Greatest players ever per surface

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by cuddles26, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,708
    You cannot compare 1980´s indoors with current indoors since the courts have nothing in common.Same thing for grass.Maybe you can compare clay and hard but that is it.It is my humble opinion, of course...
     
    #51
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,782
    So in a sense you can only say Fed is the best indoor in his era and the X player is the best indoor in his era.
     
    #52
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,708
    Yes, he proved that, and is by far the best indoor player of his era.

    But, again, it is not the same indoors and it is not the same grass...it is like two different sports, so Fed has dominated his sport and others the other one...
     
    #53
  4. KG1965

    KG1965 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,457
    Men:

    Hard courts
    1) Connors
    2) Djokovic
    3) Federer

    Grass
    1) Laver
    2) Sampras
    3) Federer

    Clay
    1) Nadal
    2) Borg
    3) Rosewall

    Indoors
    1) McEnroe
    2) Lendl
    3) Connors
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM
    #54
  5. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,209
    Why Sampras ahead of Federer? Federer has reached 3 more finals at Wimbledon.

    Top 10 performances at Wimbledon - Sampras 7 wins, 1 4th round, 1 quarter final, 1 semi-final
    Top 10 performances at Wimbledon - Federer 7 wins, 3 runner-ups

    So unless one thinks that 1 4th round, 1 quarter final, 1 semi-final is better than 3 runner-ups - I just don't see how Sampras is ahead of Federer.

    I agree with rating Laver at the number 1 position - he won 13 majors on grass.

    5 Amateur Slams on Grass
    3 Pro Majors on Grass
    1 Wimbledon Pro on Grass
    4 Open era Slams on Grass
    Total 13
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016 at 3:58 PM
    #55
  6. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,209
    My list:

    Men:
    Hard courts
    1) Federer
    2) Djokovic
    3 equal) Connors/Lendl

    Grass
    1) Laver
    2) Federer
    3) Sampras

    Clay
    1) Nadal
    2) Borg
    3) Rosewall

    Indoors
    1) McEnroe
    2 equal) Lendl/Sampras
    4) Gonzales (really hard to rate him. You could make a case that is the no. 1 indoor player with 13 indoor majors - 12 Pro Majors + 1 Tournament of Champions in Los Angeles)
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016 at 4:27 PM
    #56
  7. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,346
    You really need to quit this frankly stupid fetish of yours with result-counting. Yes, of course a final is better than a 4th-rounder when isolated from everything else, but in reality that everything else matters a lot more than you and your simple-minded ilk think. If things were that easy then any half-awake moron could (and does, obviously) tally whatever numbers off Wikipedia and declare case closed, just like when Novak was being seen as a one-Slam wonder (I still remember this genius confidently taking me to task for doubting that Djoko wouldn't win at least a few more majors) sorely unworthy of challenging Fedal a mere years ago. Doesn't look so simple now, does it?
     
    #57
  8. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,209
    I am a member of this forum. I can post what I like as long as I am polite in doing so. Not sure why you think this has anything to do with Wikipedia. It is just a fact that Federer has performed better than Sampras - and it is perverse to think that losing before the final is better than making the final. Look up the results. I am perfectly able to see the context. I am just objecting to the practice of counting Runner-up placings against a player vs never counting against a player for losing before the final.

    With regard to simply counting - there are two approaches one can use to establish greatness. The first is subjective (and no less valid) to deciding on based on a range of things, impressions, viewing of the player etc, the other is simply based on objective counts of achievements. I have a preference for the latter - but I don't deny others the ability to express their opinion on the former. I may ask them the reasons they hold such an opinion eg why do you have Sampras ahead of Federer when his results aren't as good on grass - but I am just wanting to hear their (very legitimate to express) reasons.

    Lets engage more - but without the insults, okay?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM
    #58
  9. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,346
    OK, my apologies for the intemperate post, but my main point stands. Again what you say is true, that being the runner-up is better than losing in the 4th round, but that's assuming everything else has no bearing on this matter when it clearly does. You say you're perfectly able to see the context, so here's a little bit of additional context which you have yet to acknowledge:
    • Sampras won his 7 Wimbledons in 8 years, as opposed to Federer's span of 10 years. By your "objective" criteria which guy seems to have been more dominant?
    • Pete practically retired in '02 while Fed, barring an unforeseen catastrophic event, will have played on till at least '16. Since the two's pro careers are exactly a decade apart that means Fed has stuck around for at least 3-4 more years longer. Again based on the numbers alone who exactly do you think is likelier to have gone deeper at Wimbledon more often?
    • The number of seeds at the majors increased in '01 from 16 to 32. Again going by the numbers which seeding system do you think is more prone to upsets in the earlier rounds?
    That's just three things which your selective bean counting fails to take into account. And even the pure stats you cite aren't little more than hairsplitting to me. 3 more RUs might matter a great deal if we were comparing, say, a Rafter and a Roddick, but between two guys that have won a whopping 7 titles each? I don't know about you but I prefer to see the forest rather than the trees.
     
    #59
  10. mattosgrant

    mattosgrant Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,489
    I think there should be a category for wood, which was the prominent surface along with indoors/carpet for pros in the 50s and 60s. I also would change indoors to carpet and then I would roughly agree with your list (I would put Gonzales higher though, for sure above Lendl, possibly above Sampras and/or McEnroe), since technically indoors is not a surface. Meanwhile if it were a surface probably atleast 1 of Federer or Djokovic should make top 3 all time then.

    I know it is hard to find a spot for everyone but I would put Tilden top 3 on grass. Maybe tie him for 3rd with Federer (achievements aside I feel Sampras's overall level was slightly higher on grass than Federer). Laver could be 1st, but then again maybe not. It is a hard comparision with the others for a variety of reasons. Factoring in all major grass events (not just Wimbledon/Wembley Pro combined) he probably wasn't most dominant though.
     
    #60
  11. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,209
    It all depends on your view. Some people view winning titles in a row higher than the same number of wins spread over a greater number years. But some people value longevity more - it all depends on your point of view. (though you could hardly call Federer 'not dominant' when he won 5 Wimbledon's in a row - which Sampras never did).
     
    #61
  12. mattosgrant

    mattosgrant Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,489
    I agree Federer was dominant on grass, but Sampas was longer IMO. The only period Federer was dominant on grass was 2003-2007, Sampras was from 1993-2000. Federer is ahead in total achievements with the same # of Wimbledon titles and 3 more Wimbledon finals though.
     
    #62

Share This Page