to give her props for doing her thing consistently over the years.

One last comment, I would rate Agassi in the top seven at least due to the fact that he won every major on a different surface (that is why he and Steffi were made for each other). No other man has ever done that and he needs his true credit for such a feat.

ATPballkid
09-12-2006, 01:28 PM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.


great list but why is Sampras #4?

ATPballkid
09-12-2006, 01:32 PM
IMO, the sad thing about the whole Graf/Seles rivalry is that Monica Seles would have won more slams had she not been stabbed. I totally agree with BluBarry that Monica should be no lower than #4 because she and Graf totally dominated probably the best era in women's tennis. I'm not 100% sure but I think she dominated Graf on every surface other than grass. Of course "what ifs" don't count but I believe we can all assume she would have won at least another three or four slam titles had she not been stabbed. That would have put her at 12 to 13 titles that don't include Tier 1 events.

Steffi should be clearly #1 to me because she was so dominant. She won 22 major titles (only two shy of Court) and she played during an era where they were all on different surfaces. I would go so far as to say she is in the top three all time players for both sexes. Let's get this clear, I am not a Steffi Graf fan. Whenever she played Seles I would ALWAYS cheer for Monica but you have to give her props for doing her thing consistently over the years.

One last comment, I would rate Agassi in the top seven at least due to the fact that he won every major on a different surface (that is why he and Steffi were made for each other). No other man has ever done that and he needs his true credit for such a feat.


Graf was pretty good ... as far as women tennis players go. The
problem with HER is twofold:

1. She had 2 or 3 great years before losing her #1 ranking until a
German fan of hers stabbed #1 Monica Seles in the back to reclaim any
semblance of #1 again.

2. Even with the stabbing of the red hot Monica Seles in the spring of
1993, SHE STILL did not establish any significant all-time records in
women's tennis other than the most U.S. Opens on hardcourts ... the
most weeks ranked #1 on the WTA computer rankings ... and the one for
having won each Slam 4 times (all of which would have, naturally, been
less likely if Seles had not been been stabbed.

Martina Navratilova is undeniably the greatest female tennis champion of all time.

Aykhan Mammadov
09-12-2006, 02:01 PM
I have no intention to answer to post 1.

It just shows that the author knows not so much about tennis.

Wilander among 15 best in history ? Lendl whose hands were shaken against Cash in Wimby final. U are joking !!!

Capriati is among greatest ? With 3 slams ? And where is great Hingis with 5 then? And if to take into account their head-to- head score where Hingis leads with 5:4, and taking into account 41 titles of Hingis against 14 of Capriati?

U are JOKING !!!! This thread is not serious.

"pits of the world"
09-12-2006, 02:30 PM
No way should Laver be ahead of Sampras,Federer or Agassi. Have you seen highlights of his matches? Anyone who plays in an era wear players wore khakis cannot be the best ever. Right now you have to say 1)Sampras 2) Bjorg 3)Federer 4)Agassi 5)Lendl. Sure Laver won the Grand Slam twice but did he do it on every surface like Agassi?

ATPballkid
09-12-2006, 04:30 PM
Unfortunately, your first sentence stopped me cold. I could get no further than your first 4 words "Seles would have had".



Unlike some of her more exhuberant fans who appear to exist in perpetual denial, Graf is very much aware of the all too common perception within the tennis community, & without, of the symbiotic relationship between her ultimate success and the forcible removal of Monica Seles from the game.

flying24
09-12-2006, 06:02 PM
My list-

1)Navratilova
2)Court
3)Evert
4)Lenglen
5)Graf
6)King
7)Wills Moody
8)Connoly
9)Seles
10)Serena Williams
11)Bueno
12)Goolagong
13)Betz
14)Marble
15)Gibson


1)Sampras
2)Laver
3)Borg
4)Gonzalez
5)Rosewall
6)Federer
7)Budge
8)McEnroe
9)Connors
10)Tilden
11)Lendl
12)Perry
13)Kramer
14)Cochet
15)Hoad

avmoghe
09-12-2006, 07:14 PM
First of all the Seles stabbing of course. While of course nobody will never know for sure what would have happened, one can never prove what would have happened, what is the fairest thing to do, completely ignore it, or by using some reasonable logic look at the total accomplishments of Graf in the post-stabbing years in a diminished way? One does not know for sure what would have happened, both Graf and Seles are too great to say with 100% certainty, and there are too many variables that come into play in sports, however the better question is what most LIKELY would have happened? Isnt that the fairer way to look at a situation like that, the most LIKELY.


No it is not. It is up to the players to prove the degree of their greatness, not for fans to guess.

The greatness of a player is based solely on their accomplishments, and the fact is that Monica Seles acheived what she acheived - no more, no less. She has failed to acheive more than Steffi Graf, and many other players in the sport. Why she failed, or what she would've acheived under different circumstances is completely irrelevant.

Let me put this as concisely as possible : Even if the Seles stabbing was a conspiracy on part of the entire WTA and Hall of Famers to stop her from winning, Seles would still remain in the exact same spot in terms of all-time greatest players.

Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished, and no one else deserves any "asterix" on their career for what Seles failed to accomplish. This is exactly why Laver gets credit for only two grand slams (or one if we're speaking of only open-era). Tempting as it may be, it is not up to us to guess what he would've accomplished had the rules not forbidden him to play the slams for several years. Nor does anyone else who won the grand slams while Laver wasn't allowed to play deserve any "asterix" in their list of accomplishments.


To answer the original question of this thread, I rank:
1.) Laver
2.) Sampras
3.) Borg
4 - 15) Doesn't really matter, but I would guess Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi would be in there.

I have left off Tilden, Gonzalez, etc since I don't know much about their careers.

BluBarry
09-12-2006, 11:03 PM
No it is not. It is up to the players to prove the degree of their greatness, not for fans to guess.

The greatness of a player is based solely on their accomplishments, and the fact is that Monica Seles acheived what she acheived - no more, no less. She has failed to acheive more than Steffi Graf, and many other players in the sport. Why she failed, or what she would've acheived under different circumstances is completely irrelevant.

Let me put this as concisely as possible : Even if the Seles stabbing was a conspiracy on part of the entire WTA and Hall of Famers to stop her from winning, Seles would still remain in the exact same spot in terms of all-time greatest players.

Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished, and no one else deserves any "asterix" on their career for what Seles failed to accomplish. This is exactly why Laver gets credit for only two grand slams (or one if we're speaking of only open-era). Tempting as it may be, it is not up to us to guess what he would've accomplished had the rules not forbidden him to play the slams for several years. Nor does anyone else who won the grand slams while Laver wasn't allowed to play deserve any "asterix" in their list of accomplishments.


To answer the original question of this thread, I rank:
1.) Laver
2.) Sampras
3.) Borg
4 - 15) Doesn't really matter, but I would guess Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi would be in there.

I have left off Tilden, Gonzalez, etc since I don't know much about their careers.

Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim "The Greatness of a Player is based solely on their accomplishments"

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *

So my point is, in talking about the GOAT as countless Poster have discussed, fought about, yelled & screamed about, insulted over for as long as Tennis Forums were around, have NEVER been concluded in any sort of agreement.
Why ? Because we see the Players we like differently than the next guy. When I started playing this game, Ivan Lendl was my first inspiration in attempting to copy a style. Then along comes Agassi and I liked the way he approached the game and I followed suit or tried to at least. And the fact that Andre is one of only five men that has won all four majors puts him in any conversation about the GOAT as I see it or spin it occuring to some.
Of course Andre isn't but you get my point I'm sure.

avmoghe
09-13-2006, 09:02 AM
Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *

So my point is, in talking about the GOAT as countless Poster have discussed, fought about, yelled & screamed about, insulted over for as long as Tennis Forums were around, have NEVER been concluded in any sort of agreement.
Why ? Because we see the Players we like differently than the next guy. When I started playing this game, Ivan Lendl was my first inspiration in attempting to copy a style. Then along comes Agassi and I liked the way he approached the game and I followed suit or tried to at least. And the fact that Andre is one of only five men that has won all four majors puts him in any conversation about the GOAT as I see it or spin it occuring to some.
Of course Andre isn't but you get my point I'm sure.

There is some misunderstanding here. I'm not conclusively putting Borg above Lendl - that's up to each and every person here. Every person here has his/her own opinion on which acheivement is greater. For example, if a person values winning all four grand slams above a number of the grand slam titles, that person can easily place Agassi over Sampras.

It is not my intention to argue that my list is the only valid one and everyone else's is wrong.



The entire point of my post was to to prove that players get judged on their accomplishments - not on what they may have accomplished had circumstances been different.

The entire top part of my post refers to why the Seles stabbing means absolutely nothing in terms of her greatness. Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished and nothing else, and Graf or anyone else deserves credit for everything they've accomplished themselves. The fact that Seles was stabbed does not in any way reduce the validity of other's accomplishments.

Arafel
09-13-2006, 09:12 AM
Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *



Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

irishbanger
09-13-2006, 09:21 AM
If you take these players, in their prime, and have a tournament, players like Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, go out early. Laver couldn't crack the top 10 today---its just the evolution of the sport.

Arafel
09-13-2006, 09:22 AM
No way should Laver be ahead of Sampras,Federer or Agassi. Have you seen highlights of his matches? Anyone who plays in an era wear players wore khakis cannot be the best ever. Right now you have to say 1)Sampras 2) Bjorg 3)Federer 4)Agassi 5)Lendl. Sure Laver won the Grand Slam twice but did he do it on every surface like Agassi?

I'm going to assume you are young. First, while three of the Slams were on grass in Laver's era, the grass played quite differently in each venue, much like while the Australian and US currently are on hard courts, they play differently.

Laver won 2 CALENDAR year Slams. That trumps Agassi winning each Slam at least once. I don't understand this focus on these boards on a "Career Slam." When did that become a yardstick? I remember Martina winning 6 straight Slams at one point; nobody made a big deal of a "Martina Slam" or a "Career Slam" then. It seems that people keep trying to reduce the yardstick of greatness, instead of setting something high for people to aspire to.

BluBarry
09-13-2006, 11:12 AM
Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

Oh Please ! There's way too much there to get into but I'm sorry to say Lendl's accomplishments out weigh Borg's imo. Even though we all know Borg was fantastic. So if you've followed my trend of thought within this Thread, you will notice that accomplishments don't necessarily solidify one Player over another. There are other factors you have to take in consideration in order to have a serious discuss about the GOAT.

As for Seles, I firmly believe Monica would have done much more but given what the History Books tell us that's all I can go by. And I keep hearing how Seles Owned Graf but if any of you actually watch any of those matches as I did, you would have seen that Seles' wins over Graf almost always came down to a point here or there that made the difference. Like Monica's last victory over Steffi at the French where it went 8-6 in the 3rd. Monica broke Steffi's 6th game and I believe they had something like 4 deuces before Monica finally broke. Actually the only blowout between them was at Wimbledon and even though I was extremely happy for Steffi winning, I was equally disappointed in Monica's performance because she was just too good for that type of beating.

BluBarry
09-13-2006, 11:16 AM
Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

Btw - Lendl also had four straight French Finals and two straight Wimbledon's where the Grass wasn't his favorite surface as it was for Borg. And what do you mean by "Came closer to winning ?" Either you win or you lose (period)

stormholloway
09-13-2006, 11:19 AM
Grass was Borg's favorite surface? That's not true. Just because he loved Wimbledon doesn't make it his favorite surface in terms of his skills and style of play. Borg was a clay court player by all standards. The fact that he dominated Wimbledon just showed how talented he was. In fact, I don't see how Borg's game was more suited to grass than Lendl's. Lendl was better suited to faster surfaces than Borg, yet Borg has the 5 Wimbledon titles.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-13-2006, 11:26 AM
Wasnt Lendl considered a choker in big matches from 82-84(his French Open final win was because Mac choked)? The 83 U.S Open final I have seen on tape and it was an epic meltdown from serving for the 3rd set, really ugly stuff.

Arafel
09-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Btw - Lendl also had four straight French Finals and two straight Wimbledon's where the Grass wasn't his favorite surface as it was for Borg. And what do you mean by "Came closer to winning ?" Either you win or you lose (period)

I mean just that. Borg played 4 US finals, 76, 78. 80-81. the 76 final against Connors and 80 final against McEnroe were both very close, 4 sets and 5 sets respectively, and a point here or there could have tipped the match to Borg.

Lendl played 2 Wimbeldon finals, but didn't win a set in either of them and wasn't particularly in the match.

Further, Borg winning 3 straight French-Wimbledon combos, considering the small amount of time between the tournaments, trumps ANYTHING Lendl accomplished.

ACE of Hearts
09-13-2006, 11:45 AM
Lendl was an all-court player.He had consistent results in the GSs, it just sucks that in 1987, a match in which he was favor, he lost too Pat Cash.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-13-2006, 11:54 AM
Lendl is a great great player, but no way could he be rated over Borg. Lendl vs Connors and McEnroe is a tougher call though.

urban
09-13-2006, 12:04 PM
Borg's 5 Wimbies remain the greatest enigma in tennis history. OK, he beefed up his first serve in 1976, and shortened his wide backswing, but he had no real volley with any deep slice, only popped the ball over the net, as to play with a ping-pong racket. Gerulaitis once said, that the bad volley worked better on grass than on hard, because of the uneven, low bounce. But Borg had grit and cool,steely nerves, an often underrated serve, and a bit of luck not to face real strong grasscourters like Newcombe, Ashe, Becker or Edberg. Tanner only had his first serve, Connors could play on grass, but better on hard, and Mac just arrived in 1978.

BluBarry
09-13-2006, 09:34 PM
As for my list which I've never displayed, I place the following as I see it :

1. Pete Sampras - Until Roger does surpass, Pete is still the King of Swing

2. Ivan Lendl - Agree or Disagree I think the guy accomplished plenty

3. Rod Laver - Too bad he was before things got organized but still impressive

4. Bjorn Borg - Can't overlook what he brought to the Court and the eyes he opened.

5. Roger Federer - Thought I forgot about him eh ? Obviously he will move up but for now I'm simply being conservative.

6. Steffi Graf - Twenty Two Grand Slam Singles titles on her mantle and still holds the record for number of weeks at #1 (377 Weeks) on the WTA & ATP. She is the only singles player (male or female) to achieve a true Grand Slam across all three types of tennis courts; the other five true singles Grand Slams all occurred when the Australian and U.S. Opens were still played on grass.

7. Martina Navratilova - In my book a baby step below Steffi and mind boggling amount of doubles titles. Plus Nine Wimbledon Singles (Awesome)

8. Jimmy Connors - 8 Grand Slam Singles Titles and more ...

9. John McEnroe - John leads Jimmy in Singles Matches 20 -14 but Jimmy has more titles overall.

10. Chris Evert - 18 Grand Slam Singles titles tied with Martina N. Most wins on Clay than any other Player in History. If you read her Bio you'd think she was Tennis' Greatest Player of all.

11. Margaret Court - Although she does possess 24 Slam Singles titles, the surfaces were very different in her day but none-the-less.

12. Billy Jean King - 20 Wimbledon Titles - 39 Grand Slam Titles - one of only 8 Women to have won at least one of the Four Majors. Reach #1 Ranking five times in her career. On & On ....

13. Ken Rosewall - won 18 Grand Slam titles, first 11 as an amateur, then 7 in the Open era, plus another 18 professional Grand Slam titles and was 5 times a finalist; winner of 3 consecutive Davis Cups; and #1 for 2 years.

14. Andre Agassi - One of Five Players to have won all four Majors and the only one in the Open Era to have done so thus far.

15. Monica Seles - 9 Grand Slam Singles Titles and rival to only Steffi Graf during her dominance. We all believe she would have done much more and deserves to be on anybody's list.

BluBarry
09-13-2006, 09:44 PM
In 2001, Sports Illustrated dug deep to uncover the most overrated people, places and things in sports -- and celebrate the most underrated ones.

Tennis Player

Overrated
Steffi Graf

Underrated
Jack Kramer

Are you smoking something ? What in the World is this information suppose to bring forth? Over-Rated according to whom ? If SI says it's so, then you believe it to be ? Do you not hold your own opinion on what is accurate or not ? Would you have posted that if it said Monica was Over-Rated ?
And Over-Rated meaning exactly what ? That the facts of her accomplishments are not accurate ? Steffi Graf really didn't win a Grand Slam?
Or maybe she really has 21 1/2 Grand Slam Titles ? Or her wins were because her opponents were given sleeping pills before the match? Come on Guy, that's just too crazy and means nothing at all. I don't give a crap about comments like that. You want to Post stats to compare, that's great but don't tell me what SI wants us to believe. Pretty soon they're gonna say Federer is Over-Rated and so was Agassi along with Borg, etc. And this is the same publication that had Steffi on the Cover 5 times.

superman1
09-13-2006, 11:23 PM
Men: Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl...

Woman: Navratilova, Graf...and a bunch of others. Seles, King, Hingis, Serena, all those.

ATPballkid
09-14-2006, 03:09 AM
As for my list which I've never displayed, I place the following as I see it :

1. Pete Sampras - Until Roger does surpass, Pete is still the King of Swing

2. Ivan Lendl - Agree or Disagree I think the guy accomplished plenty

3. Rod Laver - Too bad he was before things got organized but still impressive

4. Bjorn Borg - Can't overlook what he brought to the Court and the eyes he opened.

5. Roger Federer - Thought I forgot about him eh ? Obviously he will move up but for now I'm simply being conservative.

6. Steffi Graf - Twenty Two Grand Slam Singles titles on her mantle and still holds the record for number of weeks at #1 (377 Weeks) on the WTA & ATP. She is the only singles player (male or female) to achieve a true Grand Slam across all three types of tennis courts; the other five true singles Grand Slams all occurred when the Australian and U.S. Opens were still played on grass.

7. Martina Navratilova - In my book a baby step below Steffi and mind boggling amount of doubles titles. Plus Nine Wimbledon Singles (Awesome)

8. Jimmy Connors - 8 Grand Slam Singles Titles and more ...

9. John McEnroe - John leads Jimmy in Singles Matches 20 -14 but Jimmy has more titles overall.

10. Chris Evert - 18 Grand Slam Singles titles tied with Martina N. Most wins on Clay than any other Player in History. If you read her Bio you'd think she was Tennis' Greatest Player of all.

11. Margaret Court - Although she does possess 24 Slam Singles titles, the surfaces were very different in her day but none-the-less.

12. Billy Jean King - 20 Wimbledon Titles - 39 Grand Slam Titles - one of only 8 Women to have won at least one of the Four Majors. Reach #1 Ranking five times in her career. On & On ....

13. Ken Rosewall - won 18 Grand Slam titles, first 11 as an amateur, then 7 in the Open era, plus another 18 professional Grand Slam titles and was 5 times a finalist; winner of 3 consecutive Davis Cups; and #1 for 2 years.

14. Andre Agassi - One of Five Players to have won all four Majors and the only one in the Open Era to have done so thus far.

15. Monica Seles - 9 Grand Slam Singles Titles and rival to only Steffi Graf during her dominance. We all believe she would have done much more and deserves to be on anybody's list.


You can't be SERIOUS. In 2005, Experts at Tennis Magazine ranked Sampras and NAVRATILOVA above Graf.

The Great Martina Navratilova has earned a record 59 Grand Slam tournament crowns, including nine Wimbledon singles titles.

To borrow a hockey analogy, Navratilova is both the Wayne Gretzky and Gordie Howe of her sport. Like Gretzky, who holds nearly every NHL scoring record, Navratilova has left her competitors in the dust in most significant career statistics. And like Howe, who competed into his 50s, she has turned upside down traditional notions of longevity. The net-charging lefty always transcended tennis. She brought a new athleticism and power to the game, forcing her rivals to take up weight training and off-court conditioning — a given for today's players.

BluBarry
09-14-2006, 06:26 AM
You can't be SERIOUS. In 2005, Experts at Tennis Magazine ranked Sampras and NAVRATILOVA above Graf.

The Great Martina Navratilova has earned a record 59 Grand Slam tournament crowns, including nine Wimbledon singles titles.

To borrow a hockey analogy, Navratilova is both the Wayne Gretzky and Gordie Howe of her sport. Like Gretzky, who holds nearly every NHL scoring record, Navratilova has left her competitors in the dust in most significant career statistics. And like Howe, who competed into his 50s, she has turned upside down traditional notions of longevity. The net-charging lefty always transcended tennis. She brought a new athleticism and power to the game, forcing her rivals to take up weight training and off-court conditioning — a given for today's players.

Maybe - But this is MY list not yours or theirs. Or are you attempting to deny my opinion of whom I see/saw as the Greatest ?

I've heard Chris make those statements, as did Tracy Austin and Mary Carillo.
Each of them proclaimed how Monica was kicking butt on everybody but unfortunately, it still holds true the fact that if you pick up your Sports History Book and blow the dust off it, Steffi Graf has more accomplishments than Monica. Sad to say of course but NTL (none-the-less) the BOTTOMLINE is whatactually happened not what could or should have happened.

At some point you have to bend to that understanding and move on.

Eviscerator
09-14-2006, 06:51 AM
lol, putting Pete at 4 and Connors at 13 lost your credibility as well.

That sums it up for me.

Eviscerator
09-14-2006, 06:56 AM
As for my list which I've never displayed, I place the following as I see it :

1. Pete Sampras - Until Roger does surpass, Pete is still the King of Swing

2. Ivan Lendl - Agree or Disagree I think the guy accomplished plenty

3. Rod Laver - Too bad he was before things got organized but still impressive

4. Bjorn Borg - Can't overlook what he brought to the Court and the eyes he opened.

5. Roger Federer - Thought I forgot about him eh ? Obviously he will move up but for now I'm simply being conservative.

6. Steffi Graf - Twenty Two Grand Slam Singles titles on her mantle and still holds the record for number of weeks at #1 (377 Weeks) on the WTA & ATP. She is the only singles player (male or female) to achieve a true Grand Slam across all three types of tennis courts; the other five true singles Grand Slams all occurred when the Australian and U.S. Opens were still played on grass.

7. Martina Navratilova - In my book a baby step below Steffi and mind boggling amount of doubles titles. Plus Nine Wimbledon Singles (Awesome)

8. Jimmy Connors - 8 Grand Slam Singles Titles and more ...

9. John McEnroe - John leads Jimmy in Singles Matches 20 -14 but Jimmy has more titles overall.

10. Chris Evert - 18 Grand Slam Singles titles tied with Martina N. Most wins on Clay than any other Player in History. If you read her Bio you'd think she was Tennis' Greatest Player of all.

11. Margaret Court - Although she does possess 24 Slam Singles titles, the surfaces were very different in her day but none-the-less.

12. Billy Jean King - 20 Wimbledon Titles - 39 Grand Slam Titles - one of only 8 Women to have won at least one of the Four Majors. Reach #1 Ranking five times in her career. On & On ....

13. Ken Rosewall - won 18 Grand Slam titles, first 11 as an amateur, then 7 in the Open era, plus another 18 professional Grand Slam titles and was 5 times a finalist; winner of 3 consecutive Davis Cups; and #1 for 2 years.

14. Andre Agassi - One of Five Players to have won all four Majors and the only one in the Open Era to have done so thus far.

15. Monica Seles - 9 Grand Slam Singles Titles and rival to only Steffi Graf during her dominance. We all believe she would have done much more and deserves to be on anybody's list.

Do us all a favor in the future, and don't mix the men and women players together. You don't see this in any other sport that I can think of and it should not be in tennis either. None of the top 10 women could win against any of the top men, so why put them together? I think Tennis magazine did the sport, and the different genders a disservice by mixing them together as well.

urban
09-14-2006, 07:27 AM
Bruce Jenkins in the 'San Francisco Chronicle' gives a readable list of his male top ten. His question is, whether Agassi ranks in the top ten.
http:/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL

Moose Malloy
09-14-2006, 03:13 PM
Bruce Jenkins in the 'San Francisco Chronicle' gives a readable list of his male top ten. His question is, whether Agassi ranks in the top ten.
http:/www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL

Thanks for posting that.

Some excerpts:

Richey Reneberg, a Davis Cup teammate of Agassi's, made this observation a few years back: "The last person out there in the same league as Andre in hand-eye coordination was McEnroe. The only person in Andre's league as a serve returner was Connors. But he doesn't really play like either one of those guys. I've never seen anyone with Andre's ability to hold his position on the baseline and not give an inch. He can take a deep shot on the half-volley from there and hit it as if he were swinging at hip level, like a normal ground stroke. Because of that, he can dictate points like nobody I've ever seen."

Steve Flink

Sampras, Laver, Kramer, Tilden, Borg, Budge, Gonzalez, Connors, McEnroe, (tie) Lendl and Agassi

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL

Steve Flink had a top 10 list in his book "greatest matches of the 20th century" published in '99. The list was exactly the same as this new list, except Lendl & Perry were tied for 10 in the old list, now he has Agassi & Lendl tied.

ATPballkid
09-14-2006, 04:20 PM
Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, nd the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.




The #3 and #4 players of the 35 year Open Era behind Sampras, Federer:

Bjorn Borg will ALWAYS be best remembered for:

• his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles after so many of the critics said his game was too brittle for grass courts.

• his epic finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open vs. Connors and McEnroe.

• the battle of 18-16 (4th set tiebreak vs. McEnroe at Wimbledon 1980).

• his all-time record 6 French Open singles titles.

• his failure to win a Grand Slam event outside of Europe's 2 Slams.

• his leaving the game early when he wanted to go part-time on the circuit like Venus and Serena have been doing in the women's game.

• his 8 consecutive years winning a Grand Slam singles title (matches all-time record he shares with Sampras).

• his great showdown in the WCT Final vs. John Newcombe in 1974 at the age of 17 with Newcombe winning 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2 to fulfill the pledge Newcombe had made after winning the 1973 U.S. Open at Forest Hills in 1973 to become the #1 player in the world again. (The only other 2 times Borg and Newcombe played other than some World Grass Court Championship exhibitions after the French and before Wimbledon in the 1970s as a tuneup for Wimbledon -- which Newcombe won, by the way -- were a WCT Challenge Cup match in Hawaii (which Borg won) and a round robin match in the 1974 Grand Prix Masters (now, Masters Cup ATP Tour Championship) which Newcombe won at Kooyong Stadium in Melbourne in December 1974 by a score of 7-6, 7-6.)

• that rare switch from a one-handed backhand to a two-handed backhand after he had already joined the Tour.

• the headband.

• the stripes and checks that did not go together.

• becoming the only man (until Sampras) to win more than 10 Grand Slam singles titles all during the Open Era.

• the backhand with almost a knee touching the group using that extreme western grip.

• the teenage groupies who crowded him at every event.

• the Showdown of the Ages (4th round of the 1975 U.S. Open at Forest Hills) matching Borg vs. Laver ... won by Borg 6-4, 2-6, 6-2 back when only the final round was best of 5 sets at the U.S. Open. (The only other times Borg and Laver played were the SF of the WCT Final in 1975 with Borg winning that one 7-6, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-2 before losing to Ashe in the final round and then the quarterfinals of the American Airlines Tennis Games -- predecessor to Indian Wells -- played in Palm Springs, California with Borg beating Laver in that one 6-2, 6-7, 7-6).

• being the #1 player of the 1970s decade (ahead of Jimmy Connors, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall in the #2-#4 slots) and being the #2 player of the Open Era (behind only Pete Sampras) in the 35 years of the Open Era to this point.




Ivan Lendl will ALWAYS be best remembered for:

• his incredible 8 consecutive finals at the U.S. Open ...

• his failure to win at THE CHAMPIONSHIPS ...

• his dramatic come-from-behind win keeping McEnroe from winning a French Open (3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 7-5, 7-5 in the final).

• his winning records head-to-head over the top Americans -- Arthur Ashe (1-0) ... Stan Smith (2-1) ... John McEnroe (21-15) ... Jimmy Connors (22-13) ... Andre Agassi (6-2) ... Jim Courier (4-0) ... and Michael Chang (5-2) until Sampras came along with a 5-3 winning edge over Lendl.

• his 5 ATP Tour Championships (tied with Sampras for all-time record).

• his 11 consecutive years in a Grand Slam singles final (tied with Sampras for all-time record).

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-14-2006, 04:22 PM
I think McEnroe is much too high on pure accomplishments and longevity.

ATPballkid
09-14-2006, 04:44 PM
To answer the original question of this thread, I rank:
1.) Laver
2.) Sampras
3.) Borg
4 - 15) Doesn't really matter, but I would guess Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi would be in there.

I have left off Tilden, Gonzalez, etc since I don't know much about their careers.


Bill Tilden was the #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis without ever winning a French or even playing the Australian ... while Rod Laver and Roy Emerson won all 4 Slams at least twice.

Some greatness is not reflected in the Grand Slam events at all. Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad are 7 of the all-time greatest players in tennis history but their resumes have some major holes and deficiencies in them because they missed so many Grand Slam events .. Rosewall winning Slams 19 years apart and winning 8 Slams while missing over 11 years from the Grand Slam events says a lot.

ATPballkid
09-14-2006, 05:21 PM
If i remember right, Martina was tied with Graf in head to head, and many matches Steffi won, were very close with Martina taking a set. That said, Steffi's best match ever probably was the 88 Wimbledon win over Martina, when Steffi broke clear in the 2nd and 3rd sets, even for once playing a rolled backhand.

Navratilova and Graf played 3 matches on grass with the only one not going 3 sets won by Navratilova (1987 Wimbledon final). Then, Graf won the 1988 and the 1989 Wimbledon finals in 3 sets over Martina Navratilova to win her first 2 after Navratilova had already won over the 10 previous years with the exception of Goolagong and Evert both winning one.

From the beginning of 1987 (as Graf hit her best 3 years 1987-1989 just as Navratilova had done 5 years earlier in 1982-1984) they were TIED on hardcourts (2-2 and Navratilova led in Grand Slam singles matches on hardcourts in those years 2-1 with wins over Graf in their 1987 U.S. Open final and in their 1991 U.S. Open semifinal) ... they only played one match on clay ... and then they had the 3 Wimbledon finals in Graf's prime years of 1987, 1988 and 1989 with Navratilova winning the one in 1987 and Graf winning the ones in 1988 and 1989.

Except for the 4 match wins by Graf in her best years of 1988 and 1989 (all were in split set matches) ... Navratilova led 9-5 and they split the last 4 in the 1990s with, again, Navratilova winning the only one in a Grand Slam event.

Navratilova won 5 out of 7 on hardcourts vs. Graf (including 4 out of 5 a the U.S. Open) .. with Navratilova beating Graf in the 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1991 U.S. Open events while only losing once -- the 1989 U.S. Open final -- and her only loss to Graf at the U.S. Open was in 3 sets.

Navratilova and Graf were 3-3 indoors. In their 3 matches at the biggest indoor event in the world (the WTA Tour Championships) Navratilova won twice in straight sets and Graf won once in split sets.

Navratilova was 8 to 10 years past her prime and still they went 2-2 in the 1990s with Navratilova winning their only match during the 1990s in a Grand Slam event.

Moose Malloy
09-15-2006, 08:40 AM
Ivan Lendl will ALWAYS be best remembered for:

• his incredible 8 consecutive finals at the U.S. Open ...

• his failure to win at THE CHAMPIONSHIPS ...

• his dramatic come-from-behind win keeping McEnroe from winning a French Open (3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 7-5, 7-5 in the final).

• his winning records head-to-head over the top Americans -- Arthur Ashe (1-0) ... Stan Smith (2-1) ... John McEnroe (21-15) ... Jimmy Connors (22-13) ... Andre Agassi (6-2) ... Jim Courier (4-0) ... and Michael Chang (5-2) until Sampras came along with a 5-3 winning edge over Lendl.

• his 5 ATP Tour Championships (tied with Sampras for all-time record).

• his 11 consecutive years in a Grand Slam singles final (tied with Sampras for all-time record).

I believe Lendl has the record of most consecutive years with a tour title(14)

ATPballkid
09-15-2006, 06:46 PM
I believe Lendl has the record of most consecutive years with a tour title(14)


Ivan Lendl is often underrated -- although not as much as guys like Ken Rosewall, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, Ellsworth Vines, Vincent Richards and Lew Hoad.

ACE of Hearts
09-15-2006, 06:53 PM
:mrgreen: I couldnt believe that they said that Lendl's success runs at the U.S Open was because he hired the same workers who laid the hardcourt surfaces in Flushing meadows, to put the exact type of court in his home in LI.Maybe Fed should hire someone to put the same exact french open courts to his home:D

J.Z. Smith
09-15-2006, 07:13 PM
Ivan Lendl is often underrated -- although not as much as guys like Ken Rosewall, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, Ellsworth Vines, Vincent Richards and Lew Hoad.

Vinnie Richards would be more than honored to be placed in that group. He was a fine player, no doubt, and a historically important figure in tennis -- the first American player of note to turn professional -- but nowhere near the level of those other guys. I agree with you on the rest, chronically underrated all, if not wholly unknown by most. Gonzales may be the exception. His reputation alone seems to have grown in recent years, thanks in no small part to his legion of enthusiastic proponents on the Internet. The Gonzales PR boom has come largely at the expense of Kramer, and to a lesser extent Vines and Budge.

BluBarry
09-15-2006, 08:30 PM
:mrgreen: I couldnt believe that they said that Lendl's success runs at the U.S Open was because he hired the same workers who laid the hardcourt surfaces in Flushing meadows, to put the exact type of court in his home in LI.Maybe Fed should hire someone to put the same exact french open courts to his home:D
That's if you consider 3 out of 8 successful. Maybe he should have gotten the same gardener that the Lawn and Garden Club used. :cool:

slack hack
09-16-2006, 02:44 AM
At their best, I say Federer and Mandlikova kick anybody's ***** !!!! except for maybe Rios'

lambielspins
09-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Navratilova even in her 30s and past her prime had a winning record vs. Graf in Grand Slam events and in the WTA Tour Championships.

You are wrong on that. Navratilova age 30 or older played Graf 7 times in a Grand Slam or WTA Championships. Navratilova won 3 and Graf 4, so not a winning record for Navratilova as you say.

EuroMagnum
09-16-2006, 01:36 PM
1.) Federer
2.) Laver
3.) Sampras
4.) Perry
5.) Borg
6.) Becker
7.) Gonzales
8.) Agassi
9.) Lacoste
10.) Connors
11.) McEnroe
12.) Ashe
13.) Laver
14.) Rosewall
15.) Tilden

BluBarry
09-16-2006, 02:37 PM
1.) Federer
2.) Laver
3.) Sampras
4.) Perry
5.) Borg
6.) Becker
7.) Gonzales
8.) Agassi
9.) Lacoste
10.) Connors
11.) McEnroe
12.) Ashe
13.) Laver
14.) Rosewall
15.) Tilden

Good List but curious how you'd place Roger Federer at the top when he really hasn't breaken Slam Records as yet other than 3peating Wimby & USO ?
He has broken the most weeks at #1 yet and Pete has 14 Slam Titles. Also he has failed to wim the French thus far (although we are certain he will at some point) so what do you base your pick of RogFire at #1 ?

NOT a criticism just a question ....

jmsx521
09-16-2006, 03:00 PM
When you people write these names, write on what you are basing the ranking: on winning The Grand Slam, winning Grand Slam tournaments, #1 rankings at the end of the year, number of tournaments won, etc.

BluBarry
09-16-2006, 03:18 PM
When you people write these names, write on what you are basing the ranking: on winning The Grand Slam, winning Grand Slam tournaments, #1 rankings at the end of the year, number of tournaments won, etc.

You got my Vote ;)

ATPballkid
09-16-2006, 06:20 PM
You are wrong on that. Navratilova age 30 or older played Graf 7 times in a Grand Slam or WTA Championships. Navratilova won 3 and Graf 4, so not a winning record for Navratilova as you say.

lambielspins replies:

You are wrong on that !

Well, let's COUNT them then:

GRAND SLAM EVENTS

First, we will start with the Grand Slam events --- let's limit the results to the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open Championships --- since these actually are the Grand Slam events:

1985-08-26 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 6-2 6-3
1986-08-25 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 6-1 6-7 7-6
1987-05-25 French Open Clay F Steffi Graf won 6-4 4-6 8-6
1987-06-22 Wimbledon Grass F Navratilova won 7-5 6-3
1987-08-31 U.S. Open Hardcourt F Navratilova won 7-6 6-1
1988-06-22 Wimbledon Grass F Steffi Graf won 5-7 6-2 6-1
1989-06-26 Wimbledon Grass F Steffi Graf won 6-2 6-7 6-1
1989-08-28 U.S. Open Hardcourt F Steffi Graf won 3-6 7-5 6-1
1991-08-26 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 7-6 6-7 6-4

Not only a winning record for Navratilova vs. Graf in the Grand Slam events ... Navratilova won their only matches at the Grand Slam events that were won in straight sets ... 3 of Navratilova's 5 match wins vs. Graf in Grand Slam events were won in straight sets ... Graf never beat Navratilova in straight sets in a Grand Slam event --- but then, Graf only won 4 matches against Navratilova in Grand Slam events to begin with.


TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS

Next, we will look at the Tour Championships --- let's limit the results to the singles since Steffi Graf did not play doubles -- even with Gunther Parche.

1986-03-17 Virginia Slims Championships SF Navratilova won 6-2 6-2
1986-11-17 Virginia Slims Championships F Navratilova won 7-6 6-3 6-2
1989-11-13 Virginia Slims Championships F Steffi Graf won 6-4 7-5 2-6 6-2

Not only a winning record for Navratilova vs. Graf in the Tour Championships ... Navratilova won their only matches at the Tour Championships that were won in straight sets ... both of Navratilova's 2 match wins vs. Graf in the WTA Tour Championships were won in straight sets ... Graf never beat Navratilova in straight sets the WTA Tour Championships --- but then, Graf only won 1 match against Navratilova at the WTA Tour Championships to begin with.

You had better come with your facts straight and you had better come knowing what we are talking about before you do more of your silly little game of ready, fire and then aim (and in that order) ...

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-16-2006, 07:42 PM
What impresses me most about Navratilova is not only how long she mantained a high level, but doing it in doubles and mixed doubles as well. Then after the singles was over, still doing it in doubles and mixed doubles. She really had an unbelievable passion for the game, it was in her blood, and she always wanted to learn more and improve. She said in an interview last year she still was learning things about strokes and the game.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
09-16-2006, 07:54 PM
For brilliance I would add Maureen Connoly as well, who won 9 straight slams she entered from 1951 to 1954, from ages 16 to 19, including the Grand Slam in 1953 before an accident left her crippled. Her and Seles each having their primes cut short is an interesting irony, since their game styles were so incredably similar. Both blasted incredably hard low flat shots from both sides off the ground, were incredably mentaly tough, incredably focused, did not come to net much, Connoly did not hit two hands off both sides like Seles did, but other then that they were almost carbon copies in style.

ATPballkid
09-16-2006, 07:57 PM
For brilliance I would add Maureen Connoly as well, who won 9 straight slams she entered from 1951 to 1954, from ages 16 to 19, including the Grand Slam in 1953 before an accident left her crippled. Her and Seles each having their primes cut short is an interesting irony, since their game styles were so incredably similar. Both blasted incredably hard low flat shots from both sides off the ground, were incredably mentaly tough, incredably focused, did not come to net much, Connoly did not hit two hands off both sides like Seles did, but other then that they were almost carbon copies in style.

True.

callitout
09-24-2006, 07:36 AM
I got to this thread a little late can I vote for Donald Young 15 times.

Lleyton Hewitt
09-24-2006, 11:49 AM
whos won the most grand slams ever?

drakulie
09-24-2006, 12:41 PM
ATP, you never answered my remarks from the "Sampras is a Monster" thread. In it, you stated Agassi's wins at the French and Wimbledon were flukes. You also remark Agassi was not that good of a player and he did not do anything in his career.

I then stated Sampras' 14 slam victories, according to you can't be that impressive because 4 of them came off Agassi. Also, those 20 wins against Agassi you like to ramble on about are also not that impressive becasue they are against an "inferior ", "sucky" opponent.

Just wanted to remind you, even though you tucked your tail between you legs and ran,,,,,,,"I am watching you! YOU ARE OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF TRUST".

BluBarry
09-24-2006, 12:57 PM
ATP, you never answered my remarks from the "Sampras is a Monster" thread. In it, you stated Agassi's wins at the French and Wimbledon were flukes. You also remark Agassi was not that good of a player and he did not do anything in his career.

I then stated Sampras' 14 slam victories, according to you can't be that impressive because 4 of them came off Agassi. Also, those 20 wins against Agassi you like to ramble on about are also not that impressive becasue they are against an "inferior ", "sucky" opponent.

Just wanted to remind you, even though you tucked your tail between you legs and ran,,,,,,,"I am watching you! YOU ARE OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF TRUST".

It amazes me why people are even responding to his madness. I discontinued discussing anything with him/her and all the better for it. Now I'm starting wonder if other IDs might be him answering himself to keep things going ? I've seen that before as well ...

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
02-04-2009, 04:05 AM
1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Jimmy Connors
6. John McEnroe
7. Mats Wilander
8. Ivan Lendl
9. Roy Emerson
10. Andre Agassi
11. Arthur Ashe
12. Rod Laver
13. Jim Courier
14. Pat Cash
15. Bill Tilden

Connors
02-04-2009, 04:51 AM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.


Horrible list. First of all, Graf is either number one or two. Secondly, Davenport achieved FAR more than Capriati--what are you smoking?? Thirdly, Sanchez-Vicario had a great career (including doubles). She made it to 11 grand slam finals I believe

Fourth, Federer is already one of the top three. He's far superior to Rosewall, you knucklehead. Fifth, Connors won more tournaments than ANY men's player in history, so that certainly puts him higher than 13th. Sixth, Agassi, Connors, Lendl and Mac were all better than Kramer. You have him way too high. Seventh, Federer has already surpassed Borg, in longevity, in career Grand Slams and with his better overall game than Bjorn. There are many, mnay other problems with both of your lists. I'd give it a C-, D+.

cokebottle
02-04-2009, 04:53 AM
Graf is a loser. She won all her titles beating clowns like Sabatini, Sanchez, a baby Seles, a post stabbing Seles, a granny Navratilova, a granny Evert, Novotna, a baby Hingis, Cowchita Martinez, Date, a tubby Davenport before she became good, a nutty Pierce, Anke Huber, Iva Majoli, Zvereva, Fernandez, the Maleeva mediocre sisters, and a baby Capriati. She isnt even close to one of the best ever.

federerdomination
02-04-2009, 11:23 AM
That is why he is 6-13 lifetime vs Nadal.

Just because u have a losing record to somebody doesn't mean that you shouldn't be considered at GOAT. I'm sure almost all the candidates have a losing record to somebody.

CyBorg
02-04-2009, 12:21 PM
Just because u have a losing record to somebody doesn't mean that you shouldn't be considered at GOAT. I'm sure almost all the candidates have a losing record to somebody.

He has a lopsided record against his nearest competitor.

This is not akin to having a 2-4 record against some random player, where the majority of matches come either early or at the end of one's career. Where the sample is small and unrepresentative. Where the results account for matches played in minor and irrelevant tournaments.

Not the case here. Federer is losing big matches to the other best in the game.

CyBorg
02-04-2009, 03:30 PM
To me Federer is one of the greatest players no doubt but unless something changes quick he will never be one of the greatest champions or competitors. He seriously lacks fighting spirit. Against his biggest rival, he throws in the towel (RG 2008, AO 2009) and then he cries. Not my idea of a "brave heart" hero if you see what I mean.

I think he's pretty brave. But when we compare and contrast between the really-truly-very best, we have to be really cruel. So we pick apart the little details. One wart comes up and we focus in on it.

Borg also had difficulties with McEnroe - exascerbated by tactical problems as well. With Borg the return was an issue, as well as dealing with Mac's volley. Both cases have other matters involved - Roger's health; Borg's burnout, etc.

Both are brave, but more and more unwilling to change with age. It's a kind of old-fogeyism. It's probably not a matter of confidence or willingness (especially in Roger's case). When you're very young and have never been on top before, you're willing to try all kinds of things to change things up. But when you've been the best, you sometimes convince yourself that you have to keep doing what you've always done in order to get back to being the best.

This is probably Roger's problem. Connors had this problem and eventually learned his lesson and made large-scale changes in 1982.

federerdomination
02-04-2009, 03:36 PM
He has a lopsided record against his nearest competitor.

This is not akin to having a 2-4 record against some random player, where the majority of matches come either early or at the end of one's career. Where the sample is small and unrepresentative. Where the results account for matches played in minor and irrelevant tournaments.

Not the case here. Federer is losing big matches to the other best in the game.

Yeah but once again, most of the meetings are on clay. Also, their last five meetings have happened as Nadal has entered his prime (while Federer has begun to decline)

okdude1992
02-04-2009, 03:37 PM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

how could you put capriati in over venus, or hingis? even henin would be more qualified than capriati your mens list seems fair i guess... but federer agassio and conners seem pretty low down
edit: holy crap didn't see how old this thread is!

CyBorg
02-04-2009, 03:39 PM
Yeah but once again, most of the meetings are on clay. Also, their last five meetings have happened as Nadal has entered his prime (while Federer has begun to decline)

The decline has been a little too sharp. Of course, Roger can still salvage this. Nadal will not always play as well as he is now. He will not always be in as good a shape or health as he is now.

icedevil0289
02-04-2009, 06:50 PM
He definitely felt the same way as Roger inside when he lost at the 1980 US Open. But he didn't show it. McEnroe said that he saw in Borg's eyes just how crushed he was.

Borg dealt with this by basically caring less and responded to the 1981 losses mostly with a kind of indifference, even relief.

That's one way to deal with disappointment. Roger still wants to win bad.

atleast fed did not walk away even before the ceremony started like borg did and retire because he could not take being number 1, atleast according to the sources. However, I guess theres more than just not being number 1 that made Borg retire early.

miniRafa386
02-04-2009, 06:56 PM
you cant count when AUS and USO were on grass, it should only be open era cause anything before is basically invalid.

CyBorg
02-04-2009, 07:11 PM
atleast fed did not walk away even before the ceremony started like borg did and retire because he could not take being number 1, atleast according to the sources. However, I guess theres more than just not being number 1 that made Borg retire early.

Oh, stop. Go and read a book - you have your facts wrong.

What sources? Some guy on a message board posted this once and now you're parrotting it?

RFdaBest
02-04-2009, 07:28 PM
I think he's pretty brave. But when we compare and contrast between the really-truly-very best, we have to be really cruel. So we pick apart the little details. One wart comes up and we focus in on it.

Borg also had difficulties with McEnroe - exascerbated by tactical problems as well. With Borg the return was an issue, as well as dealing with Mac's volley. Both cases have other matters involved - Roger's health; Borg's burnout, etc.

Both are brave, but more and more unwilling to change with age. It's a kind of old-fogeyism. It's probably not a matter of confidence or willingness (especially in Roger's case). When you're very young and have never been on top before, you're willing to try all kinds of things to change things up. But when you've been the best, you sometimes convince yourself that you have to keep doing what you've always done in order to get back to being the best.

This is probably Roger's problem. Connors had this problem and eventually learned his lesson and made large-scale changes in 1982.
Cyborg, this is an excellent post. Thanks for sharing, I never got to appreciate tennis of the old days. I really had no idea Borg suffered like roger, from what i heard he was a robot and never choked :neutral:

srinrajesh
02-05-2009, 02:29 AM
If i remember right, Martina was tied with Graf in head to head, and many matches Steffi won, were very close with Martina taking a set. That said, Steffi's best match ever probably was the 88 Wimbledon win over Martina, when Steffi broke clear in the 2nd and 3rd sets, even for once playing a rolled backhand.

Martina Navratilova was definitely better than graf because of her longevity.
Martina also won 6 grand slams in a row in 83-84 to rival Graf's calendar slam in 1988 and overall graf won 5 straight GS before losing in FO final to Arantxa sanchez.

zagor
02-05-2009, 02:50 AM
I think he's pretty brave. But when we compare and contrast between the really-truly-very best, we have to be really cruel. So we pick apart the little details. One wart comes up and we focus in on it.

Borg also had difficulties with McEnroe - exascerbated by tactical problems as well. With Borg the return was an issue, as well as dealing with Mac's volley. Both cases have other matters involved - Roger's health; Borg's burnout, etc.

Both are brave, but more and more unwilling to change with age. It's a kind of old-fogeyism. It's probably not a matter of confidence or willingness (especially in Roger's case). When you're very young and have never been on top before, you're willing to try all kinds of things to change things up. But when you've been the best, you sometimes convince yourself that you have to keep doing what you've always done in order to get back to being the best.

This is probably Roger's problem. Connors had this problem and eventually learned his lesson and made large-scale changes in 1982.

Interesting way of looking at things,enjoyed reading this post,.Hope Fed realizes it's time for changes now and gets a good coach who can offer some different perspective.I know Fed is primarily a baseliner who rellies on movement and anticipation more than most people realize but I still think he has the game for longevity,as long as he hangs in there mentally and doesn't get discouraged from his numerous losses to Nadal.

zagor
02-05-2009, 02:53 AM
Cyborg, this is an excellent post. Thanks for sharing, I never got to appreciate tennis of the old days. I really had no idea Borg suffered like roger, from what i heard he was a robot and never choked :neutral:

He did suffer,otherwise he wouldn't retire so young.However it certainly wasn't just Mcenroe no matter if it looks like that,there were multiple other factors as well,things are never that simple as people want to believe.If you don't show your emotions that doesn't mean that they aren't there as obviously different people have different ways of showing them.

flying24
02-05-2009, 07:04 AM
Men:

1. Rod Laver
2. Don Budge
3. Ken Rosewall
4. Pancho Gonzales
5. Bill Tilden
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Roger Federer
8. Pete Sampras
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jimmy Connors
11. John McEnroe
12. Jack Kramer
13. Rafael Nadal
14. Henri Cochet
15. Rene LaCoste


Women:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Margaret Court
3. Martina Navratilova
4. Chris Evert
5. Suzanne Lenglen
6. Helen Wills Moody
7. Maureen Connolly
8. Billie Jean King
9. Serena Williams
10. Monica Seles
11. Maria Bueno
12. Evonne Goolagong
13. Justine Henin
14. Alice Marble
15. Venus Williams

127mph
02-05-2009, 02:26 PM
everyone loosing their heads putting federer under borg and tilden. if anything hes third. 13 slam titles. 5 and 5 at wimbledon and US. 3 finals of french. only lost to one player in slam finals.

SoBad
02-05-2009, 02:30 PM
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p230/SoBad2006/table1-1.jpg

fastdunn
02-05-2009, 02:41 PM
Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander


1) Gonzalez 2) Laver 3) Tilden 4) Budge 5) Sampras

These are the guys who truely dominated almost a decade. Top 5 deserves seperate place among all time greats.

Top 4 guys won nearly 20 majors (slams + pro slams).

Laver at #2 because he played in transitional period.

Sampras' achievement is a child-play compared to top 4 guys: only 14 majors and 6+ year at #1. BUT he is the only guy in this group who had "official" professional ranking and fully professional slams.

Tennis_Monk
02-22-2009, 09:35 AM
All i know is that Federer is not 7/8 or something.
He belongs around 2 or 3 right after the guys who won calendar year grand slams.

Pete Sampras is slightly below the list. While he still has one more slam more than Federer, that doesnt just cut it(not to mention his record isnt as great as Federer's in Clay)

thalivest
02-22-2009, 09:42 AM
Federer is at most the #8 player of all time. There is no way he can placed over any of Laver, Tilden, Budge, Borg, Sampras, Rosewall, or Gonzales at this moment. I think he is #8 though behind those 7. He has to achieve more to move higher than that.

GameSampras
02-22-2009, 10:24 AM
Fed's positioning on the GOAT list should be determined prolly after he retires. If Fed were to retire today by never defeating Nadal again at the slams or never winning an RG that hurts his legacy IMO.

But thats me.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 10:30 AM
This is the greatest female player ever- Jennifer Capriati, at her overpowering best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRMyqChcZVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdDTQtKwVdk

Capriati was just so badly overpowering Henin and Seles in those 2 matches. They were no match for her at her best.

boredone3456
02-22-2009, 01:49 PM
Capriati was just so badly overpowering Henin and Seles in those 2 matches. They were no match for her at her best.

Henin and Seles Frequently beat Capriati at her best, 2003 US Open semis Capriati was 2 points from victory 10 times against a dehydrated Henin and couldn't close out the deal. She failed to beat an injured Dementieva at that same stage the following year. Thats not really overpowering to me. Also, Henin won 5 of her 7 matches against Capriati so Capriati overall wasn't really a match for Henin. Henin won most of their matches in the end because she was a much better player.

As for Monica, Monica leads the Head to Head 9-5 (4-3 post stabbing), and in Capriatis "Best" (interchangeable with lucky) year of 2001, Seles lead her head to head with Jennifer 2-1 that year. Even when Jennifer appeared at her best, she couldn't beat a clearly past her prime Seles consistantly. Capriati was never overpowering against any of her main threats with the possible exception of Hingis, who didn't hit the ball that hard anyway, and Capriati still often struggled with her. Capriati's three slams were the result of being lucky Hingis and Clijsters both gagged away their chances in 2 of them. In all honesty Capriati should have just won the 1 slam, and she was incredibly lucky to get 3. As for putting her top 5...all of the top 5 won at least 18 majors...Jennifer just doesn't stack up.

jnd28
02-22-2009, 02:16 PM
I personally think that in rating the best players of all time one should include Singles and Doubles performance. Or are we talking about the best singles players of all time? Tennis includes both Singles and Doubles so the best tennis player should excel at both. If you buy my argument (and I cant think of how someone logically could not ;) ) Emmo would need to be included ( cant believe the lack of respect this 28 slam title holder gets) and it would be pretty much a slam dunk for Laver at number 1. Mac and Newk would move up the ranks as well.

JND28

egn
02-22-2009, 03:02 PM
Actually a slight correction. Steffi leads their Head to Head 9-8

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=w&action=headtohead&player1id=GRS001&player2id=NAM001

Those numbers would beg to differ making head to head 9 even.

I am sorry I don't see Borg doing anything that puts him so far ahead of Federer. Same goes for Sampras I feel the three fall on the same level.

1. Pancho Gonzalez
2. Rod Laver
3. Don Budge
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Roger Federer
6. Pete Sampras
7. Ken Rosewell
8. Bill Tilden
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John Mcenroe
11. Jimmy Connors
12. Mats Wilander
13. Rene Lacoste
14. Rafael Nadal
15. Fred Perry

Women
1. Martina Navratilova
2. Steffi Graf
3. Margaret Court
4. Chris Evert
5. Wills Moddy
6. Lenglen
7. Billie Jean King
8. Serena Williams
9. Maureen Connolly
10. Monica Seles
11. Justine Henin
12. Venus Williams
13. Dorthea Chambers
14. Evonne Goolagong
15. Martina Hingis

JoshDragon
02-22-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't really have a concrete top 15 but I would probably rank Federer, Sampras, and Nadal as the top 3.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Thats why she has losing head to heads against both of them....uhhh ok.

Seles and Henin were lucky in alot of their wins over Capriati where Jennifer outplayed them, like those 2 U.S Open semis I showed. Henin had most of her wins over Jennifer when Jennifer was past her prime. Seles had alot of hers over Jennifer when she was only 15 and 16 years old.

egn
02-22-2009, 03:16 PM
Thats why she has losing head to heads against both of them....uhhh ok.

Head to heads apparently mean nothing to capriati fanatic, so do slam titles, ranking or anything. Capriati would have destroyed everyone and was better apparently even though she lost. It is apparently not about who wins as Capriati was far better..oh yea and Federer beat Nadal on clay at Hamburg 07 does that make him far superior to Nadal on clay..I think not. Yet watch Capriatifanatic call that comparison ridiculous even though she has claimed Capriati to be better than Steffi because of her single win over her at the Olympics.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 03:16 PM
Capriati at her best couldn't beat Seles and Henin at their near worst...sorry but you have no real grounds for your claims, as the head to heads prove.

Wow are you claiming those 2 U.S Open matches I showed where Seles and Henin at their near worst? They were both playing out of their minds and still were being outplayed by Jennifer, despite their lucky wins in those two matches.

egn
02-22-2009, 03:19 PM
Seles and Henin were lucky in alot of their wins over Capriati where Jennifer outplayed them, like those 2 U.S Open semis I showed. Henin had most of her wins over Jennifer when Jennifer was past her prime. Seles had alot of hers over Jennifer when she was only 15 and 16 years old.

Well Capriati ruined her career with drugs...Henin's wins over Capriati 1 in 2001..Capriati won 2 slams that year, 1 in 2002, Capriati won a slam and 3 in 2003 qf and a sf in slam and a title and let alone she was still playing top tennis in 2004 before disappearing.

Seles consistently beat Capriati throughout her whole career. In her youth and in her comeback.

boredone3456
02-22-2009, 03:22 PM
Wow are you claiming those 2 U.S Open matches I showed where Seles and Henin at their near worst? They were both playing out of their minds and still were being outplayed by Jennifer, despite their lucky wins in those two matches.

no I am talking the 2003 US Open Semi's between Justine & Jennifer and the 2-1 winning record Seles had over Capriati in 2001, Jennifer's best year, they were at their worst and Jenn playing her best couldn't beat them. Jennifer was not losing because of bad luck, she won because she got lucky. but since we so obviously disagree I am leaving it at that.

timnz
02-22-2009, 03:36 PM
[QUOTE=BluBarry;961105]

Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

Actually Lendl did even better - he was in the final 9 years in a row 1980 to 1988.

sanmazz
03-01-2009, 04:33 AM
Monica Seles

Best ever

crabgrass
03-01-2009, 05:19 AM
women

15.hart
14.henin
13.venus
12.bueno
11.goolagong
10.lenglen
9.seles
8.king
7.serena
6.wills moody
5.connolly
4.court
3.evert
2.navratilova
1.graf

this was more or less off the top of my head so there's a chance i may have overlooked someone altogether....but overall seems about right.

boredone3456
03-01-2009, 12:17 PM
women

15.hart
14.henin
13.venus
12.bueno
11.goolagong
10.lenglen
9.seles
8.king
7.serena
6.wills moody
5.connolly
4.court
3.evert
2.navratilova
1.graf

this was more or less off the top of my head so there's a chance i may have overlooked someone altogether....but overall seems about right.

Thats not a bad list. Your top 4 are spot on. Connolly at 5 is a bit of a gamble, but at the same time I can see why you did it, she had the potential in her and should have won a lot more if not for that accident, so I can understand it, the little time she had was a testiment to her talent.

Serena at 7...ehhh. I would at least have King above Serena, if we judged Serena based on 2002-2003 alone, yeah she could be there, but on the whole I would place King higher, and Seles also. Although thats just a respectful difference of opinion. I would also switch Henin and Venus...in fact Venus on my list would be around 18 or 19. 5 Wimbledons is amazing, but Henin has a greater diversity in that she won 3 of the 4 slams and spent more weeks at number 1, unless you factored in Head to Head? Lenglen at 10 is also a bit of a shock...but again her competition was not the best so I can understand that one.

grafrules
03-01-2009, 12:29 PM
I think Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court are really on their own little tier. You could argue those 4 to put in any order from #1 to #4 depending on your criteria and personal opinions. Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connoly really I have on a second tier of their own which could be argued from any order from #5 to #7. Seles, King, and Serena I am thinking are on a third tier from #8 to #10 that could be argued in any order. Goolagong, Henin, Bueno, Chambers, Marble I would probably put in the tier after that one. Then the tier below that I would have people like Brough, Osborne Du Pont, Venus, Hart, Gibson, maybe Fry. Venus I dont even have on the same tier as Henin, one tier lower than Henin and two lower than Serena. Her career is great in some ways, but very incomplete in many others unfortunately (and as far as being a fan I actually like Venus, alot more than Serena in fact).

Breaking down some key areas between the BIG 4 this is how I would rank them:

Consistency:

1. Evert
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Navratilova

Longevity:

1. Navratilova
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Graf

Dominance:

1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Evert

Versatility:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Court
4. Navratilova

Funny adding up those #s it would come to:

Evert- 10
Navratilova- 10
Graf- 9
Court- 11

Those are of course my own rankings in each of those categories though and there are other factors to consider not so easily quantifiable.

hoodjem
03-01-2009, 05:28 PM
Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

1. Laver
2. Borg
3. Gonzalez
4. Sampras
5. Rosewall
6. Tilden
7. Federer
8. Budge
9. Perry
10. Lendl
11. McEnroe
12. Agassi
13. Connors
14. Kramer
15. Wilander

Interesting list. Lot of well-known, popular names here. You might squeeze in Vines, Cochet, Hoad, Lacoste, or Emerson.

I would rate Rosewall higher for sheer longevity, and Tilden higher for his six-year run.

BTURNER
03-01-2009, 06:12 PM
Interesting way to look at it! Now I gotta do some thinking.

crabgrass
03-01-2009, 06:48 PM
Thats not a bad list. Your top 4 are spot on. Connolly at 5 is a bit of a gamble, but at the same time I can see why you did it, she had the potential in her and should have won a lot more if not for that accident, so I can understand it, the little time she had was a testiment to her talent.

Serena at 7...ehhh. I would at least have King above Serena, if we judged Serena based on 2002-2003 alone, yeah she could be there, but on the whole I would place King higher, and Seles also. Although thats just a respectful difference of opinion. I would also switch Henin and Venus...in fact Venus on my list would be around 18 or 19. 5 Wimbledons is amazing, but Henin has a greater diversity in that she won 3 of the 4 slams and spent more weeks at number 1, unless you factored in Head to Head? Lenglen at 10 is also a bit of a shock...but again her competition was not the best so I can understand that one.

Serena,king and seles was the area i had the most problems seperating,
i positioned serena ahead of the other 2 mostly based on the fact her career's still going and by the time she's done will most likely have surpassed billie jean in majors and put some distance between herself and seles.
If she retired right now i might have her still slightly behind king and virtually level with seles.....henin and venus is one that could go either way, again i'm factoring in that venus is still around and may add a couple more slams to her resume while henin is done and dusted.

flying24
03-01-2009, 06:53 PM
Serena is almost certain to win atleast a couple more majors. I am not sure if Venus is a gaurantee. She is already getting older and is already past her prime IMO. She is hanging on on grass mostly since there are hardly any women left today who can play half a damn on it, other than her sister Serena. Her slam winning days are close to being extinct IMO and might be already.

crabgrass
03-01-2009, 07:05 PM
I think Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court are really on their own little tier. You could argue those 4 to put in any order from #1 to #4 depending on your criteria and personal opinions. Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connoly really I have on a second tier of their own which could be argued from any order from #5 to #7. Seles, King, and Serena I am thinking are on a third tier from #8 to #10 that could be argued in any order. Goolagong, Henin, Bueno, Chambers, Marble I would probably put in the tier after that one. Then the tier below that I would have people like Brough, Osborne Du Pont, Venus, Hart, Gibson, maybe Fry. Venus I dont even have on the same tier as Henin, one tier lower than Henin and two lower than Serena. Her career is great in some ways, but very incomplete in many others unfortunately (and as far as being a fan I actually like Venus, alot more than Serena in fact).

Breaking down some key areas between the BIG 4 this is how I would rank them:

Consistency:

1. Evert
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Navratilova

Longevity:

1. Navratilova
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Graf

Dominance:

1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Evert

Versatility:

1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Court
4. Navratilova

Funny adding up those #s it would come to:

Evert- 10
Navratilova- 10
Graf- 9
Court- 11

Those are of course my own rankings in each of those categories though and there are other factors to consider not so easily quantifiable.

Agree in terms of the top 4, could make a decent argument for all of them.
steffi 22 majors, the golden slam, a record 377 weeks at no.1
martina 18 majors, something like 170 carer titles, 342 weeks at no.1
evert 18 majors, won about 90% of her career matches
court a record 24 majors plus the grand slam in '70

comes down to personal preference i guess,
martina was probably the greatest grasscourter ever and evert most likely the greatest claycourter but taking into account all surfaces i'd say steffi was the greatest player overall.

boredone3456
03-01-2009, 07:25 PM
Serena,king and seles was the area i had the most problems seperating,
i positioned serena ahead of the other 2 mostly based on the fact her career's still going and by the time she's done will most likely have surpassed billie jean in majors and put some distance between herself and seles.
If she retired right now i might have her still slightly behind king and virtually level with seles.....henin and venus is one that could go either way, again i'm factoring in that venus is still around and may add a couple more slams to her resume while henin is done and dusted.

Ok I see where you are coming from now. It is possible Serena could pass King all time depending on how you look at things, I guess in the same way you see how she could add more slams, I take into account Serena's lack of real competition lately, especially at her last 2 major wins. Seles and King for me rate higher because they had more competition to deal with then Serena did. I mean Venus, Henin, Capriati and the rest of the current lot just don't rate with the cotemporaries of King and Seles in my opinion. But really, it is all how you look at things and what you value.

As for Henin and Venus, yeah having the same number of slams makes it difficult. I guess I looked at it as a great variety in Henin's having 3 of the 4 slams plus more weeks at number, where you seemed to have taken having 5 of the most presitigious slam as making a bigger difference. I guess in terms of those 2 you can look at it either way. For me Henin just had a better career overall, whereas lately Venus has been largely relegated to Wimbledon which is the only slam I can see her adding another one of to her trophy case, and where she has had some luck in getting her 5.

DMan
03-01-2009, 11:14 PM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

I am not sure if Capriati would rank in the top 15 of American players all-time. From this list, Capriati is #10 among Americans. And I think most experts would put Venus Williams (7 majors), Davenport (more weeks at #1 and better overall record) along with Althea Gibson, Louise Brough, Alice Marble, Doris Hart, and Shirley Fry (who all won more majors than Capriati) ahead of Jennifer.

pmerk34
03-02-2009, 08:49 AM
Well Capriati ruined her career with drugs...Henin's wins over Capriati 1 in 2001..Capriati won 2 slams that year, 1 in 2002, Capriati won a slam and 3 in 2003 qf and a sf in slam and a title and let alone she was still playing top tennis in 2004 before disappearing.

Seles consistently beat Capriati throughout her whole career. In her youth and in her comeback.

The 1991 slugfest she had with Jennifer at the US Open Semi was the hardest hitting woman's match of all time to that point. The look on Jennifer's face when she lost sticks out in my mind. She was never quite the same after that match.

dataseviltwin
03-02-2009, 08:54 AM
ditto on thumbs down on Capriati. One one of her slams on crappy line calls. Biggest whiner (next to Hingis) EVER.

thalivest
03-02-2009, 10:05 AM
Capriati really should only have 1 major title. The 2002 Australian Open title was a complete joke when Seles and Hingis were both playing much better tennis at that event but of course played each other in the semis than her amazing luck vs Hingis in the final (where anyway she should have already been defaulted by the end of the 2nd set for all her swearing and cussing repeatedly including to the umpire but amazingly never even got a warning). Of course Davenport and Serena (who both would have kicked her butt) were missing, and Venus was injured. Kim Clijsters also choked away the 1st set in the semis and should have won her place into the final over Jennifer in straight sets.

She was lucky Seles and Davenport missed the 2001 French Open, that would have been Seles's time to win another major particularly when I could not imagine Capriati beating her on clay, and that would have been Davenport's best ever shot to win the French as she owned Jennifer even on clay. She was also lucky Kim choked in the final, and a young Justine who would have beaten her in the final (she even beat her on grass a month later) choked vs Kim in the semis.

The 2001 Australian Open title was deserved, yeah she is lucky Davenport played her worst slam semi or final ever and Seles choked in the quarters, but she still legitimately beat a full field of everyone and won it. That should have been her only slam title though. Jennifer's record vs top 10 was .500 or worse in 2001-2002, she was overall owned by Venus and Davenport and was even with or trailing all of Seles, Henin, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Serena, and she only won 4 total tournaments those 2 years (including the 3 majors) yet still won 3 majors somehow? Probably the biggest fluke in history.

pmerk34
03-02-2009, 10:22 AM
Capriati really should only have 1 major title. The 2002 Australian Open title was a complete joke when Seles and Hingis were both playing much better tennis at that event but of course played each other in the semis than her amazing luck vs Hingis in the final (where anyway she should have already been defaulted by the end of the 2nd set for all her swearing and cussing repeatedly including to the umpire but amazingly never even got a warning). Of course Davenport and Serena (who both would have kicked her butt) were missing, and Venus was injured. Kim Clijsters also choked away the 1st set in the semis and should have won her place into the final over Jennifer in straight sets.

She was lucky Seles and Davenport missed the 2001 French Open, that would have been Seles's time to win another major particularly when I could not imagine Capriati beating her on clay, and that would have been Davenport's best ever shot to win the French as she owned Jennifer even on clay. She was also lucky Kim choked in the final, and a young Justine who would have beaten her in the final (she even beat her on grass a month later) choked vs Kim in the semis.

The 2001 Australian Open title was deserved, yeah she is lucky Davenport played her worst slam semi or final ever and Seles choked in the quarters, but she still legitimately beat a full field of everyone and won it. That should have been her only slam title though. Jennifer's record vs top 10 was .500 or worse in 2001-2002, she was overall owned by Venus and Davenport and was even with or trailing all of Seles, Henin, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Serena, and she only won 4 total tournaments those 2 years (including the 3 majors) yet still won 3 majors somehow? Probably the biggest fluke in history.

The Aussie Open is the least prestigious anyway as you see that the non greatest players of each generation seemed to win a title there or multiple titles. Up until pretty recently the Masters or Davis cup meant way more.

JediMindTrick
03-02-2009, 01:34 PM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

So how come Borg is ahead of Sampras? And why is McEnroe ahead of Agassi? And then you have Federer at #7!? I mean, I love to see Nadal beat Federer as much as the next guy, but come on, Federer would crush everybody on that list, no?

hoodjem
03-04-2009, 02:30 PM
Federer would crush everybody on that list, no?
I that what being the GOAT is about: crushing?

Fed keeps losing to some guy with less than half the number of majors than him. Someone with only six majors--a virtual Slam wimp.

hoodjem
03-04-2009, 06:36 PM
So how come Borg is ahead of Sampras?

Borg is ahead of Sampras because Borg did a three-peat on going from really slow clay at RG to the fast grass of Wimbledon and beating the whole world in the process, and winning five Wimbledons in a row.

It's not all about the mere quantity of majors.

Holdfast44ID
03-04-2009, 07:21 PM
It all comes down to opinion rather than records. This is especially true if you are trying to say who, in his prime vs anyone else in their prime, would win. Isn't that what what it really comes down to, rather than trying to use "records" to build a case? Yes, there are records, there are eras with different technologies in place, there are different talents, durations of success, etc. I think many of you probably also have different concepts of what "Best Player Ever" actually means. Best career? Greatest talent? Greatest longevity? Most titles? A combination of all of the above?

Let's just say there was this fellow who came on the scene now, and he is, as far as talent goes, "The Best Player Ever." IE: He can walk on the court and beat Federer and Nadal and any other player on the pro tour 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 and does so in his first slam, winning every match without dropping a game. Everyone, even Nadal and Federer say this is the best player they have ever seen or played against. All the fans, commentators, old pros say "Wow. This guy is the best we have ever seen." Let's just say that no pro, past or present could beat this guy. The next week, the guy gets hit by a bus and his career is over. Could you agree that this guy was the best player ever, or does the fact that he doesn't have a record due to the career ended by injury? What does "Best" mean to you? Best career and best player to me are different things.

Personally, if comparing records, I'd take into account the era of the players. I think crops of players are better in different eras. I seriously think today's top players in general are much better than those from previous eras. Yes, technology helps (although arguable when it comes to the racquet Feder and Sampras use, which is pretty much a 20+ year old design), just look at the old videos. Look at a Borg vs McEnroe Wimbledon final and compare that to the last Nadal vs Federer final. It's more than just the racquets... The game has evolved as playing styles and fitness have changed over time as well.

I suppose, you can try to use past and present stats across multiple generations of pro players to try and arrive at your decision... I know, someone should just develop a computer program to do that (don't think that would work).

anointedone
03-04-2009, 07:34 PM
I that what being the GOAT is about: crushing?

Fed keeps losing to some guy with less than half the number of majors than him. Someone with only six majors--a virtual Slam wimp.

Yes very fair to call someone with 6 majors at only 22 a virtual slam wimp. How many majors did Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Federer, Sampras and a horde of other greats have at that age exactly. Yes Nadal wasnt able to start winning majors at only 15 or 16 so he would have more than a mere 6 at 22, so I guess he really sucks. :rolleyes:

hoodjem
03-07-2009, 08:52 PM
Yes Nadal wasnt able to start winning majors at only 15 or 16 so he would have more than a mere 6 at 22, so I guess he really sucks.(I was being facetious.) Yea, I guess you're right.

Leublu tennis
03-10-2009, 02:48 AM
Borg ahead of Gonzalez, Tilden, and Budge?? Give me a break!

hoodjem
03-10-2009, 02:51 PM
Me too.

1. Laver
2. Tilden
3. Rosewall
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Gonzales

jimbo333
03-10-2009, 06:12 PM
You're right mate, it's LAVER, without a doubt:)

T1000
03-10-2009, 07:10 PM
donald young, nuff said

hoodjem
03-14-2009, 11:05 AM
Did Tilden win everything for six years?

Or was it just the biggies?

grafselesfan
03-24-2009, 02:45 PM
1. Steffi Graf
2. Monica Seles
3. Martina Navratilova
4. Chris Evert
5. Serena Williams
6. Margaret Court
7. Billie Jean King
8. Maureen Connoly
9. Helen Wills Moody
10. Suzanne Lenglen
11. Evonne Goolagong
12. Maria Bueno
13. Justine Henin
14. Venus Williams
15. Aranxta Sanchez Vicario

GameSampras
03-24-2009, 04:15 PM
If Nadal were to retire today he would be no GOAT candidate. Not even a year of #1 yet. Only 6 slams while impressive at his age .. And only 22 years old with no proof of longevity yet

hoodjem
03-24-2009, 04:18 PM
Agreed. Not in my top-ten at present. (Second-ten yes.)

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
03-25-2009, 03:31 AM
Several similar versions of this thread exist elsewhere and I repeat what I've already written about the men :

I don't want to give a GOAT players' list because I've so much to study before giving that sort of list but I can give the following indications :
In chronological order the best ever players are : William Charles Renshaw, Reginald Frank Doherty, Hugh Laurence (Lawrence) Doherty, William Tatem Tilden II, John Donald Budge, John Albert Kramer, Richard Alonso Gonzales, Kenneth Robert Rosewall, Rodney George Laver, Björn Rune Borg, Petros Sampras (I didn't know that Petros was his first name) and Roger Federer. At a lower level you have James Ernest Renshaw, Joshua Pim (very underrated), Malcolm Douglass Whitman (very underrated too), William Augustus Larned, Norman Everard Brookes, Anthony Frederick Wilding, William M. Johnston (if someone knows what "M." is in reality I would be glad) , Jean René Lacoste, Henri Jean Cochet, Henry Ellsworth Vines Jr., Frederick John Perry, Robert Larimore Riggs, James Scott Connors, John Patrick McEnroe Jr., Ivan Lendl, Andre Kirk Agassi. Below are the following great players : Wilfred Baddeley, Francisco Olegario Segura, Frank Arthur Sedgman, Lewis Alan Hoad (very overrated because many forget his innumerable injuries who prevented him from being better, the first quality of a sportsman is to be in good health), Mats Wilander, Stefan Bengt Edberg, Boris Franz Becker and Rafael Nadal Parera (he will possibly improve as his first Australian Open win can indicate). Finally John David Newcombe (a player who could have been very great but, as his autobiography shows, had many lacks of will : in 71-72 he wanted to retire and once again after Wimby 73 and he virtually retired after the 1975 Australian) and Ilie Năstase (another player who didn't fulfill his potential because he couldn't stand pressure : at Roland 70 and even 71 - Wimbledon 72, 73, 76 - Davis Cup 72 - US Open 73 - Masters 74, ... he could have won or at least made better).
I've perhaps forgotten some players.

All the lists in that forum completely underrate pre-WWI players (except HL Doherty) so they shouldn't be entitled
"Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time" or "15 greatest players of all time" lists
but "Greatest Tennis Player since the 1920's" lists.

For instance George Whiteside Hillyard was adamant that R.F. Doherty when he wasn't too ill (it seemed that R.F. has never been in good health in his whole life) never lost once to his younger brother H.L., be it in official or private match. Hillyard even said that H.L. very seldom won a set against his elder. In fact R.F. owe 15 in each game to H.L.
So though H.L. Doherty had the best tennis record of all the pre-WWI players, R.F. Doherty shouldn't be ignored in any GOAT discussion.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
03-25-2009, 04:08 AM
Did Tilden win everything for six years?

Or was it just the biggies?

Hello Hoodjem,
of course Tilden didn't win everything but he won almost everything and not JUST the biggies.

I gave some AndrewTas's and Elegos's files to my French collegue Jema974 who listed all Tilden's KNOWN titles in the French site of Wikipedia :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Tilden#Titres_de_Bill_Tilden_en_Simple_.28191 8-1939.29_.28130_au_moins.29

Here is what AndrewTas wrote in that forum (I don't remember where) about Tilden's record in 1924/1925 :

Tilden's 24/25 record
This is what I have for Tilden between 1924 and 25.
1924
RU Buffalo Indoor lost Alonso 64 16 61 36 64
Won South Atlantic Augusta d. Rice 61 63 64
Won Middle States Clay d. Alonso 36 62 57 64 64
Won Orange Club d. Mathey 46 75 36 60 62
Eastern Pennsylvania met Chapin in final
Won Rhode Island State d. Niles 60 64 61
Won New England d. Niles 63 61 62
Won Great Lakes Buffalo d. Chapin 36 75 61 46 86
Won Western Championships d. Hennessey 62 61 62
Won US Clay Court d. Snodgrass 62 61 61
Won Illinois State d. Kinsey 61 06 64 63
Won Southern California d. Chapin
Won US Champs d. Johnston 61 97 62
Hot Springs Virginia won 2 matches but unknown finish
1925
Won Heights Casino d. Mathey 62 61 68 75
Won Buffalo Indoor d. Rice 60 64 62
Won Palm Beach d. Alonso 63 79 61 64
Won Jacksonville (Southeastern Champs) d. Richards 75 61 64
Won Greenbrier TC (White Sulphur) d. Hunter 61 62 63
Won Pennsylvania-Eastern States d. Williams 06 62 64 16 64
RU Orange Tennis Club lost Richards 46 61 75 64
Won New England d. Alonso 64 64 61
Won NY Metropolitan Clay Court d. Richards 63 63 64
Won Eastern New York State Champs d. Richards
Won Nassau Invitational d. Chapin 64 60 60
Won Rhode Island d. Jones 62 63 63
Won US Clay Court d. Lott 36 63 26 62 86
Won Illinois State d. Johnston 64 63 97
Won Chevy Chase d. Chapin 57 61 75 60
Won US Champs d. Johnston 46 119 63 46 63
He lost at the start of 1924 to Alonso and if he won the Eastern Pennsylvanian and Hot Springs tournaments in 1924 (which I think he would have but I haven't confirmed yet) then he won 19 tournaments in a row up to the Richards loss at Orange. With an average of 4 to 5 matches per tournament then he would have won at least 95 matches in a row. Both the Eastern Pennsylvanian and Hot Springs tournaments may have been unfinished though .
In 1930 Tilden had a 11 tournament winning streak with one divided between losing to Borotra in January and Cochet at the French in June. He would have had at least a 50 match streak.

Here are some other remarks about Tilden in particular about 1921:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2838457&postcount=37

To complete my post just above, there are the most important Tilden's 1921 results compiled by Elegos7 below (the 1920 Davis Cup challenge round is absent though it was played from January 1 to 3 because it counted for the 1920 season):

Jan 9 1921
New Zealand Championships, Auckland NZL (G): Bill Tilden (USA) – Watty Washburn (USA) ?
Jun 5 1921
World Hard Court Championships, Paris FRA (C):
1: Manuel Alonso (ESP) - Jean Samazeuilh (FRA) 6-0 6-4 5-7 6-1
2: William Laurentz (FRA) - Manuel Alonso (ESP) 6-4 6-4 2-6 5-7 6-4
Q: Erik Tegner (DEN) - William Laurentz (FRA) 6-4 6-4 6-3
S: Bill Tilden (USA) - Nicolae Misu (ROM) 6-3 6-3 6-2
S: Jean Washer (BEL) - Erik Tegner (DEN) 7-5 4-6 6-1 6-4
F: Bill Tilden (USA) - Jean Washer (BEL) 6-3 6-3 6-3
D: A. Gobert (FRA) / W. Laurentz (FRA)
S: Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (USA) - Marguerite Broquedis Billout (FRA) 8-6 6-4
S: Suzanne Lenglen (FRA) - Irene Bowder Peacock (SAF) 6-1 6-0
F: Suzanne Lenglen (FRA) - Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (USA) 6-2 6-3
D: G. Golding (FRA) / S. Lenglen (FRA)
Jul 3 1921
The Lawn Tennis Championships, Wimbledon BRI (G):
Q: Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) - Randolph Lycett (BRI-G) 6-3 9-11 3-6 6-2 10-8
Q: Manuel Alonso (ESP) - Algie Kingscote (BRI-G) 6-1 6-3 2-6 6-2
S: Brian Norton (SAF) - Frank Hunter (USA) 6-0 6-3 5-7 5-7 6-2
S: Manuel Alonso (ESP) - Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) 3-6 7-5 3-6 6-4 8-6
F: Brian Norton (SAF) - Manuel Alonso (ESP) 5-7 4-6 7-5 6-3 6-3
C: Bill Tilden (USA) - Brian Norton (SAF) 4-6 2-6 6-1 6-0 7-5
D: R. Lycett (BRI-G) / M. Woosnam (BRI-G)
2: Mabel Davey Clayton (GBR) - Kitty McKane (GBR) 6-1 2-6 6-3
Q: Elizabeth Ryan (USA) - Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (USA) 0-6 6-4 6-4
S: Elizabeth Ryan (USA) – Irene Bowder Peacock (SAF) 8-6 6-4
F: Elizabeth Ryan (USA) - Phyllis Carr Satterthwaite (BRI-G) 6-1 6-0
C: Suzanne Lenglen (FRA) - Elizabeth Ryan (USA) 6-2 6-0
D: S. Lenglen (FRA) / E. Ryan (USA)
Jul 24 1921
Rhode Island State Championships, Providence USA (G):
Vinnie Richards (USA) - Bill Tilden (USA) 6-1 6-2 1-6 6-0
Marion Zinderstein Jessup (USA) – Anne Sheafe Cole (USA) 6-3 6-4
Aug 28 1921
US Doubles Championship, Boston USA (G):
D: V. Richards (USA) / B. Tilden (USA) – W. Washburn (USA) / D. Williams (USA) 13-11 12-10 6-1
Sep 4 1921
Davis Cup Challenge Round, USA-JPN 5-0, New York USA (G):
Bill Johnston (USA) - Ichiya Kumagae (JPN) 6-2 6-4 6-2
Bill Tilden (USA) - Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) 5-7 4-6 7-5 6-2 6-1
D: W. Washburn (USA) / D. Williams (USA)
(Bill Tilden (USA) - Ichiya Kumagae (JPN) 9-7 6-4 6-1)
(Bill Johnston (USA) - Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) 6-3 5-7 6-2 6-4)
Sep 18 1921
US Championships (gentlemen), Philadelphia USA (G):
3: Bill Johnston (USA) - Vinnie Richards (USA) 2-6 3-6 6-3 9-7 6-2
3: Bill Tilden (USA) - Zenzo Shimidzu (JPN) 6-4 6-4 6-1
4: Bill Tilden (USA) - Bill Johnston (USA) 4-6 7-5 6-4 6-3
4: James Anderson (AUS) – Dick Williams (USA) 6-3 6-3 2-6 4-6 6-4
S: Bill Tilden (USA) - Willis Davis (USA) 10-8 6-2 6-1
S: Wallace Johnson (USA) - James Anderson (AUS) 6-4 3-6 8-6 6-3
F: Bill Tilden (USA) - Wallace Johnson (USA) 6-1 6-3 6-1
Sep 25 1921
East-West tennis matches, Chicago (G):
James Anderson (AUS) - Bill Tilden (USA) 3-6 6-4 6-1 1-6 19-17

grafselesfan
03-25-2009, 06:03 PM
I guess since I did a womens list I might as well do a mens list as well:

1. Rod Laver
2. Don Budge
3. Pete Sampras
4. Ken Rosewall
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Roger Federer
8. Bill Tilden
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe
11. Fred Perry
12. Jack Kramer
13. Henri Cochet
14. Jimmy Connors
15. Rafael Nadal

Federer actually rates alot lower now for me than he would have even a year ago. Nadal's complete demolition of him while still in his prime diminishes him somewhat in my eyes. Sorry for those that feel I am being unfair, it is just how I feel.

If any player curently playing will ever become the greatest mens player in history it will Be Nadal, not Federer IMO. I am not saying by any means I feel certain or even confident Nadal will reach this point. However he is the only current one who has a chance to ever do so I feel. Already too late for Federer realistically speaking it seems.

GameSampras
03-25-2009, 06:14 PM
I never would have thought we would be talking about Nadal being a possible GOAT candidate in the future. But he is certainly on the right track. No doubt about it. 6 slams by 22 years of age and now that his hardcourt game has developed and achieved something I never thought he would which was a HC slam, he is rapidly ascending the GOAT list, not to mention his complete and utter domination of Roger.

That being said, will he keep it up? WHat happens once the wheels go? He doesnt really have a game to compensate for his court movement when it declines.

grafselesfan
03-25-2009, 10:03 PM
I never would have thought we would be talking about Nadal being a possible GOAT candidate in the future. But he is certainly on the right track. No doubt about it. 6 slams by 22 years of age and now that his hardcourt game has developed and achieved something I never thought he would which was a HC slam, he is rapidly ascending the GOAT list, not to mention his complete and utter domination of Roger.

That being said, will he keep it up? WHat happens once the wheels go? He doesnt really have a game to compensate for his court movement when it declines.

I think it will come to down the decisions he makes in next couple years. Will he resist his well noted temptation and urge to play too many tournaments, even ones he doesnt need. Will he focus more on developing a bigger serve and a stronger volley. Of course he will never have one of the great serves or great volleys in tennis history, but if he can improve both enough to shorten some points and conserve energy it will help him greatly. Decisions such as these will go a long way to determining if he can.

pmerk34
03-26-2009, 04:33 AM
I think it will come to down the decisions he makes in next couple years. Will he resist his well noted temptation and urge to play too many tournaments, even ones he doesnt need. Will he focus more on developing a bigger serve and a stronger volley. Of course he will never have one of the great serves or great volleys in tennis history, but if he can improve both enough to shorten some points and conserve energy it will help him greatly. Decisions such as these will go a long way to determining if he can.


His Volleys looked darn good vs Murray the other day.

hoodjem
03-26-2009, 07:13 AM
1. Rod Laver
2. Don Budge
3. Pete Sampras
4. Ken Rosewall
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Roger Federer
8. Bill Tilden
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe
11. Fred Perry
12. Jack Kramer
13. Henri Cochet
14. Jimmy Connors
15. Rafael Nadal


Nice list. I have most of the same names, but in a slightly different order.
1. Laver
2. Tilden
3. Rosewall
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Sampras
8. Federer
9. Lendl
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Connors
13. Cochet
14. Hoad
15. Lacoste

grafselesfan
03-26-2009, 10:17 AM
Nice list. I have most of the same names, but in a slightly different order.
1. Laver
2. Tilden
3. Rosewall
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Sampras
8. Federer
9. Lendl
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Connors
13. Cochet
14. Hoad
15. Lacoste

Thanks for your list. It looks like you believe I underrated Tilden quite a bit though? Vines I thought had an amazing couple years then was overtaken quickly when his game got figured out, but maybe I am not as aware of what he did as a pro when he departed amateur competition.

hoodjem
03-26-2009, 01:55 PM
Thanks for your list. It looks like you believe I underrated Tilden quite a bit though?

No, we just have different opinions. I rate him higher; you rate him lower. That's okay. Not an issue.

Tennis_Maestro
04-04-2009, 09:11 AM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

clayman2000
04-04-2009, 07:46 PM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

i hope you are either joking, or insanely bias to Lendl.

How you have 4 guys ahead of Laver is beyond me. I love Boris Becker, but to place him above Mcenroe and Agassi is wrong. Nadal is better than both Edberg and Wilander

No guys like Tilden, Budge, Rosewall, and as a side not on the whole thread, im surprised at the lack of Emerson

grafselesfan
04-05-2009, 05:46 PM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

Ridiculousness personified. Lendl at #1?! Becker at #8!?!

hoodjem
04-05-2009, 07:06 PM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

Odd, indeed. Justifiable?

Who's Eddberg? Who's Aggasi?

crabgrass
04-06-2009, 01:34 AM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

your top 6 is identical to mine but i'd leave out pancho....for me the order is still open to debate though i have no problem with your pick for number 1

crabgrass
04-06-2009, 01:56 AM
as for the maestro's ranking of becker at 7 or 8 i think it really depends on how you choose to rate these guys...some people look at career achievements (in this case becker might be top20 but no way top 10),
others may choose to rank players at their peak performance...for eg.would becker on his best day beat say mcenroe on his best day, using this formula having becker at number8 isnt really that out there, i think becker at his best would be a handful for just about anybody.
becker was well past his best days by 95-96 and was still giving sampras at his peak all he could handle.

pc1
04-06-2009, 05:47 AM
1. Lendl
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Laver
5. Gonzales
6. Connors
7. Boris Becker
8. John Mcenroe
9. Aggasi
10. Perry
11. Vines
12. Wilander
13. Eddberg
14. Nadal
15. Lacoste

I like Lendl as much as anyone and I do think he's very underrated but very few would rank him number one. Probably top ten material.

Incidentally I think Lendl, if he played with the Wimbledon grass of today would have won Wimbledon several times.

BorisBeckerFan
04-06-2009, 06:45 AM
I'm happy to have been born when I was but on occassion I wish i was a older so I could comment on players like Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzalez. I'd give my top 15 but I don't want insult the people who were fortunate enough to have seen tennis before the 80's.

pc1
04-06-2009, 02:22 PM
I'm happy to have been born when I was but on occassion I wish i was a older so I could comment on players like Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzalez. I'd give my top 15 but I don't want insult the people who were fortunate enough to have seen tennis before the 80's.

I don't see any videos of Gonzalez in his prime but there are some of Laver in 1969 in his Grand Slam year on youtube and also past his prime against Connors.

Here's the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M

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

Remember, Rod is playing with a wood racket but check out how great Laver's strokes are and how even at age 36 against Connors, his volley is clearly superior to Federer's today.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-08-2009, 06:12 AM
...Vines I thought had an amazing couple years then was overtaken quickly when his game got figured out, but maybe I am not as aware of what he did as a pro when he departed amateur competition.

Yes sure, Vines reached his peak in his pro years and not in his amateur days. In fact Vines was close to the top for 9 successive years from September 1930 when he won the Pacific Southwest amateur championships at Los Angeles (truly the greatest amateur event after the Davis Cup, Forest Hills and Wimbledon in these years) to October 1939 when he captured the US Pro crown still at Los Angeles, beating Perry in a superb match (even in 1933 Vines wasn't far from the top though he temporarily declined, because he reached the Wimbledon final and played a superb match with Crawford).

But Vines's very best years were not 1931 and 1932 as an amateur but 1934-1935-1937-1938 (and to a lesser extent, 1936 and 1939) as a pro.

He was more or less the best pro from 1934 to 1938 : comparisons are difficult to make even between pro players because Vines never faced his pro colleague Hans Nüsslein in 1936-1937-1938.
Because Vines slightly dominated Nüsslein when both players played in the same events that is in 1934-1935 then in 1939, one guesses that Vines was also slightly better than Nüsslein in 1936-1937-1938 when both players never entered the same competitions. Apparently Vines never played a single pro tournament from November 1935 (Wembley) to May 1939 (Wembley once again). Therefore you easily understand that it is only an assumption but not a certainty that Vines was superior to Nüsslein from 1936 to 1938.

In those times not only the pro circuit was separated from the amateur circuits but it was itself divided in two : the pro tours and the pro tournaments. Pro tennis being not very popular at the time, the only money truly available was in the pro tour circuit and not in the pro tournament circuit.
Vines being a top attraction because he had a spectacular game and was cute enough was the evident top of the pro tour bill whereas Nüsslein, playing a defensive game and not being the sexiest man on earth, couldn't be a commercial attraction and so wasn't chosen to play great tours (after his Tilden tours in 1932-1933).
Therefore since 1935 Vines played mainly pro tours (it explains why he didn't enter any tournament for about 3 years and a half) while Nüsslein mainly played tournaments and not tours.
A world (mainly North America) pro tour winner earned several ten thousand dollars a year while pro tournament winners earned only several hundred dollars per tournament and there were very few pro tournaments in the 30's : for instance Vines, for winning the US Pro in 1939, earned only $350 in singles and circa $112 in doubles.
Therefore a Nüsslein probably earned several (I can't be more precise) thousand dollars in 1937 while a Perry earned something like $75,000 in tours that same year.

To come back to Vines's peak years, some seem to think that he never played better than in 1938. In early 1939 he narrowly lost (22 matches to 17) to new pro rookie Budge in their initial tour but it is said that Vines was ill and a bit overweight at the time.

At a first view Vines's record can seem weak : imagine that his 1937 win-loss record was equal to 50%, apparently very little compared to the 80-85 or even 90% of the modern top players records but one mustn't forget that Vines always faced a very top player that year : Perry whereas a Nadal or a Federer or a Murray can meet players ranked #100 or even worse in the tournaments first rounds.
Vines and Perry first met in the "World Pro championship" (North American) tour which Vines won 32-29. Then in the British&Irish Isles Perry won in his turn 6-3.
To give you an idea Perry was without any doubt the best amateur from 1934 to 1936 and in 1937 as a pro he would have improved in every domain according to Dan Maskell so in 1937 Perry was a high class player and by deduction Vines was therefore a pretty good player.

(Dan Maskell, a British pro player since the late 20's, was in particular
the coach of the British Davis Cup team including Perry so he had several occasions to play Perry (amateur) and in 1937 Maskell faced against Perry, now a pro, when Perry and Vines toured in the British Isles as written above. So Maskell could compare easily enough "Perry 1936" with "Perry 1937")

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_male_players_statistics I've listed the greatest pro tours won by Tilden, Vines, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales. You could see for instance that Kramer and Gonzales played 123 matches in nearly 7 months (from October 1949 to May 1950) so you can imagine that they didn't play many tournaments during that period (only two in reality, the Paris and Philadelphia tournaments respectively in January and March 1950). So those players couldn't win as many tournaments as the modern players. In 1950 Kramer was perhaps (but not certainly because Segura was a serious rival) the best player in the world though he didn't win a single tournament (he entered only 3 but lost all of them).

gj011
04-08-2009, 07:03 AM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

Pretty good lists. 1-10 are spot on for both. Many here overrate players like Graf, Federer, Sampras but these are their correct spots.
Only Capriati should not be there and Aggasi and Connors should be above McEnroe.

julesb
04-08-2009, 07:07 AM
Agassi should not be above McEnroe. McEnroe was the best player in the world 3 different years, and the dominant player in the sport 2 different years. Agassi was arguably never either, at most 1 of both. Even his famed 1999 year was spoiled somewhat by a 1-4 head to head with Sampras where his only win was a round robin match, and the asterix on his U.S Open title with Sampras who was dominating him and the tour completely all summer pulling out at the last minute with back injury.

McEnroe's consistency for atleast his 6-7 year prime period was on another planet from Agassi's wretched up and downs. Agassi never had anywhere near that long a stretch sustaining that constant level of such high play.

Agassi's longevity and career slam are not enough to overcome these factors.

AndrewD
04-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

Well, including Capriati is stupid (not as stupid as leaving Henin out altogether) but the biggest act of stupidity is including Agassi, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe and Connors over guys like Frank Sedgman, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Jack Crawford, Jean Borotra, Henri Cochet, Rene Lacoste and Tony Wilding. The guys you mentioned didn't achieve anywhere near as much as those others. Connors and Lendl are the only ones who might deserve to be there but not McEnroe, Agassi (who doesn't deserve consideration at all) and Wilander.

When 8 of your top 15 are American, you can see where the problem lies.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 09:18 AM
Excuse my ignorance but what makes Cochet and Lacoste so great? They won the FO when it was only open to french players if I'm not mistaken and while they had a few other majors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe and company do too. McEnroe IMO is underrated, double slams should count for something too, they are another aspect of tennis after all.

Patrick_St
04-08-2009, 09:45 AM
I'm happy to have been born when I was but on occassion I wish i was a older so I could comment on players like Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzalez. I'd give my top 15 but I don't want insult the people who were fortunate enough to have seen tennis before the 80's.

Same here, that's why I can't givea top fifteen of ALL TIME. I think you need to have watched at leat 3 solid decades, and likely even at least 4 decades of tennis to really have a good understanding of this topic. Also, it's pretty much futile to try and compare players from different generations because, although you may have witnessed what one player could do in his time, you never know what he would do against players from another generation he never played against. That is just my perspective. I suppose it is fun to try and make a top 15 list though.

boris becker 1
04-08-2009, 09:56 AM
men

1. Laver 2. Sampras. 3. Tilden 4. Budge 5. Borg 6. Federer 7. Agassi 8 Emerson 9 Becker 10 Lendl 11 Perry 12 Mc Enroe 13. connors 14 wilander 15 edberg

urban
04-08-2009, 10:01 AM
What made Lacoste and Cochet great? Now, i would say: invention. Cochet was an artist and great innovator of the game, in particular of the running forehand. Other players like Perry copied his court opening forehand, hit shortly after bounce. By all descriptions, Cochet was the Johnny Mac of his day, a touch player, who hit almost every shot as half volley. Lacoste invented quite a few things, including a scientific approach to tennis, putting on a systematic training regimen (like Lendl) and observing all opponents and writing down all observations. He invented some pretty important hard ware, too, including the ball machine, the steel racket and not least the logo, the Crocodile, he stamped on his clothing line, which became an universal success.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 10:48 AM
What made Lacoste and Cochet great? Now, i would say: invention. Cochet was an artist and great innovator of the game, in particular of the running forehand. Other players like Perry copied his court opening forehand, hit shortly after bounce. By all descriptions, Cochet was the Johnny Mac of his day, a touch player, who hit almost every shot as half volley. Lacoste invented quite a few things, including a scientific approach to tennis, putting on a systematic training regimen (like Lendl) and observing all opponents and writing down all observations. He invented some pretty important hard ware, too, including the ball machine, the steel racket and not least the logo, the Crocodile, he stamped on his clothing line, which became an universal success.

Inventions don't boost your status as a tennis great. I mean, Nadal's game is innovative too, but at the end of the day it will not count to determine his greatness, his wins in tournaments and H2H against the other top players of his time, will.

hoodjem
04-08-2009, 10:57 AM
Excuse my ignorance but what makes Cochet and Lacoste so great? They won the FO when it was only open to French players. . .
Not entirely true. Cochet has a rather impressive record. Only one of his French titles pre-dates the 1925 opening up of the championship to international players--
French Championships (open to international players after 1924)
Singles champion: 1922, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932
Singles runner-up: 1933

Wimbledon
Singles champion: 1927, 1929
Singles runner-up: 1928

U.S. Championships
Singles champion: 1928
Singles runner-up 1932

If one includes his doubles titles then, as a complete player, his record is very impressive indeed.
French Championships
Men's Doubles champion: 1927, 1930, 1932
Men's Doubles runner-up: 1925
Mixed Doubles champion: 1928, 1929
Mixed Doubles runner-up: 1930

Wimbledon
Men's Doubles champion: 1926, 1928
Men's Doubles runner-up: 1927, 1931

U.S. Championships
Mixed Doubles champion: 1927

In addition the "Four Musketeers" (Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra, Brugnon) led France to six straight Davis Cup wins: 1927-1932.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 11:48 AM
Not entirely true. Cochet has a rather impressive record. Only one of his French titles pre-dates the 1925 opening up of the championship to international players--
French Championships (open to international players after 1924)
Singles champion: 1922, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932
Singles runner-up: 1933

Wimbledon
Singles champion: 1927, 1929
Singles runner-up: 1928

U.S. Championships
Singles champion: 1928
Singles runner-up 1932

If one includes his doubles titles then, as a complete player, his record is very impressive indeed.
French Championships
Men's Doubles champion: 1927, 1930, 1932
Men's Doubles runner-up: 1925
Mixed Doubles champion: 1928, 1929
Mixed Doubles runner-up: 1930

Wimbledon
Men's Doubles champion: 1926, 1928
Men's Doubles runner-up: 1927, 1931

U.S. Championships
Mixed Doubles champion: 1927

In addition the "Four Musketeers" (Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra, Brugnon) led France to six straight Davis Cup wins: 1927-1932.

Oh, I see the Davis Cup explains it now. Thanks!

However MCEnroe also has a bunch of Davis, 7 singles majors and all those doubles and mixed doubles majors, why is he so underrated?

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 11:50 AM
Well, including Capriati is stupid (not as stupid as leaving Henin out altogether) but the biggest act of stupidity is including Agassi, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe and Connors over guys like Frank Sedgman, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Jack Crawford, Jean Borotra, Henri Cochet, Rene Lacoste and Tony Wilding. The guys you mentioned didn't achieve anywhere near as much as those others. Connors and Lendl are the only ones who might deserve to be there but not McEnroe, Agassi (who doesn't deserve consideration at all) and Wilander.

When 8 of your top 15 are American, you can see where the problem lies.

Your problem is you are trying to be iconoclastic by picking obscure players. In 1989 Word tennis magazine had McEnroe as the best player of all time and he can't crack your top 20? LOL.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Oh, I see the Davis Cup explains it now. Thanks!

However MCEnroe also has a bunch of Davis, 7 singles majors and all those doubles and mixed doubles majors, why is he so underrated?

Mac is only underrated on this board. Everywhere else he is recognized as a colossally great player.

BorisBeckerFan
04-08-2009, 11:53 AM
I don't see any videos of Gonzalez in his prime but there are some of Laver in 1969 in his Grand Slam year on youtube and also past his prime against Connors.

Here's the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M

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

Remember, Rod is playing with a wood racket but check out how great Laver's strokes are and how even at age 36 against Connors, his volley is clearly superior to Federer's today.

Thanks for the links, I had not seen the clip with Ashe. Laver's volleys are superb. I think despite all the talk about men's tennis advancing over time in some ways it has actually gone backwards.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 11:58 AM
Thanks for the links, I had not seen the clip with Ashe. Laver's volleys are superb. I think despite all the talk about men's tennis advancing over time in some ways it has actually gone backwards.

Laver doesn't feel that way and neither do most former players from what i hear and read.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 12:05 PM
Laver doesn't feel that way and neither do most former players from what i hear and read.

Yeah, in fact Laver said (back when Fed was still dominating) that a True Grand Slam today would mean more than when he did it because the competition is tougher today, IIRC.

hoodjem
04-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Never overlook Laver's humility.

clayman2000
04-08-2009, 06:46 PM
men

1. Laver 2. Sampras. 3. Tilden 4. Budge 5. Borg 6. Federer 7. Agassi 8 Emerson 9 Becker 10 Lendl 11 Perry 12 Mc Enroe 13. connors 14 wilander 15 edberg

Tilden Budge and Borg i think personally should all be above Sampras

I love Agassi, and think while hes underrated on this board, Emerson should be ahed of him as well as (although i hate to say it Mcenroe). Becker way too high as is edberg

hoodjem
04-08-2009, 07:11 PM
Tilden Budge and Borg i think personally should all be above Sampras.
1. Laver
2. Tilden
3. Rosewall
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Sampras

urban
04-08-2009, 09:27 PM
To the link between greatness and innovation. Greatness in sports is not to be measured by sheer numbers, but by the amount of memory. The really great players were always great innovators. That made them memorable even more than their successes. Tilden straightened out all the shots. Cochet played with the power of his opponents by hitting close to the ground. Perry brought athleticism to the game, Budge copied the backhand drive from the baseball swing. Kramer and Gonzales perfected the big game of serve and volley. Rosewall's game looked conservative, but he made the court small, by quickly gliding into winning positions from the baseline to the net. Laver brought the next big innovation, he experimented with quick shoulder turns and new spins, especially topspin. Connors made the double hander popular. Borg re-invented the western grip, to play excessive topspin from an open stand. Lendl put training and diet on a new level, and laid the foundation to the new forehand orientated power game. Becker came up with the new graphite material and increasing service power. Sampras perfected the serve, especially the second serve. Federer perfected the forehand as a finishing shot from midcourt. Nadal uses the new strings to combine topspin with dangerous sidespin.

crabgrass
04-08-2009, 09:54 PM
men

1. Laver 2. Sampras. 3. Tilden 4. Budge 5. Borg 6. Federer 7. Agassi 8 Emerson 9 Becker 10 Lendl 11 Perry 12 Mc Enroe 13. connors 14 wilander 15 edberg


becker's one of my alltime favourites but there's no way he or agassi should be ahead of lendl and connors.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-08-2009, 10:29 PM
men

1. Laver 2. Sampras. 3. Tilden 4. Budge 5. Borg 6. Federer 7. Agassi 8 Emerson 9 Becker 10 Lendl 11 Perry 12 Mc Enroe 13. connors 14 wilander 15 edberg

A list where Rosewall and Gonzales are absent is a dead wrong list.
About Rosewall see for instance http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3087013&postcount=214.

How can you rank a player like Emerson before Rosewall or Gonzales ? You know nothing about tennis history ? And Vines was better (or at least equal) than Perry EVERY YEAR in the thirties except in 1933. Where is Vines ? And of course there is no pre-WWI in your very bad list : no Renshaws, no Dohertys, no Wilding, no Brookes. Unbelievable. And where is Kramer who dominated tennis for many years ? Except Tilden, Budge and Perry you have omitted all the pre-open era players : what a shame !!!

I'm so angry to see that I can't stand it.

And about other players see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3249700&postcount=236

pc1
04-09-2009, 05:24 AM
Thanks for the links, I had not seen the clip with Ashe. Laver's volleys are superb. I think despite all the talk about men's tennis advancing over time in some ways it has actually gone backwards.

It's possible. I think a lot of the differences are because of wood rackets versus the rackets we have today. A lot of them, with one handed backhands had to learn how to set up a point and they had to use the net more because the wood rackets wouldn't allow them to put the necessary spin and power on the ball to put it away from the baseline. They had to learn how to volley well out of necessity.

A guy like Laver had a massive left arm and wrist (his wrist was measured as being as large as the World Heavyweight Boxing Champion) so he could flick the racket in those guys and it would come out with great power despite the fact he played with a wood racket so he had a major advantage over others.

I tried a small wood racket for the first time in ages a couple of years ago and my normal swing which would normally land deep near the baseline barely went over the net. I got used to it but I couldn't hit the ball nearly as well as with my mid sized.

Pete Sampras has said that players today should start off with a wood racket. I think his thinking was that the player with a wood racket would learn different skills that they may not using the current racket technology.

Pirao
04-09-2009, 06:45 AM
1. Laver
2. Tilden
3. Rosewall
4. Budge
5. Borg
6. Gonzales
7. Sampras

How is Borg above Sampras and Federer? :shock:

pmerk34
04-09-2009, 07:08 AM
How is Borg above Sampras and Federer? :shock:

I've never seen a clip of Rosewall ever coming over his backhand. The 3rd greatest player ever didn't have a topspin backhand?

pc1
04-09-2009, 07:22 AM
I've never seen a clip of Rosewall ever coming over his backhand. The 3rd greatest player ever didn't have a topspin backhand?

Rosewall didn't have to. His backhand was very flat, with a bit of slice and it was very effective for passing shots, depth, accuracy, power, lobs, you name it. Ivan Lendl in one of his books mentioned that unless you're Rosewall you can't pass effectively without topspin on the backhand. One of Rosewall's nicknames was The Doomsday Stroking Machine which meant he could rally forever.

What else did you need with a backhand? He had it all but topspin.

Incidentally if memory serves, I read that Lendl in I believe 1980 (he was 20 but already a top tournament play but a few years from his peak) played Rosewall in a practice set. Rosewall was 46 and I understand the set was amazing. I'm sure Rosewall must have passed Lendl numerous times with that non topspin backhand of his. Lendl won the set I believe by a score of 6-4.

On a different note, Lendl used to practice in the late 1980's against Rod Laver and Lendl mentioned he could break Rod's serve about one third of the time. The announcers on television figured Lendl usually won by an average score of 6-3 but that's not bad considering Rod was about 50 or so. Lendl mentioned that he wished he had Laver's volley at that stage and thought Rod might still have one of the top twenty volleys in tennis.

Pirao
04-09-2009, 08:26 AM
I've never seen a clip of Rosewall ever coming over his backhand. The 3rd greatest player ever didn't have a topspin backhand?

What does that have to do with my question? :confused:

pmerk34
04-09-2009, 08:39 AM
Rosewall didn't have to. His backhand was very flat, with a bit of slice and it was very effective for passing shots, depth, accuracy, power, lobs, you name it. Ivan Lendl in one of his books mentioned that unless you're Rosewall you can't pass effectively without topspin on the backhand. One of Rosewall's nicknames was The Doomsday Stroking Machine which meant he could rally forever.

What else did you need with a backhand? He had it all but topspin.

Incidentally if memory serves, I read that Lendl in I believe 1980 (he was 20 but already a top tournament play but a few years from his peak) played Rosewall in a practice set. Rosewall was 46 and I understand the set was amazing. I'm sure Rosewall must have passed Lendl numerous times with that non topspin backhand of his. Lendl won the set I believe by a score of 6-4.

On a different note, Lendl used to practice in the late 1980's against Rod Laver and Lendl mentioned he could break Rod's serve about one third of the time. The announcers on television figured Lendl usually won by an average score of 6-3 but that's not bad considering Rod was about 50 or so. Lendl mentioned that he wished he had Laver's volley at that stage and thought Rod might still have one of the top twenty volleys in tennis.

Interesting, but Rosewall would have and would need a topspin backhand if he played now.

hoodjem
04-09-2009, 09:15 AM
How is Borg above Sampras and Federer? :shock:
In my opinion the French Open to Wimbledon double (slow clay to fast grass) done three times is extremely difficult, and one of the best accomplishments in tennis history.

That and five Wimbledons in a row, six RG titles overall, and his Davis Cup record are very impressive.

Borg may have only 11 slams by the age of 26; whereas Sampras has 14 and Fed 13 (and Emerson 12), but IMO it is not merely about totals.

urban
04-09-2009, 10:07 AM
To support PC 1's comments. Rosewall's backhand was a mixture between moderate slice and drive, hit with a slightly open racket, and there was no need for topspin. There were great players after Rosewall, who had great backhands without much of a topspin backhand, including Edberg, who out of his costumary slice could hit a drive, but seldom a real topspin, and Connors, who nailed his double hander flat and deep, or could slice it effectively. Sampras couldn't hit a real topspin on the backhand for longer periods, that was a weakness on clay, where the ball should go over the net a bit higher. Federer hasn't the strong wrist of a Laver or Hoad, so he can topspin his backhand only in a perfect comfort zone, on medium high balls. Laver could hit topspins and hard drives on his backhand near the ground, from a crouch position, immediately after bounce.

pc1
04-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Federer hasn't the strong wrist of a Laver or Hoad, so he can topspin his backhand only in a perfect comfort zone, on medium high balls. Laver could hit topspins and hard drives on his backhand near the ground, from a crouch position, immediately after bounce.

Laver's left arm and wrist were mammoth. It was like King Kong's arm hanging from his body. The wrist was measured to be as large as the World Heavyweight Champion at the time. According to Ellsworth Vines, Laver was able to handle high kick serves easily to his backhand because of the enormous strength in his wrist. I was always astonished on how easily Laver could take balls on the rise or frankly doing virtually anything he wanted on his backhand.

To get back to Rosewall. Rosewall had virtually every shot but a big serve. He had great groundstrokes, great touch, excellent speed and footwork and one of the great volleys ever. Rosewall won, including the Pros, 23 majors and over 130 tournaments. Many, including the tennis historian Robert Geist consider Rosewall to be the greatest ever.

pmerk34
04-09-2009, 12:21 PM
Laver's left arm and wrist were mammoth. It was like King Kong's arm hanging from his body. The wrist was measured to be as large as the World Heavyweight Champion at the time. According to Ellsworth Vines, Laver was able to handle high kick serves easily to his backhand because of the enormous strength in his wrist. I was always astonished on how easily Laver could take balls on the rise or frankly doing virtually anything he wanted on his backhand.

To get back to Rosewall. Rosewall had virtually every shot but a big serve. He had great groundstrokes, great touch, excellent speed and footwork and one of the great volleys ever. Rosewall won, including the Pros, 23 majors and over 130 tournaments. Many, including the tennis historian Robert Geist consider Rosewall to be the greatest ever.

There are also many who rate Sampras or Fed as the best ever or Laver. The fact is is there is no greatest ever except in our minds.

pc1
04-09-2009, 12:35 PM
There are also many who rate Sampras or Fed as the best ever or Laver. The fact is is there is no greatest ever except in our minds.

Point taken. However I would say that there are names which would be ridiculous to be named as a possible GOAT, Rosewall is a very good choice, as would be a number of others like a Tilden, Gonzalez or some of the ones you mentioned.

crabgrass
04-09-2009, 08:45 PM
How is Borg above Sampras and Federer? :shock:

borg was better than both in my opinion and stats would back this up.
The trend these days seems to be that whoever has the most majors is the greatest ever and nothing else counts, which is a misleading way to judge it.

eg. borg won his 11 slams out of only 27 career grand slams entered,
sampras won 14 slams out of 49 career grand slams entered.
which is more impressive?

borgs grand slam final wins were against guys like connors,mcenroe and lendl,
federer's grand slam wins apart from nadal have all been achieved versus fairly mediocre opposition.

borg won 82.5 % of career matches played,
sampras won 77 % of career matches played.

i've been undecided on the GOAT for a while now, but the more i think about it the more i'm leaning towards borg and at the very least i'd have him above sampras and federer.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
04-09-2009, 10:30 PM
There are also many who rate Sampras or Fed as the best ever or Laver. The fact is is there is no greatest ever except in our minds.

Yes but many rate those 3 players because they DON'T KNOW ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT TENNIS BEFORE THE OPEN ERA and in particular pro tennis before 1968. And today many propose Laver because Rocket is always cited as the last one to have won the Slam but they don't even know about his feats particularly those between 1963 and 1967. Whenever Gonzales or Rosewall aren't picked up in a GOAT list then you can be sure that the person who makes that list knows nothing about tennis history. If someone doesn't know who Reginald Frank Doherty was then that someone has no legitimity to propose a GOAT list. Many proposes Sampras or Federer as the GOAT because they haven't studied once in their life tennis history.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 04:00 AM
Yes but many rate those 3 players because they DON'T KNOW ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT TENNIS BEFORE THE OPEN ERA and in particular pro tennis before 1968. And today many propose Laver because Rocket is always cited as the last one to have won the Slam but they don't even know about his feats particularly those between 1963 and 1967. Whenever Gonzales or Rosewall aren't picked up in a GOAT list then you can be sure that the person who makes that list knows nothing about tennis history. If someone doesn't know who Reginald Frank Doherty was then that someone has no legitimity to propose a GOAT list. Many proposes Sampras or Federer as the GOAT because they haven't studied once in their life tennis history.

Utter nonsense. The only thing you would know about any player from 40-50-60-70-80 years ago is what you read. What they played 70 years ago wouldn't even be called tennis now. The only person who thinks Rosewall is the GOAT is you.

Pirao
04-10-2009, 04:22 AM
borg was better than both in my opinion and stats would back this up.
The trend these days seems to be that whoever has the most majors is the greatest ever and nothing else counts, which is a misleading way to judge it.

eg. borg won his 11 slams out of only 27 career grand slams entered,
sampras won 14 slams out of 49 career grand slams entered.
which is more impressive?

borgs grand slam final wins were against guys like connors,mcenroe and lendl,
federer's grand slam wins apart from nadal have all been achieved versus fairly mediocre opposition.

borg won 82.5 % of career matches played,
sampras won 77 % of career matches played.

i've been undecided on the GOAT for a while now, but the more i think about it the more i'm leaning towards borg and at the very least i'd have him above sampras and federer.

No stats don't back it up. It only backs it up depending on your criteria. Since your criteria is more % of matches won, it backs it up. If I think majors are more important in determining one's greatness, stats back me up. Really, it's a matter of opinion I guess, but IMO the winning % doesn't tell anything, because as soon as Borg started to decline a bit he retired, while Fed and Sampras stayed in the game even when they were past their peaks because they wanted to win more majors, which they did.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 04:29 AM
No stats don't back it up. It only backs it up depending on your criteria. Since your criteria is more % of matches won, it backs it up. If I think majors are more important in determining one's greatness, stats back me up. Really, it's a matter of opinion I guess, but IMO the winning % doesn't tell anything, because as soon as Borg started to decline a bit he retired, while Fed and Sampras stayed in the game even when they were past their peaks because they wanted to win more majors, which they did.

Borg declined? He didn't decline, a better player came along. Borg isn't better than McEnroe and you aren't the GOAT if you never win the US Open.

hoodjem
04-10-2009, 04:51 AM
Utter nonsense. The only thing you would know about any player from 40-50-60-70-80 years ago is what you read. What they played 70 years ago wouldn't even be called tennis now. The only person who thinks Rosewall is the GOAT is you.

Accomplishments are what count. We can read about those. It's called history.

I rank Rosewall as no 3 on my all-time list.

pc1
04-10-2009, 04:55 AM
Utter nonsense. The only thing you would know about any player from 40-50-60-70-80 years ago is what you read. What they played 70 years ago wouldn't even be called tennis now. The only person who thinks Rosewall is the GOAT is you.

To be fair to everyone, there are a number of tennis experts who consider Rosewall to be the GOAT. Rosewall was a great player and would be great in any era. Rosewall played a set against Lendl (it was a practice set but they apparently were trying very hard) in 1980 but Lendl was 20 but was a top pro already and I believe won some tournaments and Rosewall was 46. Anyway I understand the set was fantastic and Lendl won but only by a score of 6-4. Don't put the players of the past down. A lot of the differences in play is because of the new racket technology.

hoodjem
04-10-2009, 04:57 AM
Point taken. However I would say that there are names which would be ridiculous to be named as a possible GOAT, Rosewall is a very good choice, as would be a number of others like a Tilden, Gonzalez or some of the ones you mentioned. If someone posted a list with Lendl as no. 1 or Agassi, then that would be rediculous.

Pirao
04-10-2009, 05:19 AM
Borg declined? He didn't decline, a better player came along. Borg isn't better than McEnroe and you aren't the GOAT if you never win the US Open.

You don't think he retired because he felt himself declining? Fed is 27 and is declining too, every tennis player declines at a different age...

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 05:31 AM
You don't think he retired because he felt himself declining? Fed is 27 and is declining too, every tennis player declines at a different age...

He retired because McEnroe kept beating him and had taken his number one ranking. Without Mac around Borg wins Wimbledon in 1981 and probably takes a US Open in 1980 or 1981. He almost certainly would have won the French in 1982 had he been there.

Mac had the attacking style to beat him in the big spots which no one else had at the time.

pc1
04-10-2009, 05:50 AM
He retired because McEnroe kept beating him and had taken his number one ranking. Without Mac around Borg wins Wimbledon in 1981 and probably takes a US Open in 1980 or 1981. He almost certainly would have won the French in 1982 had he been there.

Mac had the attacking style to beat him in the big spots which no one else had at the time.

I disagree with that. Borg was injuried a lot in the last few years of his career. Did you know that he beat McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon with a torn stomach muscle? If you watch the match you see he rarely unleashes a big serve like in did in 1978 against Connors. When you realize he beat McEnroe with a major injury it just magnifies the great achievement of the 1980 Wimbledon.

He was playing international tennis since he was 15. Borg was a bit unlucky with the U.S. Open. He should have won it on Har Tru in 1977 but he hurt his shoulder. He would have crushed Connors in 1978 but he had such a bad blister that he could barely hold his racket. Of course the guy didn't want to lose, few people do but even from McEnroe's comments, I think Borg retired because he was burnt out.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 06:24 AM
No stats don't back it up. It only backs it up depending on your criteria. Since your criteria is more % of matches won, it backs it up. If I think majors are more important in determining one's greatness, stats back me up. Really, it's a matter of opinion I guess, but IMO the winning % doesn't tell anything, because as soon as Borg started to decline a bit he retired, while Fed and Sampras stayed in the game even when they were past their peaks because they wanted to win more majors, which they did.

yes stats back it up, seeing as career matchwinning percentage means nothing to you and grand slams are everything, how can you not agree that borg winning 11 out of 27 slams played is a lot more impressive statistically than sampras winning 14 out of 49.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 06:46 AM
If someone posted a list with Lendl as no. 1 or Agassi, then that would be rediculous.

agassi yes, lendl no.

a guy with 270 weeks at number1, made a record 19 slam finals, won about 150 career titles (94 atp), won just under 82% of his career matches,
won a record 5 end of year masters titles and made 9 straight finals,
made 8 straight us open finals, won a record 109 matches in a season,
beat jimmy connors 17 times in a row including a 60 60 win, had a 44match winning streak and 66 match winning streak indoors, was top 5 for 12 straight years, was the only player ever to hold the number1 ranking in 8 different years, etc etc etc... seriously i could fill another couple of pages with this stuff...in short lendl has the credentials to be mentioned among the top GOAT contenders and its not as out there as you make it seem.

AHSEagles2012
04-10-2009, 06:50 AM
If someone posted a list with Lendl as no. 1 or Agassi, then that would be rediculous.

yes, great point

TENNIS magazine had top 40 best players of all time and Pete Sampras was the No.1

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 06:57 AM
yes, great point

TENNIS magazine had top 40 best players of all time and Pete Sampras was the No.1

Word Tennis had McEnroe no 1 in a 1989 issue.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 06:57 AM
yes, great point

TENNIS magazine had top 40 best players of all time and Pete Sampras was the No.1

really an american magazine votes an american player the greatest ever....shocker!

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 06:59 AM
Word Tennis had McEnroe no 1 in a 1989 issue.

again not overly surprised

clayman2000
04-10-2009, 07:02 AM
Look, there is no doubt that guys like Lendl, Agassi etc arent the GOAT..
but if someone put Federer, i could see why they would do that.

Here is my top ten:

1)Laver --- 2 Grand Slams end of story
2)Gonzalez --- Greatest Professional player of al time
3)Federer --- Put together the greatest period of Dominence in Tennis
4)Roswall --- Won 7 slams despite being pro for 7 years...won at age 40
5)Budge --- G Slam win gets you up here no matter what else you did
6)Borg --- 11 majors in an 8 year career, won on opposite surfaces
7)Sampras --- Most major wins, but lack of play on clay puts him here
8)Emerson --- 3rd Most slam wins, but during time of no Laver, Rosewall
9)Tildon --- 10 slams won all over the world...dominated his era
10)Lendl --- Top 3 for 9 years in row, dominated a transition era
11)Agassi --- longetivity gets him here during fitness era... oldest no 1
12)Connors --- never won French, dominated another transition era
13)Mcenroe --- perhaps best year ever, downfall was he only won 2 of 4
14)Lacoste --- dont really no much about him....his stats look good
15)Nadal --- slams on 3 surfaces... shoudl move up at least to 9 by time career is over

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 07:07 AM
Look, there is no doubt that guys like Lendl, Agassi etc arent the GOAT..
but if someone put Federer, i could see why they would do that.

Here is my top ten:

1)Laver --- 2 Grand Slams end of story
2)Gonzalez --- Greatest Professional player of al time
3)Federer --- Put together the greatest period of Dominence in Tennis
4)Roswall --- Won 7 slams despite being pro for 7 years...won at age 40
5)Budge --- G Slam win gets you up here no matter what else you did
6)Borg --- 11 majors in an 8 year career, won on opposite surfaces
7)Sampras --- Most major wins, but lack of play on clay puts him here
8)Emerson --- 3rd Most slam wins, but during time of no Laver, Rosewall
9)Tildon --- 10 slams won all over the world...dominated his era
10)Lendl --- Top 3 for 9 years in row, dominated a transition era
11)Agassi --- longetivity gets him here during fitness era... oldest no 1
12)Connors --- never won French, dominated another transition era
13)Mcenroe --- perhaps best year ever, downfall was he only won 2 of 4
14)Lacoste --- dont really no much about him....his stats look good
15)Nadal --- slams on 3 surfaces... shoudl move up at least to 9 by time career is over

Agassi does not belong above Connors or Mac. Mac is better than Borg. Emerson is way too high.

You are just slam counting on some of these. Sampras started this nonsense of "Only Slams matter" and chasing a "record" no one ever cared about because the person that held it, Emmo was never at the time he played or since considered of the top 10 players ever let alone the GOAT.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 07:18 AM
Agassi does not belong above Connors or Mac. Mac is better than Borg. Emerson is way too high.

You are just slam counting on some of these. Sampras started this nonsense of "Only Slams matter" and chasing a "record" no one ever cared about because the person that held it, Emmo was never at the time he played or since considered of the top 10 players ever let alone the GOAT.

agree about agassi being below connors and mac but mac is still a rung below borg.

pc1
04-10-2009, 08:04 AM
yes stats back it up, seeing as career matchwinning percentage means nothing to you and grand slams are everything, how can you not agree that borg winning 11 out of 27 slams played is a lot more impressive statistically than sampras winning 14 out of 49.

Borg is clearly more impressive and Sampras won 14 out of 52, not 49.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 08:08 AM
Borg is clearly more impressive and Sampras won 14 out of 52, not 49.

for those of you keeping score that's almost twice as many grand slams sampras entered.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 08:15 AM
for those of you keeping score that's almost twice as many grand slams sampras entered.

Borg was great but Sampras is possibly the GOAT.

pc1
04-10-2009, 08:20 AM
Borg was great but Sampras is possibly the GOAT.

I think they both can be argued as the GOAT. They're both great.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 08:22 AM
I think they both can be argued as the GOAT. They're both great.

You can't not win the US Open and be the GOAT. We all have our own criteria.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 08:30 AM
You can't not win the US Open and be the GOAT. We all have our own criteria.

same could be said of sampras,federer,mcenroe,connors with the french.
lendl and rosewall at wimbledon....leaves laver and not much else.

pc1
04-10-2009, 08:33 AM
You can't not win the US Open and be the GOAT. We all have our own criteria.

I think Sampras can be argued as the GOAT and yet he didn't win the French. Fact is Sampras won a top clay court tournament in the Italian Open so he was good on clay. Borg won a lot of great hard court tournaments, including the 1979 Canadian Open over John McEnroe 6-3 6-3.

You can't be considered the GOAT unless you play all surfaces well and Borg and Sampras have proven they do. You cannot argue that Borg isn't the GOAT because he didn't win the US Open and yet say Sampras can be the GOAT even though he didn't win the French. Borg reached the finals of the US Open four times but didn't win. Sampras only reached the semi's of the French but yet I would argue that for one match, Sampras could beat anyone on red clay. He had problems with stamina due to a condition that affects some people of Greek descent.

I am not going to go into the merits of Borg or Sampras but you have to realize that they both have ungodly records and if anyone calls either the GOAT, it is a very viable choice.

same could be said of sampras,federer,mcenroe,connors with the french.
lendl and rosewall at wimbledon....leaves laver and not much else.

You're right Crabgrass. And if we just use the logic of having all four majors, than Roy Emerson is above many players and that's just wrong. Using the same logic, Agassi is above Pete Sampras and that is also wrong. Frankly if Andre played Pete in one big match on red clay and assuming Pete is rested, I would bet on Pete. Sampras was just better in big matches.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 08:37 AM
same could be said of sampras,federer,mcenroe,connors with the french.
lendl and rosewall at wimbledon....leaves laver and not much else.

I do not place the French Open on the same level as the US Open or Wimbledon and the Australian is a clear fourth so I am not using the logic that the slams are interchangeable in importance and prestige.

Depending on the time Period the French and Australian have varying levels of importance. I would place the year end masters as much much important that the Australian the 70's and 80's and more important than the French much of the time as well, then I factor in Davis Cup heroics as well.

Then there were other tourneys to which all the top guys showed up ( unlike France and Australia) and played a best of 5 setter such as the WCT in Dallas which was on carpet I believe.

pc1
04-10-2009, 08:41 AM
I do not place the French Open on the same level as the US Open or Wimbledon and the Australia is a clear fourth

All the top players play the French anyway so the field is the same in quality and some rate the French as the toughest major to win. If it's below the US Open, it's just barely.

crabgrass
04-10-2009, 08:45 AM
I do not place the French Open on the same level as the US Open or Wimbledon and the Australia is a clear fourth

well that's a personal thing really, a lot of europeans would see the french as more important...bottom line is all four have grand slam status.

CyBorg
04-10-2009, 08:50 AM
I do not place the French Open on the same level as the US Open or Wimbledon and the Australian is a clear fourth so I am not using the logic that the slams are interchangeable in importance and prestige.

Depending on the time Period the French and Australian have varying levels of importance. I would place the year end masters as much much important that the Australian the 70's and 80's and more important than the French much of the time as well, then I factor in Davis Cup heroics as well.

Then there were other tourneys to which all the top guys showed up ( unlike France and Australia) and played a best of 5 setter such as the WCT in Dallas which was on carpet I believe.

That's pretty shoddy logic. It doesn't matter whether Borg was or wasn't winning Roland Garros. What matters is that he was a superb player on an important surface and dominated consistently on it.

Sampras conversely was a poor player on clay most of the time, aside from a couple of years when he was pretty decent.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 08:52 AM
well that's a personal thing really, a lot of europeans would see the french as more important...bottom line is all four have grand slam status.

The first part I agree with the second is true but to determine the GOAT you must look deeper and when Mac, Borg, and Connors aren't playing your tourney in the 1970's and early 80's it isn't much of a slam.

Carlito
04-10-2009, 09:01 AM
Yeah, well Tony Trabert once said "show me a pusher, and I'll show you a room full of trophies."

...at least, I think he did. I seem to recall reading that in a Tennis magazine sometime during the nineties. Maybe I'm wrong.

Thats a good one......

<----Pusher right here

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 09:04 AM
Yes but many rate those 3 players because they DON'T KNOW ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT TENNIS BEFORE THE OPEN ERA and in particular pro tennis before 1968. And today many propose Laver because Rocket is always cited as the last one to have won the Slam but they don't even know about his feats particularly those between 1963 and 1967. Whenever Gonzales or Rosewall aren't picked up in a GOAT list then you can be sure that the person who makes that list knows nothing about tennis history. If someone doesn't know who Reginald Frank Doherty was then that someone has no legitimity to propose a GOAT list. Many proposes Sampras or Federer as the GOAT because they haven't studied once in their life tennis history.

I absolutely concur with this statement. I know it's hard to get your hands on full matches to review (which is one of the major keys in forming a personal opinion regarding a bonafide match-player's level) but it is possible. Full matches from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s exist and must be seen to bring critical weight in views in these matters.

For example I've personally only seen three full Hoad-matches (one being his Cooper-blowout at Wimby which was probably more astonishing than Mac's 1984 Wimby IMO -- at the very least on the same level), I've seen almost six full Gonzales-matches (and he's just amazing in everyone of those -- drop-dead amazing -- Sampras is IMO Pancho-light) and around 14-15 full Laver matches and 5 full Rosewall-matches (and only one where he's playing close to his early 60s peak level namely WCT 1972 against Laver). I've never seen a full match with Tilden, Budge, Kramer, The French Muskeeters et al. I believe it is critical to have seen these guys play full matches to correctly evaluate them but there's great evidence of the capacity of so-called "unseen" players.

Take Pancho for example. Early in Gonzales career he faced a peak Kramer, a still pretty good Budge and others from the 30s and 40s and Pancho didn't triple-bagel these older guys. They were competitive with Pancho -- even old Budge who was wayyyy past his prime. Don't you think a Budge of 1937-1942 would do even better than he did in the late 40s and 50s? And Budge didn't triple bagel Vines, Perry or the other 30s greats when he was at his peak which reveals something about the level of 20s and 30s players...

Pancho, the Superman, still beat a peak Laver and Rosewall as late as the turn of the 60s/70s -- heck Pancho even crushed a 16 year old Borg in December 1972 with 6-1, 6-1.

I think that actually proves what level Budge and the other 30s champions had.

And Carlo is not the only one having Ken as GOAT (if Carlo now has Rosewall as GOAT which I'm not sure of) but there's a lot of people who's having Rosewall as GOAT and with good merit. Ken probably has the most majors of any tennisplayer ever and Ken won on every surface (even on such an insanely fast surface as indoor wood-tiles beating such an aggressive player as Laver!). Sadly there's almost no Rosewall matches out there to watch that display him at his platinum-level.

Lendl as GOAT? He's not an incredibly far-fetched choice -- his records are sublime and his era was one of the most competitive. 1985-87 Lendl is as good as it gets. In 1986-1987 he (like Borg) went to RG and dominated on super-slow clay and still reached the Wimby final weeks later on the much faster old grass. That's nothing to sneeze at. I personally believe Lendl would've won Wimby if he didn't S&V so much. IMO he lacked confidence at Wimby -- he looked unsure there, not so comfortable as anywhere else and this mental block on grass took some edge out of his best game. I think he mismanaged his grass-game -- but even if he did, what's most impressive about Ivan was that even when he was uncomfortable and lacked supreme grass-prep he still made some very, very good Wimby results and his other records on grass and other surfaces more than makes up for it. But IMO there are a few other players with even more impressive records than The Great Ivan that contend for GOAT but he's still an absolute cream-of-the-crop GOAT guy. I have Lendl on second tier with Sampras and some others. Pete has 7 Wimbys and five USO (clearly better than Ivan) but Lendl has greater versatility during an age of greater competition and greater disparity in surfaces than nowadays and this fact makes him level with Pete IMO.

Mac better than Borg? Mac had a better S&V game than Borg but Björn was the better, stronger and more versatile player overall and he quit because he was tired of tennis and being the most famous man on the planet and not because of a certain Johnny Mac.

Many people here are very lazy in their research...

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 09:22 AM
I absolutely concur with this statement. I know it's hard to get your hands on full matches to review (which is one of the major keys in forming a personal opinion regarding a bonafide match-player's level) but it is possible. Full matches from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s exist and must be seen to bring critical weight in views in these matters.

For example I've personally only seen three full Hoad-matches (one being his Cooper-blowout at Wimby which was probably more astonishing than Mac's 1984 Wimby IMO -- at the very least on the same level), I've seen almost six full Gonzales-matches (and he's just amazing in everyone of those -- drop-dead amazing -- Sampras is IMO Pancho-light) and around 14-15 full Laver matches and 5 full Rosewall-matches (and only one where he's playing close to his early 60s peak level namely WCT 1972 against Laver). I've never seen a full match with Tilden, Budge, Kramer, The French Muskeeters et al. I believe it is critical to have seen these guys play full matches to correctly evaluate them but there's great evidence of the capacity of so-called "unseen" players.

Take Pancho for example. Early in Gonzales career he faced a peak Kramer, a still pretty good Budge and others from the 30s and 40s and Pancho didn't triple-bagel these older guys. They were competitive with Pancho -- even old Budge who was wayyyy past his prime. Don't you think a Budge of 1937-1942 would do even better than he did in the late 40s and 50s? And Budge didn't triple bagel Vines, Perry or the other 30s greats when he was at his peak which reveals something about the level of 20s and 30s players...

Pancho, the Superman, still beat a peak Laver and Rosewall as late as the turn of the 60s/70s -- heck Pancho even crushed a 16 year old Borg in December 1972 with 6-1, 6-1.

I think that actually proves what level Budge and the other 30s champions had.

And Carlo is not the only one having Ken as GOAT (if Carlo now has Rosewall as GOAT which I'm not sure of) but there's a lot of people who's having Rosewall as GOAT and with good merit. Ken probably has the most majors of any tennisplayer ever and Ken won on every surface (even on such an insanely fast surface as indoor wood-tiles beating such an aggressive player as Laver!). Sadly there's almost no Rosewall matches out there to watch that display him at his platinum-level.

Lendl as GOAT? He's not an incredibly far-fetched choice -- his records are sublime and his era was one of the most competitive. 1985-87 Lendl is as good as it gets. In 1986-1987 he (like Borg) went to RG and dominated on super-slow clay and still reached the Wimby final weeks later on the much faster old grass. That's nothing to sneeze at. I personally believe Lendl would've won Wimby if he didn't S&V so much. IMO he lacked confidence at Wimby -- he looked unsure there, not so comfortable as anywhere else and this mental block on grass took some edge out of his best game. I think he mismanaged his grass-game -- but even if he did, what's most impressive about Ivan was that even when he was uncomfortable and lacked supreme grass-prep he still made some very, very good Wimby results and his other records on grass and other surfaces more than makes up for it. But IMO there are a few other players with even more impressive records than The Great Ivan that contend for GOAT but he's still an absolute cream-of-the-crop GOAT guy. I have Lendl on second tier with Sampras and some others. Pete has 7 Wimbys and five USO (clearly better than Ivan) but Lendl has greater versatility during an age of greater competition and greater disparity in surfaces than nowadays and this fact makes him level with Pete IMO.

Mac better than Borg? Mac had a better S&V game than Borg but Björn was the better, stronger and more versatile player overall and he quit because he was tired of tennis and being the most famous man on the planet and not because of a certain Johnny Mac.

Many people here are very lazy in their research...

Lendl's strategy was 100% correct at Wimbledon which was to get to the net before the other guy did. Ivan's passing shots on those lawns were compromised badly. He had long strokes.

Ivan brutalized attacking players on hard courts where he could unlease his passing shots and lobs with clean bounces and sure footing.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 09:30 AM
I absolutely concur with this statement. I know it's hard to get your hands on full matches to review (which is one of the major keys in forming a personal opinion regarding a bonafide match-player's level) but it is possible. Full matches from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s exist and must be seen to bring critical weight in views in these matters.

For example I've personally only seen three full Hoad-matches (one being his Cooper-blowout at Wimby which was probably more astonishing than Mac's 1984 Wimby IMO -- at the very least on the same level), I've seen almost six full Gonzales-matches (and he's just amazing in everyone of those -- drop-dead amazing -- Sampras is IMO Pancho-light) and around 14-15 full Laver matches and 5 full Rosewall-matches (and only one where he's playing close to his early 60s peak level namely WCT 1972 against Laver). I've never seen a full match with Tilden, Budge, Kramer, The French Muskeeters et al. I believe it is critical to have seen these guys play full matches to correctly evaluate them but there's great evidence of the capacity of so-called "unseen" players.

Take Pancho for example. Early in Gonzales career he faced a peak Kramer, a still pretty good Budge and others from the 30s and 40s and Pancho didn't triple-bagel these older guys. They were competitive with Pancho -- even old Budge who was wayyyy past his prime. Don't you think a Budge of 1937-1942 would do even better than he did in the late 40s and 50s? And Budge didn't triple bagel Vines, Perry or the other 30s greats when he was at his peak which reveals something about the level of 20s and 30s players...

Pancho, the Superman, still beat a peak Laver and Rosewall as late as the turn of the 60s/70s -- heck Pancho even crushed a 16 year old Borg in December 1972 with 6-1, 6-1.

I think that actually proves what level Budge and the other 30s champions had.

And Carlo is not the only one having Ken as GOAT (if Carlo now has Rosewall as GOAT which I'm not sure of) but there's a lot of people who's having Rosewall as GOAT and with good merit. Ken probably has the most majors of any tennisplayer ever and Ken won on every surface (even on such an insanely fast surface as indoor wood-tiles beating such an aggressive player as Laver!). Sadly there's almost no Rosewall matches out there to watch that display him at his platinum-level.

Lendl as GOAT? He's not an incredibly far-fetched choice -- his records are sublime and his era was one of the most competitive. 1985-87 Lendl is as good as it gets. In 1986-1987 he (like Borg) went to RG and dominated on super-slow clay and still reached the Wimby final weeks later on the much faster old grass. That's nothing to sneeze at. I personally believe Lendl would've won Wimby if he didn't S&V so much. IMO he lacked confidence at Wimby -- he looked unsure there, not so comfortable as anywhere else and this mental block on grass took some edge out of his best game. I think he mismanaged his grass-game -- but even if he did, what's most impressive about Ivan was that even when he was uncomfortable and lacked supreme grass-prep he still made some very, very good Wimby results and his other records on grass and other surfaces more than makes up for it. But IMO there are a few other players with even more impressive records than The Great Ivan that contend for GOAT but he's still an absolute cream-of-the-crop GOAT guy. I have Lendl on second tier with Sampras and some others. Pete has 7 Wimbys and five USO (clearly better than Ivan) but Lendl has greater versatility during an age of greater competition and greater disparity in surfaces than nowadays and this fact makes him level with Pete IMO.

Mac better than Borg? Mac had a better S&V game than Borg but Björn was the better, stronger and more versatile player overall and he quit because he was tired of tennis and being the most famous man on the planet and not because of a certain Johnny Mac.

Many people here are very lazy in their research...

Yes Bjorn coincidentally quit when someone better came along and took his no 1 ranking. He couldn't stand being number 2.

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Yes Bjorn coincidentally quit when someone better came along and took his no 1 ranking. He couldn't stand being number 2.

You don't know what you're talking about here...

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 09:37 AM
You don't know what you're talking about here...

Lets see Mac in his autobiography said Bjorn basically tanked the last half of the 1981 US Open Final. Bjorn also told Mac in 1985 that being no 2 means nothing also cited in his book. Why would Mac lie about that?

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 10:21 AM
I'm tired of having the why Borg quit argument again but there's a fairly extensive use of facts from me interspersed in this thread where I elaborate on these confirmed facts:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694

But as a quick overview:

Between 1974 to mid 1980 Borg played too many matches (incl. exos) and traveled too much without necessary down-time -- this combined with the fact that he didn't care for or feel comfortable with all the attention he received -- as maybe the most famous guy on the planet. Wherever he went they had serious problems shielding him from intrusion. No one in tennis was really used to the "Beatlemania" that followed him. This complicated and stressful reality drained his motivation and made him burnout.

He decided in late-summer 1979 to take a long break from tennis somewhere in 1980 -- probably after the USO (if he lost) otherwise AO 1980. His focus was slipping seriously but Mac made him motivated to push hard in 1980. He wanted to beat Mac, dominate him, especially on Mac's best surface grass. And when he lost the USO final 1980 he was so angry he skipped his hiatus or quitting thoughts and went with a reduced year in 1981. But he burnout grew worse. He could hold his old focus in the majors for the first 3-4 rounds but then started to become bored and mentally tired. He still made great results but he was sick of the tennis circus and took his hiatus in the fall of 1981. He didn't practice for several sustained months and didn't really start up his practice until deep into 1982, playing great exos against Jimbo during the summer and fall of that year.

He had announced a full fledged comeback with a reduced schedule for 1983 (planned up until USO 1985 when he would quit for good) and improved his game even further meeting Lendl and Mac at AKAI Gold Challenge in Sydney in November 1982. Both his opponents had at this time amazing indoor winning streaks. Borg dominated Mac (3-6,6-4,7-5,6-2) and Ivan (6-1,6-4,6-2) but started feeling bored again in December and then announced his retirement in January 1983.

Yes -- of course Borg wanted to be No. 1 rather than No. 2 but that wasn't his prime concern. His love of tennis was his prime concern and he had lost that love. The tennis court had become a prison to him...

pc1
04-10-2009, 10:24 AM
Mac better than Borg? Mac had a better S&V game than Borg but Björn was the better, stronger and more versatile player overall and he quit because he was tired of tennis and being the most famous man on the planet and not because of a certain Johnny Mac.

Many people here are very lazy in their research...

I've been doing a lot of research on Borg and while I'm not going to reveal what I've found I can say that Borg is even more incredible than many think. He has an excellent case for the GOAT.

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 10:32 AM
I've been doing a lot of research on Borg and while I'm not going to reveal what I've found I can say that Borg is even more incredible than many think. He has an excellent case for the GOAT.

Why would you not reveal what you've found?

I'm very interested to listen what you have to say. Please -- pour it on, thick and keep going and don't let me stop you! :-)

I'm a bonafide Borg-expert and started this thread which has a lot of different angles/facts/contextual debates on Borg and other players in comparison:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694

Have you checked it out?

Pirao
04-10-2009, 10:53 AM
yes stats back it up, seeing as career matchwinning percentage means nothing to you and grand slams are everything, how can you not agree that borg winning 11 out of 27 slams played is a lot more impressive statistically than sampras winning 14 out of 49.

How can I not agree? Oh it's very simple, you see, as I have said, actually winning slams and reaching finals is more impressive than just having a better percentage, otherwise I could argue that Nadal is better than Sampras or Lendl because he has a better winning percentage in slam finals, which is pretty far from the truth, at least for now.

CyBorg
04-10-2009, 10:55 AM
The first part I agree with the second is true but to determine the GOAT you must look deeper and when Mac, Borg, and Connors aren't playing your tourney in the 1970's and early 80's it isn't much of a slam.

What are you talking about? Connors didn't play a long time because of a dispute, but did play from 1979-onwards. Mac played Roland Garros.

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting these things.

Should I pull out RG draws from the 70s and 80s?

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 11:39 AM
What are you talking about? Connors didn't play a long time because of a dispute, but did play from 1979-onwards. Mac played Roland Garros.

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting these things.

Should I pull out RG draws from the 70s and 80s?

I was talking about the Australian not the French so hold your fire there.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm tired of having the why Borg quit argument again but there's a fairly extensive use of facts from me interspersed in this thread where I elaborate on these confirmed facts:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694

But as a quick overview:

Between 1974 to mid 1980 Borg played too many matches (incl. exos) and traveled too much without necessary down-time -- this combined with the fact that he didn't care for or feel comfortable with all the attention he received -- as maybe the most famous guy on the planet. Wherever he went they had serious problems shielding him from intrusion. No one in tennis was really used to the "Beatlemania" that followed him. This complicated and stressful reality drained his motivation and made him burnout.

He decided in late-summer 1979 to take a long break from tennis somewhere in 1980 -- probably after the USO (if he lost) otherwise AO 1980. His focus was slipping seriously but Mac made him motivated to push hard in 1980. He wanted to beat Mac, dominate him, especially on Mac's best surface grass. And when he lost the USO final 1980 he was so angry he skipped his hiatus or quitting thoughts and went with a reduced year in 1981. But he burnout grew worse. He could hold his old focus in the majors for the first 3-4 rounds but then started to become bored and mentally tired. He still made great results but he was sick of the tennis circus and took his hiatus in the fall of 1981. He didn't practice for several sustained months and didn't really start up his practice until deep into 1982, playing great exos against Jimbo during the summer and fall of that year.

He had announced a full fledged comeback with a reduced schedule for 1983 (planned up until USO 1985 when he would quit for good) and improved his game even further meeting Lendl and Mac at AKAI Gold Challenge in Sydney in November 1982. Both his opponents had at this time amazing indoor winning streaks. Borg dominated Mac (3-6,6-4,7-5,6-2) and Ivan (6-1,6-4,6-2) but started feeling bored again in December and then announced his retirement in January 1983.

Yes -- of course Borg wanted to be No. 1 rather than No. 2 but that wasn't his prime concern. His love of tennis was his prime concern and he had lost that love. The tennis court had become a prison to him...

I don't think many of us on this board myself included are old enough to remember Borg much but it sounds like he was a rock star with a tennis racquet.

CyBorg
04-10-2009, 01:04 PM
I was talking about the Australian not the French so hold your fire there.

Fire withdrawn and apologies offered.

egn
04-10-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm tired of having the why Borg quit argument again but there's a fairly extensive use of facts from me interspersed in this thread where I elaborate on these confirmed facts:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=227694

But as a quick overview:

Between 1974 to mid 1980 Borg played too many matches (incl. exos) and traveled too much without necessary down-time -- this combined with the fact that he didn't care for or feel comfortable with all the attention he received -- as maybe the most famous guy on the planet. Wherever he went they had serious problems shielding him from intrusion. No one in tennis was really used to the "Beatlemania" that followed him. This complicated and stressful reality drained his motivation and made him burnout.

He decided in late-summer 1979 to take a long break from tennis somewhere in 1980 -- probably after the USO (if he lost) otherwise AO 1980. His focus was slipping seriously but Mac made him motivated to push hard in 1980. He wanted to beat Mac, dominate him, especially on Mac's best surface grass. And when he lost the USO final 1980 he was so angry he skipped his hiatus or quitting thoughts and went with a reduced year in 1981. But he burnout grew worse. He could hold his old focus in the majors for the first 3-4 rounds but then started to become bored and mentally tired. He still made great results but he was sick of the tennis circus and took his hiatus in the fall of 1981. He didn't practice for several sustained months and didn't really start up his practice until deep into 1982, playing great exos against Jimbo during the summer and fall of that year.

He had announced a full fledged comeback with a reduced schedule for 1983 (planned up until USO 1985 when he would quit for good) and improved his game even further meeting Lendl and Mac at AKAI Gold Challenge in Sydney in November 1982. Both his opponents had at this time amazing indoor winning streaks. Borg dominated Mac (3-6,6-4,7-5,6-2) and Ivan (6-1,6-4,6-2) but started feeling bored again in December and then announced his retirement in January 1983.

Yes -- of course Borg wanted to be No. 1 rather than No. 2 but that wasn't his prime concern. His love of tennis was his prime concern and he had lost that love. The tennis court had become a prison to him...

i know i am completely off topic but that sounds like one heck of a ride it gave me a headache thinking about that.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2009, 02:06 PM
I don't have much time. My criteria are different from anyone's I've seen so far.

a) I don't know exactly when the format in tourneys changed (In the '40s?) but the defending champion didn't have to play through the draw. He merely waited until the "winner" of the draw could be his challenger for the current year's title. IMO, this diminishes (somewhat) the status of the players prior to the 1950's. I respect those who play through the draw, like we do it now, more.

b) I give more weight to the status of players who play *both* singles and doubles. (Sorry, Pete, Llendl and Roger. And this elevates McEnroe....) Being a "complete" tennis player is worthy of greater honor.

I'm not sure I have this list "exactly" correct, but here's my hurried shot at this topic. I am less sure of my ranking convictions from 6-16....

1 - Laver
2 - Gonzalez
3 - Rosewall
4 - Borg (Played DC Dubs ... well.)
5 - McEnroe (I couldn't stand his behavior, but I cannot get around his talent.)
6 - Tilden
7 - Cochet
8 - Emerson
9 - Budge (Tilden's praise matters.)
10- Lacoste
11- Vines
12- Federer
13- Sampras (He didn't value Dubs. I do.)
14- Hoad
15- Lendl (Same comment as for Pete.)
16- Kramer (I know, but I couldn't justify leaving either Lendl or Jack off...)

- KK

pc1
04-10-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't think many of us on this board myself included are old enough to remember Borg much but it sounds like he was a rock star with a tennis racquet.

My friend, if you aren't old enough to remember Borg you cannot say that he isn't the GOAT.

Your description of Borg being a rock star with a tennis racket is pretty accurate. He needed protection from the crowds at Wimbledon just to get around and like a rock star he often had to sneak out at different exits.

Let's put it in perspective here. Borg was arguably the greatest athlete in the history of tennis. He was lightning fast, could hit with great power off both sides, had a good volley and had one of the best serves in tennis. He was so consistent from the baseline that some players would be cramping in the first set against him and his stamina appeared limitless.

He clearly had world class speed. He defeated a Olympic Bronze medalist high hurdler in a Superstars Competition race.

The guy won on all surfaces, grass, clay, hard court, indoor carpet everything and he won 100 tournaments and had the highest winning percentage in the history of tennis.

Seems to me the guy is in the argument for the GOAT. In fact the guy is overqualified for the argument as is Laver and some others.

Let me put it this way. Fifteen years from now, if someone tells me that Sampras or Federer is not in the argument for GOAT, I would tell them they are wrong. I think you would also. None of these players may be the GOAT but they have legit arguments that they can be.

Now if you said Andy Roddick is the GOAT. I would say no way because they is no logical argument that he can be but the people I mentioned had some logical arguments on their behalf. You may agree or disagree but the logic is there.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 02:26 PM
Fire withdrawn and apologies offered.

No problemo.

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 03:03 PM
pc1 I think you're a great poster here and I pretty much agree with everything you've said on this site so far. It's a joy reading your stuff!

You made some good points on Sampras too -- especially pointing out that Pete suffered from that rare ailment which must've made itself felt in the grinding, war-of-attrition battles that you must be prepared for at RG. You point out Pete's Rome victory (which is a fine win) but the dirt on Foro Italico is markedly faster playing into Pete's strengths (and Boris').

I agree with you that for one match -- if Pete was rested and there were no problems he could very probably perform at an amazing level on dirt against pretty much anybody. And apart from Pete's poor record on clay (for a player of his undisputed greatness that is) his other records are simply stunning and his clutch shouldn't be underestimated. Pete was the finest match-player of his era and my fave trait was that he seemed to actually (like true GOAT contender) relish battle at crucial moments when the stakes went through the roof.

Borg says that he never, ever missed a Sampras-Agassi match-up no matter where he was. If Pete and Andre faced each other Björn had to see it and he did -- every single time...

If one excludes clay (and there's some merit to exclude RG and clay for Pete since he factually suffered from this unusual malady that made it very dangerous for him to push himself into serious fatigue) Pete is a lock for top tier GOAT discussions.

I actually become more of a Sampras fan during the last 4-5 years. Re-watching his finest moments made me discover even more greatness in the guy and get rid of most of (I guess) my bias against the guy during the 90s.

Actually, as much as I admire and like Fed, Pete is still slightly sharper as a match-player than Roger. Pete has more "sand" in the clutch than Roger IMO -- and as I said before -- everyone can have a blowout win but to turn on your finest game when a tight, unpredictable match careens into the 5th set and everything turns into a knife-fight in a phone-booth you need to turn your inner strength up to 11...

Just what Pete did at crucial moments and what Rafa is doing now. I must concur with others here. Nadal just continues to impress me more and more. AO this year was a classic -- even if Fed collapsed in the 5th -- Rafa didn't and not even against Verdasco who was just out of my mind great during those two weeks.

Rafa's titanium psyche (not to disregard his other remarkable skills) is the key...

egn
04-10-2009, 03:07 PM
pc1 I think you're a great poster here and I pretty much agree with everything you've said on this site so far. It's a joy reading your stuff!

You made some good points on Sampras too -- especially pointing out that Pete suffered from that rare ailment which must've made itself felt in the grinding, war-of-attrition battles that you must be prepared for at RG. You point out Pete's Rome victory (which is a fine win) but the dirt on Foro Italico is markedly faster playing into Pete's strengths (and Boris').

I agree with you that for one match -- if Pete was rested and there were no problems he could very probably perform at an amazing level on dirt against pretty much anybody. And apart from Pete's poor record on clay (for a player of his undisputed greatness that is) his other records are simply stunning and his clutch shouldn't be underestimated. Pete was the finest match-player of his era and my fave trait was that he seemed to actually (like true GOAT contender) relish battle at crucial moments when the stakes went through the roof.

Borg says that he never, ever missed a Sampras-Agassi match-up no matter where he was. If Pete and Andre faced each other Björn had to see it and he did -- every single time...

If one excludes clay (and there's some merit to exclude RG and clay for Pete since he factually suffered from this unusual malady that made it very dangerous for him to push himself into serious fatigue) Pete is a lock for top tier GOAT discussions.

I actually become more of a Sampras fan during the last 4-5 years. Re-watching his finest moments made me discover even more greatness in the guy and get rid of most of (I guess) my bias against the guy during the 90s.

Actually, as much as I admire and like Fed, Pete is still slightly sharper as a match-player than Roger. Pete has more "sand" in the clutch than Roger IMO -- and as I said before -- everyone can have a blowout win but to turn on your finest game when a tight, unpredictable match careens into the 5th set and everything turns into a knife-fight in a phone-booth you need to turn your inner strength up to 11...

Just what Pete did at crucial moments and what Rafa is doing now. I must concur with others here. Nadal just continues to impress me more and more. AO this year was a classic -- even if Fed collapsed in the 5th -- Rafa didn't and not even against Verdasco who was just out of my mind great during those two weeks.

Rafa's titanium psyche (not to disregard his other remarkable skills) is the key...


My friend, if you aren't old enough to remember Borg you cannot say that he isn't the GOAT.

Your description of Borg being a rock star with a tennis racket is pretty accurate. He needed protection from the crowds at Wimbledon just to get around and like a rock star he often had to sneak out at different exits.

Let's put it in perspective here. Borg was arguably the greatest athlete in the history of tennis. He was lightning fast, could hit with great power off both sides, had a good volley and had one of the best serves in tennis. He was so consistent from the baseline that some players would be cramping in the first set against him and his stamina appeared limitless.

He clearly had world class speed. He defeated a Olympic Bronze medalist high hurdler in a Superstars Competition race.

The guy won on all surfaces, grass, clay, hard court, indoor carpet everything and he won 100 tournaments and had the highest winning percentage in the history of tennis.

Seems to me the guy is in the argument for the GOAT. In fact the guy is overqualified for the argument as is Laver and some others.

Let me put it this way. Fifteen years from now, if someone tells me that Sampras or Federer is not in the argument for GOAT, I would tell them they are wrong. I think you would also. None of these players may be the GOAT but they have legit arguments that they can be.

Now if you said Andy Roddick is the GOAT. I would say no way because they is no logical argument that he can be but the people I mentioned had some logical arguments on their behalf. You may agree or disagree but the logic is there.

Please the two of you just post in every thread beautiful and great reads and well made points.

CyBorg
04-10-2009, 05:45 PM
I don't have much time. My criteria are different from anyone's I've seen so far.

a) I don't know exactly when the format in tourneys changed (In the '40s?) but the defending champion didn't have to play through the draw. He merely waited until the "winner" of the draw could be his challenger for the current year's title. IMO, this diminishes (somewhat) the status of the players prior to the 1950's. I respect those who play through the draw, like we do it now, more.

b) I give more weight to the status of players who play *both* singles and doubles. (Sorry, Pete, Llendl and Roger. And this elevates McEnroe....) Being a "complete" tennis player is worthy of greater honor.

I'm not sure I have this list "exactly" correct, but here's my hurried shot at this topic. I am less sure of my ranking convictions from 6-16....

1 - Laver
2 - Gonzalez
3 - Rosewall
4 - Borg (Played DC Dubs ... well.)
5 - McEnroe (I couldn't stand his behavior, but I cannot get around his talent.)
6 - Tilden
7 - Cochet
8 - Emerson
9 - Budge (Tilden's praise matters.)
10- Lacoste
11- Vines
12- Federer
13- Sampras (He didn't value Dubs. I do.)
14- Hoad
15- Lendl (Same comment as for Pete.)
16- Kramer (I know, but I couldn't justify leaving either Lendl or Jack off...)

- KK

A unique and interesting list. Why Cochet so much higher than Kramer? I have these two neck-n-neck.

Borgforever
04-10-2009, 08:04 PM
Just a short, interesting quote by Rafael Nadal from the summer of 2007:

'In an interview with Time Magazine Nadal said if he could face any player in his prime in history, he would select Borg.

"I'd choose [Bjorn] Borg," Nadal told Time. "He had such an incredible mental approach to the game. He had ice in his veins, and I'd love to see what I could do against him. If I had to say, I suppose he'd win."'

CyBorg
04-10-2009, 08:14 PM
"I'd choose [Bjorn] Borg," Nadal told Time. "He had such an incredible mental approach to the game. He had ice in his veins, and I'd love to see what I could do against him. If I had to say, I suppose he'd win."'

Heh - I like Nadal. Like Borg he's modest and whatever does come out of his mouth is just designed to deflect certain pressures.

His actions is what truly speaks for him - on the court.

Side note: the biggest similarity between Borg and Nadal I think may not even by playing style/speed/fitness. I think it's the ability to think on the go and make adjustments despite fatigue and other problems that occur deep into a match.

Most guys after an hour or two begin to lose some focus. Even the best ones. The brain gets tired - the rest of the body follows. It's not just the legs that stop moving; it's also the ability to change strategy/construct a point.

Federer, especially ever since the whole mono problem, is having this problem. He gets tired, frustrated somewhat early and his talent isn't enough to make up for it.

Borg and Nadal are two guys who don't seem to lose the ability to problem-solve deep into matches. In fact, while most guys begin to tire and make mistakes, Borg and Nadal will continue to analyze the situation. Remarkable.

Tennis is mostly mental.

pc1
04-10-2009, 09:10 PM
Heh - I like Nadal. Like Borg he's modest and whatever does come out of his mouth is just designed to deflect certain pressures.

His actions is what truly speaks for him - on the court.

Side note: the biggest similarity between Borg and Nadal I think may not even by playing style/speed/fitness. I think it's the ability to think on the go and make adjustments despite fatigue and other problems that occur deep into a match.

Most guys after an hour or two begin to lose some focus. Even the best ones. The brain gets tired - the rest of the body follows. It's not just the legs that stop moving; it's also the ability to change strategy/construct a point.

Federer, especially ever since the whole mono problem, is having this problem. He gets tired, frustrated somewhat early and his talent isn't enough to make up for it.

Borg and Nadal are two guys who don't seem to lose the ability to problem-solve deep into matches. In fact, while most guys begin to tire and make mistakes, Borg and Nadal will continue to analyze the situation. Remarkable.

Tennis is mostly mental.

It really is true that Borg and Nadal had the ability to adjust to their opponents styles or perhaps their styles if their games wasn't up to par. When Borg crushed Connors in the 1978 Wimbledon final Borg used the strategy of chipping short to the Connors forehand, which Jimmy often netted or overhit and if I recall he added a little slice forehand approach which baffled Connors.

Nadal is very intelligent in his play. You can see how he adjusted and changes his style according to his opponent and the surface. At the French last year against Federer, virtually every serve went to the weaker Federer backhand but at Wimbledon he adjusted and varied his serves more. It was clearly effective strategy because Federer almost never broke Nadal.

And of course it was the usual strategy of heavy looping topspin to the Federer backhand until Roger hit a weak return that Nadal could drive or Roger made an error.

That's why I wonder about Federer's tactical ability. He never seems to adjust to the Nadal strategy. Nadal's been attacking Federer's backhand for many years now and Roger always seems to have the same pattern. Didn't Bill Tilden once say "Always change a losing game." Roger doesn't seem too.

I know McEnroe (who was a pretty smart player) has suggested Roger move in on Nadal's serve and take it on the rise and approach the net but I don't think Roger has done that much. Maybe Roger feels he doesn't have the ability to do it effectively.

Incidentally, thanks Borgforever and egn for your kind words. I enjoy your posts also.

JoshDragon
04-10-2009, 09:17 PM
My friend, if you aren't old enough to remember Borg you cannot say that he isn't the GOAT.

Your description of Borg being a rock star with a tennis racket is pretty accurate. He needed protection from the crowds at Wimbledon just to get around and like a rock star he often had to sneak out at different exits.

Let's put it in perspective here. Borg was arguably the greatest athlete in the history of tennis. He was lightning fast, could hit with great power off both sides, had a good volley and had one of the best serves in tennis. He was so consistent from the baseline that some players would be cramping in the first set against him and his stamina appeared limitless.

He clearly had world class speed. He defeated a Olympic Bronze medalist high hurdler in a Superstars Competition race.

The guy won on all surfaces, grass, clay, hard court, indoor carpet everything and he won 100 tournaments and had the highest winning percentage in the history of tennis.

Seems to me the guy is in the argument for the GOAT. In fact the guy is overqualified for the argument as is Laver and some others.

Let me put it this way. Fifteen years from now, if someone tells me that Sampras or Federer is not in the argument for GOAT, I would tell them they are wrong. I think you would also. None of these players may be the GOAT but they have legit arguments that they can be.

Now if you said Andy Roddick is the GOAT. I would say no way because they is no logical argument that he can be but the people I mentioned had some logical arguments on their behalf. You may agree or disagree but the logic is there.

I don't mean to cheapen Borg's achievements but he was never able to win a hard court slam. I think that prevents him from being a serious contender as the GOAT.

egn
04-10-2009, 09:22 PM
I don't mean to cheapen Borg's achievements but he was never able to win a hard court slam. I think that prevents him from being a serious contender as the GOAT.

There was only one hardcourt slam in his era and it was only a hard court slam from 1978 on and he entered it 4 times and made the final there 3 times. For most of his career the slams were just clay and grass. Borg won 6 on clay and 5 on grass..he dominated two surfaces and made 3 HC slam finals.

Not too many goat candidates at the moment have a slam on every surface or all four slams hence why we still debate.

JoshDragon
04-10-2009, 09:45 PM
There was only one hardcourt slam in his era and it was only a hard court slam from 1978 on and he entered it 4 times and made the final there 3 times. For most of his career the slams were just clay and grass. Borg won 6 on clay and 5 on grass..he dominated two surfaces and made 3 HC slam finals.

Not too many goat candidates at the moment have a slam on every surface or all four slams hence why we still debate.

That's true, just Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Rafael Nadal, and Andre Agassi.

I think Nadal, probably has a chance to become the GOAT this year, if he manages to pull off the calendar year grand slam.

Kaptain Karl
04-10-2009, 09:49 PM
A unique and interesting list. Why Cochet so much higher than Kramer? I have these two neck-n-neck.6 -16 are not studiously ranked. I just think they are in the mix....

I never saw any substantive clips of Tilden, Budge, Vines, Cochet or Lacoste ... just read others' opinions and commentaries and seen stills. I've seen (live and film) Kramer and Gonzalez play.

("Substantive" means even four consecutive games....)

- KK

Argento full
04-11-2009, 06:35 AM
That's true, just Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Rafael Nadal, and Andre Agassi.

I think Nadal, probably has a chance to become the GOAT this year, if he manages to pull off the calendar year grand slam.

IF...

... Nadal win 80 more tournaments.
... Nadal win USO at least once.
... Nadal win TMC.
... Nadal finish a season with less of 8 single defeats.
... Nadal win 8 more slams.

Bye, enough for me.

And stop compare Olympics with a Slam, is not even a MS.

No return in advance.