Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Since the Australian Open is removing the Rebound Ace for next years' event, was wondering how some of you will now view a players greatness.
I often hear posters here talk of Agassi being the only player to win slams on all 4 surfaces, will you consider a player of the future to be lesser if they win all 4 on only 3 different surfaces? It seems to be a valid question since many here dismiss laver's slam since it was on only 2 surfaces(though anyone who knows that period knows that the grass at the 3 slams was very different, as different as the differences between the US Open & Rebound Ace)
so will players who played from '88-'07 be considered more versatile or having faced more challenges than players who play from '08 onward?
will talk of there being 4 surfaces in this period disappear altogether?
have the differences between rebound ace & the us open been vastly overrated to begin with?
Every US Open champ since 1988 except Rafter & Roddick has made at least the finals in Australia(& Rodick & Rafter did make the semis)
I often hear posters here talk of Agassi being the only player to win slams on all 4 surfaces, will you consider a player of the future to be lesser if they win all 4 on only 3 different surfaces? It seems to be a valid question since many here dismiss laver's slam since it was on only 2 surfaces(though anyone who knows that period knows that the grass at the 3 slams was very different, as different as the differences between the US Open & Rebound Ace)
so will players who played from '88-'07 be considered more versatile or having faced more challenges than players who play from '08 onward?
will talk of there being 4 surfaces in this period disappear altogether?
have the differences between rebound ace & the us open been vastly overrated to begin with?
Every US Open champ since 1988 except Rafter & Roddick has made at least the finals in Australia(& Rodick & Rafter did make the semis)
Last edited: