Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, May 18, 2009.
Once again, you fail to provide the rationale behind your recommendation.
Is this similar to cleaned by whipping?
I am impressed, on several counts.
But didn't Wilding do what every player does? That is play against everyone who is available for them to play. Is there a record of him ducking anyone?
True that. Weak era or strong, one can only defeat one's actual opponents--not historical hypotheticals.
Of course it's great that Wilding beat all he could get as opponents. Nevertheless it's yet a criterion for valueing a player's achievements if he had strong or weak opposition. I doubt that Wilding would have had such a fantastic run against stronger players like Tilden or Cochet.
How do you know that Tilden and Cochet are stronger than Wilding? I assume that you don't have a TARDIS or a DeLorean in your possession, so how do you know?
I must correct you: I did not compare Wilding with Tilden and Cochet. I did compare Wilding's (partly rather weak) opponents with Tilden and Cochet.
You don't watch today's tennis like people including myself from the general forum, so you don't have much knowledge. And knowledgable person doesn't necessary equate to be open minded. If you're a tennis fan rather than a fanboy(eg. kodes and laver), you can be open minded.
Does it makes you happy if I say they are the greatest discovery since sliced bread? Or the father of modern era?
If you're craved for compliment, i can understand.
Because I'm open minded. Don't be shock.
Wilding was the antecessor of Rosewall
And you of all people acuse others of being biassed?
Heard about that who is free from guilt throw the first stone?
TMF is biassed EXCLUSIVELY on Fed
I, instead, have lots and lots of biass: to name a few, I am guilty of biass towards Laver,Rosewall,Tilden,Hoad,Panxho, Budge,Newk,Ashe,Jimbo,Mac,Borg,Lendl,Nasty,Kramer,Cochet,Crawford,Drobny,Sedg,Boris,Sampras,Edberg,Bruguera,Stich.....Kodes a bit less
I am craved for a compliment.
But I AM still impressed with your open-mindedness and objectivity that you would put Laver and Rosewall on your CC GOAT-list. Particularly given your espousal of the concept of tennis as continuous, ascending, evolutionary progress.
Salut to TMF!
To be honest I'm shocked because you really haven't been open minded...in the past.
^^^Irony within ironies?
I will second that. Notice that it doesn't bother me that Federer is ahead of a lot of great players. I just wanted some reasonable choices and that's fine with me.
And I think we all are craved for compliments.
And I still think it means Triumphant Muscles Forever!
Always wondered what that stood for.
I understand now.
I have given him my TMF copyright....
BobbyOne-That joke is as great as a Rosewall backhand. It's your best joke ever.
I like to see some reasonable choice too, not like Limpin once said Fed doesn't make the list(hoodjem's top 40) of great clay court player. And why does it bothers you when this is a pro Laver forum. I think it bothers other fans of modern players.
The height issues playing in today's tennis, or the the depth/talent of the pool are deeper in every decade?
Those are all true.
I'm fine in giving compliments, even to Nadal who has many annoying fans in the general pro player forum. What i wishes is Federer doesn't get disparage so often in this former pro forum, even if he doesn't gets any compliment.
This thread could open a discussion about the changes in both, number of events and quickness of the surfaces.Let´s pick 1980´s and 2000´s.
Number of Events
Clay and grass keep more or less the same weight on the tour.But Hard is the official ATP current surface while it was indoors in the 80´s.it wouldn´t surprise me if there are so much hc events now as indoors back then and, also, as few indoor events now as hc events in the 80´s
Clay and hard have, more or less, similarly.maybe current hard is a little slower and current clay is a little faster but, on the long term, it doesn´t make a big difference to me.
The real differences are on grass and indoors.Nothing to see at all.Speed is absolutely changed.
I was watching some Muster from the French Open last night on youtube from 1995.. and if you look at the French Open then and watch some French Open play now.. Its much faster now.. Back then the French was playing like freakin Monte Carlo. No wonder some big hitters today are having more success at RG then they used to
comparing Laver to Federer is like comparing the Led Zeppelin with Justin Bieber.
The first one had real opposition, now...
The difference between Kodes and Vines is plainly and simply... a great Marketing Agent.
But Fed does make my list.
He has one FO title, four FO final runner-ups, six Masters 1000 tourney wins (4 Hamburg, 2 Madrid), seven Masters 1000 tourney runners-up (3 Monte Carlo, 2 Rome, 1Hamburg, 1 Madrid), and three minor clay-court titles (Munich, Gstaad, Estoril).
I believe that he comes in the teens. (I'll post it below.)
21. von Cramm
33. Frank Parker
35. Sven Davidson
36. Jack Crawford
37. Fred Perry
38. J.E. Patty
Probably a very complete list and I sure can't evaluate those older players from more than 60 years ago but were they really that much better than Vilas and Muster? Because those two iimo should seem to be higher.
Karel Koželuh and Hans Nusslein
Great list. I especially appreciate that Wilding (the owner of the longest clay run of victories and winner of the most clay tournaments) is placed appropriately high up.
I wonder where Karel Koželuh should be? He was the seven time winner of the Bristol Cup &/or World Pro. Championship. This was placed on clay in France. It was the most prestigous Pro tournament of the 1920's. He also won 2 US Pro Championships on clay (1932/1937) and a French Pro (1930). That is 10 Major clay tournaments.
Also regarding Nusslein - shouldn't he be higher? He won the world Professional Championship on clay in 1933 and also won the US Pro when it was played on clay in 1934. Plus twice winner of French Pro in 1937/1938. That is 4 major pro titles on clay. He did lose to Von Cramm in the early/mid 1930's in a match however apparently he was ill when that match occurred. In practice matches later in the 1930's apparently he had Von Cramm's number.
Yep. There always seems to be another overlooked player to add somewhere.
Maybe someone on here will offer an opinion as to where.
Even if you don't like the Bristol Cup (though you should because it was the defacto World Championship for Professionals in the 1920's) - the fact that Karel also won 3 Pro Slams on Clay should mean a good standing.
Hoodjem - I appreciate the great work you have done on your list.I realise that a lot of hours of reflection have gone into it. When I created this thread a number of years ago I had no idea at the time that it would last so long and have so many entries.
While I am no Federer fan I wholeheartedly disagree with him being below Vilas on clay, let alone 6 spots lower. Federer has a better French Open record, I believe more Masters level titles, and he was certainly alot more respectable in his matches vs Nadal on clay than Vilas was with Borg, and if Borg is a bad matchup for Vilas, Nadal is likewise a bad matchup for Federer, so that isnt even an excuse. What is Vilas's edge, all those tier 4 titles in South America he won? Having 2 majors on clay is not an edge, he got a chance to win 2 majors on clay a year for a few years right around his peak, Federer would probably have won the 2009 U.S Open on clay too the way Nadal was playing (extremely bad) at the time, and with Del Potro being not as strong on clay as hard courts. Federer did dominate the whole clay field besides Nadal until Djokovic came along. Vilas did not even dominate everyone else on clay besides Vilas, hence why he made the French Open final only 3 times (2 of those with Borg not playing).
Vilas won 46 titles on clay, including all the big titles. Federer has a lot less titles on clay and doesn't have Monte Carlo or Rome. By the way, Vilas played in 4 French Open finals, beating Gottfried in 1977, losing in 1975 and 1978 to Borg, and losing in 1982 to Wilander.
Federer has 6 Masters titles, does Vilas have more than 6 Masters equivalent titles? If Hamburg, Monte Carlo, and Rome were the 3 Masters equivalents then he has only 4. Federer's French Open record is alot better even with both having 1 title, that is for sure. More finals, more semis, more quarters, and his only losses from 2005 onwards were Nadal, Djokovic, and 2 time finalist Soderling.
5 clay masters
Vilas has 5 Masters 1000 equivalent clay titles. On top of the three you mentioned he won Washington DC in 1975 and 1977. It is also worth mentioning that he could have possibly won a 6th as he was playing the Monte Carlo final against Connors in 1981 but it was rained out in the first set.
Thanks. So Federer still has won more 1000 equivalent clay titles than Vilas, clearly has a superior French Open record. Add to that the huge number of Masters finals Federer has, and Vilas's embarassingly poor showings vs Borg on clay, and I would rank Federer over Vilas in a heartbeat. Vilas's only real advantage is willingess to play alot of obscure tiny clay events, largely in South America, and win them. My rankings of them would probably be roughly opposite to the previous list, Federer in the 13th range and Vilas in the 19th range.
Have you seen the 1978 French Open final between Borg and Vilas? Believe me when I say that the rallies are epic and the match feels far closer than the 6-1, 6-1, 6-3 scoreline suggests. Vilas just had an opponent on the other side of the net that did everything slighter better than he did, so he ultimately had nothing to hurt Borg with.
Federer has a slightly better French open record having been in 1 more final, but Vilas won the US open on clay, so perhaps he could be considered slightly ahead on clay majors ie federer 1 win of 5 clay major finals and Vilas 2 wins out of 5 clay major finals. Coupled with 5 wins at masters 1000 level (only 1 less than Federer) then there isn't a lot in it. Forget about Vilas' small clay titles, at clay slam and masters level they are almost exactly the same with Vilas being slighly ahead in the clay slams and Federer slighly ahead in the Clay masters. Vilas by a nose?
I realize Borg is a bad matchup for Vilas but Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer in addition to being the clay court GOAT, and Federer still manages to be far more respectable vs Nadal on clay than Vilas is vs Borg. Anyway even if that werent so, with Federer's superior French Open and superior Masters 1000 equivalent records and I see no reason to rank Vilas over Federer.
Vilas had the opportunity to play 2 clay majors for a period in his prime. Federer never had that opportunity. It is like saying Nadal is better on hard courts than Federer on clay since he won 2 hard court majors. Also like putting Jimmy Connors on par with a 3 time Roland Garros finalist and 1 time Roland Garros winner today since he won a U.S Open and made 3 straight U.S Open finals on green clay in the 2nd clay slam of the time, but if I ever did that people would laugh. So no I dont see that as an edge for Vilas.
I can sure live see both Vilas and Muster ahead of the Fed as their reputation on clay was probably better than their record, again at a time when there were a lot of good clay court specialists, which there are no longer. But how do you get Courier ahead of the Fed? Just curious?
Vilas won more tournaments on clay than Federer, played more Grand Slam finals on clay than Federer and won more Grand Slam tournaments on clay than Federer. He was absolutely better than Federer on clay.
He would have beaten easily Federer on clay, just like Nadal did.
Why not compare them? Seems comparable to me. Green clay isn't lesser than red clay - it is just different. And Jimmys achievements aren't any the less for being on green clay. The US open 1975 to 1977 wasn't a lesser tournament than the French Open.
oh, like federer had chance to play on green clay ...
on red clay, federer has had more success @ RG, more clay titles at Masters 1000 equivalent clay court events ...
the only edge Vilas has is those mickey mouse small tournaments .....
because federer didn't get a chance to play on green clay ? because he didn't get 2 clay court slams in a year ?
I mean how difficult is that to comprehend ?
Vilas won on clay FO (beating Gottfried), USO (Connors), Rome (Noah), Monte-Carlo (Fibak and Lendl), Madrid (Lendl), Gstaad (Clerc), Hamburg (Fibak), and so many others tournaments, I don't think that was mickey mouse tournaments.
I don't know, and nobody knows, what Federer could have done on green clay. But I'm sure it's a very big chance for Federer that 2 Grand Slams are played on hard courts. And Vilas was very disappointed in 1978 when he discovered Flushing Meadows. If USO was played on green clay in 1978-1982, Vilas could have won a second time.
and federer won :
RG 2009 ( beating del potro, soderling )
hamburg 2002 ( beating kuerten, safin )
hamburg 2004 ( beating hewitt, gaudio,moya, coria)
hamburg 2005 (beating coria,davydenko)
hamburg 2007 ( beating nadal, moya )
madrid 2009 ( beating nadal )
madrid 2012 ( beating ferrer, berdych)
federer would likely have done better on green clay than on red clay, given his style of play .....
But leaving that aside, as far as actual results on red clay go, federer has done better at RG and the clay court masters ( or masters equivalents for Vilas ) ...
When I mentioned mickey mouse tournaments, I meant many of those titles that vilas amassed in South America where very few of the top players were playing ....
Separate names with a comma.