Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    and there is also something not too commented here: since tennis was at its popularity height, there were a lot of exos and special events that loaded their calendar, which is not the case today ( that shows how tennis has gone down over the years)
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Exactly.I remember Laver´s insightful comments on grass.I also recallt hat joke that Wimbledon officials sent to their Forest Hills coleagues some grasps of grass every year just to make them remember what grass looked like...
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver could play, and in fact did play, S&V tennis like the best, but he was not an strictly S&V player ( that was one of his plus against most of S&V guys he faced).

    Even Ken Rosewall knew the result of their matches would depend more on what laver did than on what he would do.Laver said that he knew he had to play his best or very close to in order to beat Kenny, but he also knew that, when he was on, Rosewall wouldn´t beat him (Maybe Dallas 72 is the exception to the rule)
     
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Once again, a fascinating data of how great the mate-rival rivalry between newk and Rochey was.Both having similar potential, their 1969 matches were terrific, Roche winning at Brisbane and New York and Newcombe at Wimbledon and, later in 1975, another 5 sets against Roche at Melbourne.

    It look likes the two princes reclaiming the Rocket´s crown were battling themselves to the limit.A rivalry not too talked about but, probably, the fiercest rivalry on the tour between 1968 and 1972.
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    and Wade,Goolagong,Althea Gibson,Mandlikova and lesser but good ladies like Sukova,Novotna,Shriver,Kohde,Jordan and some times Hingis and Sabatini, too.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    What is wrong with the bold part? maybe I also forgot Germans Balb and Schrempf, but they were not NBA stars ( although Schrempf was a heck of a power forward )
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Poncho is a mexican dress, which Pancho used when he was too drunk on poncho ( a delicious wine and liquors mixture ):)
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Incidentally, the Newcombe/Roche rivalry makes me think of the great all time aussues had that kind of friendship-rivalry, probably since they trained together and spent many drinks together.

    Sedgman and Mc Gregor
    Anderson and Cooper
    Emerson and Laver
    Hoad and Rosewall
    Newcombe and Roche

    looks like the history of Aussie´s greats is a permanent link of pairs...
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, Laver of course played much more than only 7 doubles tournaments as a pro 1963-1967. Joe McCauley has brought many of them.
     
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Sorry...I forgot

    Brookes-Wilding
    Crawford-Mc Grath
    Bromwich-Quist
    and in the 70´s, the promising ( and underachieving)

    Alexander-Dent
    Edmondson-Warwick

    I just could not resist the temptation to quote myself...sorry.
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    That number of 110-12 was picked by me simply because it was a bit over 90% but obviously we don't know how much better (if he was better) that Laver would be. It could be a lot better but I doubt he would be worse.

    We know Laver was a terrific serve and volleyer but we also know that he had a lot of weapons and skills aside from serve and volley. When he got to the Pro he learned to play percentage tennis a little better and improve certain minor problems in his game, like his second serve. One indication that Laver may have done extremely well if he was younger (and after his experience as a Pro, let's say Open Tennis started in 1965 instead of 1969) is his results in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. Laver won 13 straight matches against the likes of Newcombe, Ashe, Okker, Roche, Ralston, Taylor and Rosewall. The reason why I write that is that Laver had substantial rest between matches of this tournament and didn't need the recovery time a player of his advanced age at that point (would have been 33 in 1971) normally would need. A younger Laver may not have had the winning percentage of a super baseliner like a Borg in his prime but we don't know. Laver in 1962 for example had a record of 149-15 which was about 91% and he improved immensely in the pros. A top Laver would have had a far superior record than that in my opinion in 1962. In fact I have no doubt about it. Open Tennis would have a top level Laver playing most of the other players outside of the top Pros like Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno and you know Laver would probably have a plus record at that point against these three greats. So yes I do think Rod would have a super percentage of winning if he played in his prime.

    We cannot say for sure of course.
     
  12. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I haven't read anyone say that Laver doesn't know what he's talking about. Perhaps you are [knowingly] tilting a windmills, for effect.
     
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    1974 WCT Finals.The cast: Newcombe,Laver,Ashe,Okker,Nastase,Kodes,Smith and Borg.Just Connors and Rosewall missing in one of the strongest ever fields assembled.
     
  14. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    The truth is that Laver's ground game was even better than his net game. And, IMO, his best surface was hard courts.
     
  15. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Bromwich had a rivalry with Pails in 1946-1947 as well, with those epic Australian Championship finals. I believe Kramer ranked Bromwich as the best doubles player he had seen.
     
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver is, in other words, the greatest shotmaker of all time.he had 2 or 3 options for each shot and he did everything absolutely brilliantly.
     
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    yeah, Pails and 20´s Patterson were also great players.I could also name Fraser and Stolle but I just pointed out the link of those pairs...

    Browmwich was a master at the angles with his two fisted strokes and IMO, a predecessor of great Frew Mc Millan, but quite better at singles.He and Quist started the aussie domination in doubles, that remains unmatched.Maybe 80% of the all time great doubles teams are aussie...
     
  18. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,376
    In open tennis between 1968 and 1977/78, going by the (incomplete) ATP and ITF stats, Laver has a win-loss percentage of 79,8 resp. 80%. This is still pretty high for a player betweeen 30 and 40 years. I think the highest for open era is still Borg with 82,5 or so ahead of Nadal. Since 1972, Laver played a more selective schedule (due to commitments with his tennis ranches). Given a more selective schedule in his prime years, and open conditions (this means more opponents outside the top ten), Laver's percentage would be in the range of the very best. Actually they are: As it was, Laver had a documented score of tournament match results over his whole career beween 17 and 40 years of age of 1437-358 (going by Andrew Tas).
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Joe McCauley once sent me the Laver win/loss records and I see that Laver in 1962 was 167:15 which makes % of 91.8
     
  20. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    The percentage comes out to 80.1 percent. It's quite reasonable for players with lifetime percentages like that to have peak years in Open Tennis of way over 90%.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The Australian Open had also a great year in 1971 when the WCT group played there.
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Are you in the real world? Sport is a big business. Tennis is big business. The percentage of players involved in playing Professional Sports is but a tiny percentage of the world's population. Your logic seems to indicate that you have to have expansion due to the increasing population in the planet.

    Get real. Professional tennis would not be around if it wasn't profitable. Professional Sports in general wouldn't be around if it wasn't profitable.

    Do you honestly think owner say to themselves, "Wow, the population is larger we have to expand!" Money unfortunately runs the world.

    Out of pure curiosity, do you work? If you do, ask your boss if they plan to hire more people because the world's population is larger.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Read your post again. You ARE wrong by saying there's non-American players in the 80s.
     
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Yes. Hollywood or music industry is also a big business, and they keep growing. You think a league such as NBA or MLB expand more teams, but the number of players stayed constant. That's not true. More people pursue to play sport, and more more fans(viewers), then it IS profitable to expand.

    I'm not denying sport being profitable isn't the reason why there's a drive for expansion, but you cannot be serious to believe the number of athletes doesn't increase. Did Toyota grew at all since 40 years ago? Of course. Why? Increase in population means more demand for cars.

    Yes I do work. If a company continue to grow, be able to sell more products and services, sure they NEED more manpower thus hire more people.
     
  25. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Music is proof that "growing" doesn't mean better product.

    I think the current era of music is the worst I've ever seen. The era of grunge (1991-1997), brit pop (1993-1997), glam metal (1983-1991) and glam rock (1971-1976), was far superior to the reality TV rubbish of today's era.
     
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Okay in this particular post I agree with you. If you assume profitability and the population demands you can expand the corporation to potentially make more money if they expand. But the key words are money and profitability and demand.

    Remember if there is no demand for the product you won't make any money no matter how much you expand.
    You will simply lose more money.

    But to your basic point, expansion doesn't not necessarily improve the product, in this case tennis. Often expansion dilutes the product and makes it inferior.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    They dismissed his opinion. That's just as bad as if he doesn't know.

    Laver said a GS today is worth 2 of his GS, and tennis is play at a higher standard than before. NOT ONCE ANY OF YOU TAKE HIS WORDS SERIOUSLY.
     
  28. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Federer hasn't won a "GS". Laver won a "GS" in the amateurs, pre-open professionals, and the open era.
     
  29. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Who's your favourite musical artist?
     
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    As someone who works in the classical music business, I agree that musical taste has diminished.
    When I was in high school in the 1970's, many band musicians could play solos and concertos, including classical works.
    My recent efforts in high schools shows that the kids are allergic to classical music, and only rock and rap is acceptable to them. The teachers try but fail to generate some interest in classical.
    Only children of families from Europe or Asia, where classical music is growing in popularity, show some interest.
     
  31. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Are you Dan Lobb off that used to be on Skysports news?
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I'm glad that there is a theme where I can agree totally.

    I'm from Vienna and I regret that in our city and country most people only listen to rock and pop and false folk music. And this in a city where Gluck, Haydn (by the way, I think he is vastly overrated), Mozart, Beethoven Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss lived and created their marvellous works (I omit Schoenberg and his pupils because I don't rate them as creators of music...).
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  33. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Oh, that's a tough one. I'll say Roy Wood, because it's simply amazing how much he did from 1967-1975, with The Move, Electric Light Orchestra (briefly) and Wizzard, as well as his solo career, and virtually all of it was brilliant. Then he ran into a big dispute with his manager, Don Arden, and his musical career never recovered.
     
  34. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Cool. You a fan of the genius in my avatar?
     
  35. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Who is it? I can't quite make him out.
     
  36. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Captain Beefheart.
     
  37. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Oh yes, the trout mask. It's been a while since I've listened to that album.
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Again Laver is trying to be nice. Federer said he isn't the GOAT also Do you take his words seriously.

    Rod also said with a wood racquet he wouldn't fear anyone.
     
  39. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    you're accusing Laver of being a hypocrite or a liar because he said Federer is the GOAT? did somemone oblige him him to say such a thing ? Or just because what he said didn't appeal to you? And what is wrong with Federer being the GOAT , many times you said Budge or Tilden or Pancho or Borg may be considered as GOATS but when it comes to Federer you start to be dubious ?

    Should we believe you , with my respect to you as a great poster , or believe Laver or Borg or Kramer or Agassi when they say openly that Federer is the GOAT ? Do all of them want to be nice to Federer or maybe they are afraid of him ? If there's a reason tell me about it Mr pc1
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  40. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Yes, that AO had a great field, and remarkably Rosewall won the whole thing in straight sets.

    Sometimes all I can say is: what could I have been smoking last night? :)
    [slaps forehead for emphasis]
     
  41. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    TMF just can't come to terms with the fact that Federer has a grand total of "0" Grand Slam titles.
     
  42. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    That's a tough call. It's not a competition with objective measures of greatness. So many genres, so much talent. Herbie, Chick, Miles, Buddy, Basie, Dizzy, Mahavishnu, Sly, EW&F, Trane, Sarah, Frank, BS&T, Carlos, Stevie, F a gen and Becker . . . . How can you pick just one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  43. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    You are trying to play Laver off his fans here, with these overheated words of yours: accuse, hypocrite, liar. Calm down.

    I don't know how familiar you are with Laver's writings. The man is extremely generous. He rarely interjects himself into the conversation when he's discussing great champions. I don't call that dishonesty or hypocrisy: I call it sportsmanship.

    That doesn't mean he's being insincere. His generosity is not false; it's the genuine article. When he compliments champions he's being honest. But he's so generous and humble that he's not always accurate. He once wrote that he could hardly ever beat Lew Hoad, or something to that effect; as I understand, it was a comment that would give you the impression that Hoad had a winning H2H over him. The actual truth is that Laver had a comfortable H2H edge over Hoad.

    Again that doesn't mean that his generous comments about Hoad are insincere. He's being sincere with his generous praise: he's making broad, generous statements -- not scientific ones that need to be taken literally.

    He seems to understand himself how subjective all this is, because when he said Federer was his choice for GOAT, he added, "if there is such a thing."

    Let me ask you: do you agree with Laver's statement that Nadal and Federer are "pretty much equal" in terms of abilities?

    And that question is for you, too. Do you agree with Laver's statement that Nadal and Federer are "pretty much equal" in abilities?
     
  44. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    Laver's statement is clear , why do we try to interpret it ? If he wasn't convinced or has doubts he wouldn't have said it . he's a great tennisman and his opinions and thoughts are taken seriously , there's no reason , I think , that makes him generous or trying to be nice . would he seem less nice if he didn't say that Roger is the GOAT ? he's not OBLIGED

    As far as Nadal is concerned , yes I agree with him . both players are immensely talented and skilled with a little edge to Federer .( here he's trying to be nice to Nadal :))
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    I never said Roger won the GS. (dry)

    All I said is Laver believe today's 1 GS is equal to his 2 GS in his heyday.

    Capiche?
     
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    The difference between me and some of the old-timers is I don't take Laver's words with a grain of salt.
     
  47. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    Tougher competition, yes, we agreed on that part: both in the pro tennis tour and the NBA. But in tennis, there were other differences between the pro and amateur tours: in some ways the pro tour was harder, in other ways the amateur. An amateur could pack his entire season with an enormous number of singles matches, as Laver did in '62. Laver also played a heavy doubles schedule -- at a time when doubles was taken seriously. And he played played Davis Cup -- again at a time when that event was taken seriously.

    And there are also the one-set matches, and abbreviated VASS matches, featured in some pro events.

    In all those ways an amateur could be busier, or accrue more mileage (to use those imperfect terms), than a pro.

    Of course the pro game had two huge challenges, broadly speaking, not present in the amateur game: a higher level of play; and difficult playing conditions. You could also add the mental strain of knowing you had to win, or else you wouldn't be on the pro tour at all; and if you get kicked out of that club, there goes your living.

    In the end you could say that the pro game edges the amateur game in terms of the physical and mental toll it took: and I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm not saying that the amateur game was harder, when all things are considered. But I do think the toll taken on both tours was comparable -- or could be comparable (I put in that caveat because not all amateurs, obviously, were as busy or as successful as Laver: he was something of an extraordinary case, playing everything and winning everything. Even in '59, when he wasn't yet winning everything, he was going deep enough at Wimbledon to log the alltime record for most games played in any event, as Al Chave noted in 1970).

    My only argument here is that a top amateur could "age" significantly, as a tennis player, or accrue significant "mileage", on the amateur tour. Emerson certainly aged on it.

    Correction, I said that Emerson did not last any longer than Laver: I argued that they both peaked at 29.

    One thing I have to agree with you on is that we're only comparing two players, when comparing Emerson and Laver. That can't prove anything: although it does show me that someone who stayed entirely on the amateur circuit could "age" on it at a significant rate, even apparently peaking at the same age that Laver did.

    Under other circumstances that might have been true. In this case, because the tour was packed into one month's time, it meant primarily that Laver had almost no rest (certainly less rest than either Lew or Ken). The lack of rest seems to have taken its toll, because he lost his last 7 matches of the tour, all to Rosewall, on 7 consecutive days, winning only one set. By the end of that tour he just collapsed.
     
  48. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    I just think you're off the mark when you say that his GOAT statement is not taken seriously. I think that Federer could be the GOAT; and Laver's opinion on it is, as I said, not insincere: of course I take it seriously. But of course I'm not obliged to agree with it. Maybe I can conclude that Laver has an edge over Federer. I am not obliged to think lock-step with Laver, or anyone else, especially on a subjective topic like the GOAT. He didn't state a fact about math or physics. He made a statement about "greatness": a subjective matter if there ever was one.
     
  49. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    I know , opinions are not scientific truth but coming from a player like Laver , that must be taken more seriously than others .
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    I've never made a GOAT list. My tennis interests are largely elsewhere (like stats; those at least are tangible, quantifiable measurements). The closest I get to making a list is identifying Tier 1 players, going roughly by who dominated each successive generation: Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer. That is a very common formulation, I know; but I think it makes sense.

    But for me tennis has changed so much that each era has to be appreciated for what its players did well (like playing with wood, or playing with modern racquets; playing on grass; or playing on hard court; like net play; or baseline play; etc). Making a single list for all time tends to suppress all that, I think.
     

Share This Page