4th best mens tennis player in history

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by rosewallGOAT, Jun 29, 2013.

?

4th best mens tennis player in history

  1. Sampras

    17.9%
  2. Borg

    7.1%
  3. Federer

    35.7%
  4. Nadal

    14.3%
  5. Connors

    3.6%
  6. Lendl

    3.6%
  7. Tilden

    3.6%
  8. Kramer or Perry

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Budge or Vines

    3.6%
  10. Agassi or McEnroe

    10.7%
  1. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,615
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Tilden is an all time great BobbyOne. He was instrumental in pushing tennis into new territory in many ways. I do know he was great, since there's so much evidence of how he was so dominated and innovated. I can't speak of him with the same knowledge I have of more recent players, partly due to how long ago he played. How they played well with the frames they did back then, I have no idea! There's no way to dismiss how much he accomplished so I understand your point.
     
    #51
  2. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I only rank Tilden 8th all time. He dominated in too weak an era to be placed any higher. Nadal is greater than him, for instance, yet you never put Nadal in your all-time Top 10 lists. Disgraceful!
     
    #52
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, It was probably a mistake to not include Nadal, especially since I think he is a better player than your idol...

    But disgraceful?. I have not called your decision disgraceful to put Rosewall at 5th or 6th place only and to omit him as a GOAT candidate!
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
    #53
  4. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Obviously only on clay...to claim otherwise would be very silly. Almost disgraceful ;)
     
    #54
  5. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    The biggest disgrace is Rosewall's failure to win a Wimbledon final in five attempts.
     
    #55
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983, Remember what Carlo Colussi and krosero told you. Will you ever learn tennis history?
     
    #56
  7. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,657
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Haven't we heard this before?
     
    #57
  8. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    I got Fed at #4.. or 5.

    1. Laver
    2. Pancho
    3. Rosewall
    4. Fed or Tilden
    5. Sampras
     
    #58
  9. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Rosewall was a transitional champion between Pancho and the Rocket, no way is he ahead of a dominant #1 in Federer. If Sampras was better on clay I'd say Rosewall was beneath him too. Someone in the top 3 GOAT should be the best of his era, not simply a great rival to the best.
     
    #59
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, You "forget" that Rosewall played partly in the same era as Gonzalez and totally in Laver's. In comparison Federer had a weaker opposition in some of his prime years.
     
    #60
  11. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,598
    Well done. You finally realized federer>sampras.
     
    #61
  12. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Yes and Rosewall played second fiddle to them. Federer faced a bunch of very strong players in 04-05 and there was alot more depth compared to the pro's...besides that if you look at today guys from Federer's generation e.g. players in their late 20's are still hanging around. The average age of the top 100 etc...is alot older than it used to be. The guys Federer was dominating weren't so weak. Neither Djokovic, Murray or Nadal are as good as Federer was consistantly on grass and hardcourts at his peak. Depending on how they play when they reach near 30 it may not have made too much difference to his totals. Even last year Roger was #1, his best at Wimbledon and the US Open and the YEC would have meant he won those events year after year IMO.
     
    #62
  13. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    You can't argue "numbers" of course. Different eras. I don't think Fed was a better player than Pete. Just has a better resume.
     
    #63
  14. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Tilden actually 11 Amateur Majors

    I'm being picky I know, but actually Tilden won 11 amateur majors (the World Hard Court championship was an official major (ILTF) when he won it in 1921). The reason I point this out is, combined with his Pro. majors, that lifts him to a total of 15 majors - one above Pete Sampras on the all time tally.
     
    #64
  15. rosewallGOAT

    rosewallGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    369
    Yes a transitional champion who was best in the World about 4 years, roughly the same amount of time as Federer was. I guess Federer was a transitional champion between the Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic eras, especialy beating up on midgets like Roddick and Hewitt.
     
    #65
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Rosewall did not play second fiddle. He is 3:1 against Gonzalez and 10:7 against Laver in big events.

    If your God would have had to play against Laver and Gonzalez (two of the three all-time greatest) he would not have amassed 17 majors.

    You also "forget" that domination is just ONE criterion for greatness. Number of majors and longevity are two other important categories!

    Your new claim (average age of top 100 a lot older than in older decades) is not only wrong. It also contradicts the claim of the Armada that Roger declined at 26 or 27.
     
    #66
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    timnz, well written.
     
    #67
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree. Rosewall also was Co.- No.1 in several years: 1964, 1970, 1971 and possibly also in 1959 when he was 8:4 against Gonzalez and 1965 when he won two majors clearly against Laver.
     
    #68
  19. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Yes Laver and Gonzales two of the three all time greatest with Federer ;)

    He's not my God Bobby, stop provoking me then crying about being insulted. It's pathetic, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    The top is atleast is older than before, there's lots of talk of the lack of younger players making their mark. Clearly the conclusion to be drawn from that is the older generation are hanging around longer than before?

    Federer has 23 majors by your standards. Rosewall was great, but I think his longevity is the main reason for his large number of majors. Gonzales and Laver peak for peak were better and more dominant.

    And it contradicts nothing, Federer has played alot more matches than these other players. He has more milage than other 32 year olds considering he spent several years going deep in almost every tournament.

    The pro tour with a retired/near retired Gonzales and no Laver or just Rookie laver isn't strong competition really. Weaker era than Federer's thats for sure. Federer was best in the world for about 6 years...
     
    #69
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Sorry for "God".

    Have you ever realized that Rosewall played Laver when he was 28 to 41???

    Muscles matched the Rocket when it really counted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2013
    #70
  21. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I accept your appology, once again I think Laver is the GOAT. I simply feel you underrate Roger who is my favorite player.

    Yes but Rosewall faced Gonzales under the opposite conditions aswell e.g. being the younger one and still overall came out weaker. I respect that in big matches Rosewall leads. Although I don't believe that in some of the matches that Rosewall and Laver won their opponent wasn't giving it their all. I also know that matchups exist and that conquering the field is the main thing. But Laver was on top for longer as was Gonzales.

    You once told me that after 27 greats have played their best tennis. Rosewall's longevity is the greatest of all time. I just find it hard to believe he declined alot (notice I said alot, I can believe he did decline) between his year of winning all the majors and when Laver began to really dominate the head to head. Especially considering Laver himself was not at his peak yet. Unless of course Ken suffered from an illness or injury.
     
    #71
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,657
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, no doubt.

    Rosewall is the longevity GOAT.
     
    #72
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,657
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, again.

    1967 was probably Laver's peak year.
     
    #73
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Laver was ten years younger than Gonzalez and still had his difficulties to beat Paancho even in 1970 when Gonzalez beat him thrice at 42...

    By the way, Rosewall, according to Mal Anderson, suffered from a foot illness in the first few months of 1965. Thus his surprising losses to Pancho at that time.
     
    #74
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Yes, 1967. But even then Rosewall was 3:3 in American summer tournament play with Laver. It might be of interest that Muscles had hot streaks in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 when he won tournaments or was runner up several times.
     
    #75
  26. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Laver led the h2h 12-3 in 1964 though before Rosewall's foot illness.

    Yes and that is why I think Pancho probably had the highest level of all of them, that and Laver and Rosewall both rank him higher than they rank eachother.

    Considering that you rank those 3 as the GOAT it's not so bad that I rank Rosewall 3rd behind them.
     
    #76
  27. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,657
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Tennis may be a competitive sport, but I don't believe that ranking great players must be competitive.

    In other words, in order to elevate one player, must we always denigrate another?

    Do I have to choose between Laver and Rosewall, or can I find both to be GOAT-worthy?
     
    #77
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, I find both of them GOAT-worthy plus Gonzalez and Tilden...
     
    #78
  29. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,657
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I'll go with five great years:
    2000—Kuerten
    2001—Hewitt
    2002—Hewitt(2)
    2003—Roddick
    2004—Federer
    2005—Federer
    2006—Federer
    2007—Federer
    2008—Nadal
    2009—Federer(5)
    2010—Nadal(2)
    2011—Djokovic
    2012—Djokovic(2)

    Would you give him 2003, also?
     
    #79
  30. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,293
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I think Roddick deserves 2003, although it was really close between them. If Federer didn't choke in Montreal it would be 6 years. I suppose I want to give Federer credit for the 302 weeks he spent as #1 plus the 237 weeks of unbroken dominance.
     
    #80
  31. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,598
    Federer was more consistent day in day out. Sampras may have been better at their absolute best, but Federer brought it to the table nearly every day in his peak.
     
    #81
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Wasn´t Hana Mandlikova rated fourth back in 1981...and 1986?
     
    #82
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    This is the problem when comparing official to non-official ranking system. Had there was never exist an official ranking system, people would have given Fed the 2003 base on opinion. That would give Roger 6 years instead of 5 year end #1.

    Experts judged on official ranking system because you can't argue against it. So it's Sampras leading the way with 6 years and Roger with 5 years.
     
    #83

Share This Page