What are the criterias for being a good player

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jukka1970, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. jukka1970

    jukka1970 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    I've noticed through the threads that there seems to be a vast difference amongst everyone on criterias of good or excellent players. you see this in comparing different players.

    I've always wonder what people felt makes an excellent player. I mean in my mind for the women my pick would be Graf, and my criteria would be her all court game and domination at each slam. But at the same time you have Navratilova, who I also thought was and is an excellent player. she's still playing at 48. She has 9 wimbledon titles, which for someone to now break is going to be awfully hard. She has the most wins overall. But just between these two players different criterias cause a different choice.

    The same is true for the men's side. Sampras comes to mind first, an excellent player, 14 slam titles, but he never won the french open. Borg won 11 titles between the French and Wimbledon.

    What do you consider criterias, or what makes you pick one over the other
     
    #1
  2. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,810
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Both Graf and MN are not just good players, they are extraordinary players.

    For the sake of argumentation, the most frequently used criteria seem to be:

    - number of Grand/Golden Slams (taking all 4 slams, achieved in a calendar year): Graf has one

    - number of Slams (Graf has 22 I guess, MN has 18]

    However, different authors (and posters!) have different criteria, thus the differences:)
     
    #2
  3. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445


    im sorry but am i reading you right here, are you saying Sampras NEVER won Wimbledon??? ??? :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
    #3
  4. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    You've answered your own question by realising yourself there are different and equally valid ways to judge great players. However there will always be those who refine the judging method(s) to yield the result they want.
     
    #4
  5. baseliner

    baseliner Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    jukka1970 and Sampras never winning Wimbledon

    I think he meant Roland Garros. Sampras may not have won the French Open but he won Wimbledon repeatedly. Think Becker mentioned that Sampras owned the lawns of the All England Club.
     
    #5
  6. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445
    i thought that was what he meant, i hope that is what he meant either that or that was one long sleep through the 90s for someone :rolleyes:
     
    #6
  7. fedex27

    fedex27 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    972
    well its simple, you have to win. its like someones sig, i forget who, "tennis is simple, all you have to do is win the last point"
     
    #7
  8. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,825
    I'll go with your original question about a "good" player. I would call Todd Martin or Anna Kournikova good singles players. To be a good player, you must not have won a Majors singles title and have spent some time in the Top 20 and preferably never been higher than #3, though a short stay @ #2 might be okay. Michael Chang was briefly @ #2, but won 1 Major, so he is not just good player, but a very good player.
     
    #8
  9. jukka1970

    jukka1970 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    correction on Sampras wins

    Yes, did mean to write that he never won the French Open. I think I typed to fast going into Borgs winning. Yes, Sampras won wimbledon 7 times, and you're right would have been a long sleep through the 90's if I didn't know that. Thanks others for making the correction. I fixed it in the original post
     
    #9
  10. littlelleyton

    littlelleyton Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    445
    hey we have all been there, typing too fast for our fingers to keep up with the brain.

    i think there have been some really fair points here. if you take a touring pro who has been top 50 even lower, they may not have ever won a grand slam and rarely make inpacts in the tour events but they are playing tennis for a living, maybe not a fantastic one, but they are doing it, living the childhood dream of playing tennis for their job. i consider them good players. they i would think would considering themselves good players. the fact that they dont make millions is nothing to them after all it only takes a 1st or 2nd round draw once in a while that pairs them with Fed or Lleyton or A-Rod and give them the dream that we all have, to compete with our heros and i would imagine that would make them happy. course no one like losing but if it werent for these good players who would the wonderfully gifted people play.
    it takes something more to go that extra step and be top 10 and win consistantly.
     
    #10

Share This Page