Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I would say that Rosewall at the US Open was tired after his four set SF against Newcombe. He beat Tanner at Wimbledon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  2. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    I can only do the women really:
    1. Navratilova
    2. Court
    3. Evert
    4. Graf
    5. S. Williams
    6. Lenglen
    7. Seles
    8. Jean-King
    9. Moody
    10. Connolly
     
  3. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    Of the men I know about:
    1. Laver
    2. Rosewell
    3. Federer
    4. Gonzales
    5. Sampras
    6. Tilden
    7. Borg
    8. Nadal
    9. Lendl
    10. McEnore
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    fluffyyelloballz, Interesting list. Your top 7 (or 8) are also my top 7 (8) but in different order.

    I'm grateful that you rank RosewAll ahead of Federer and at No.2. Not many posters are so courageous (even though many of them are aware of Muscles' huge achievements...).

    Don't tell your list to Dan Lobb!
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Bobby.
    I accept the opinions of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and they were NOT restricting their ratings to peak form when they selected Hoad number one.
     
  6. fluffyyelloballz

    fluffyyelloballz Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    177
    Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
    Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?
     
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,442
    Hoad's always been a subject of debate with many experts. Some say at his best (for one match, maybe a series of matches) that he was the best of all time. He played a very risky style which also allowed him to often lose to players that he should have considering his talent beat fairly easily. Not sure if he ever was CLEARLY the best player in any one year. That's a subject constantly debated by experts and in this thread by BobbyOne and Dan Lobb in their never ending debate. Hoad did play extremely strong competition in the pros when he played Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson among others. These are with the exception of Cooper and Anderson (and they were excellent players) all time great players.

    As far as Lendl and McEnroe are concerned, Lendl clearly is ahead of McEnroe in my opinion. Lendl won 146 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. McEnroe won around 100 tournaments and 7 majors. Lendl is slightly ahead in lifetime winning percentage also at around 81.8% to 81.5%. However Lendl did this while he played more matches. For players who only played in the open era I believe Connors and Lendl have won the most tournaments. Connors is number one at 149.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, And I don't accept your silly claim that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez ranked Hoad No. 1 also regarding achievements. They are NOT idiots!
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    fluffyyelloballz, Thanks for your interest.

    Lendl had an eigth finals streak at the US Open.

    Here my top ten regarding achievements.

    1 Laver
    1 Rosewall tied
    3 Tilden
    4 Gonzalez
    5 Federer
    6 Borg
    7 Sampras
    8 Connors
    9 Budge
    10 McEnroe

    Hoad of course does not qualify: only 4 majors won etc

    But if we consider playing level including also longevity, my top players are

    1 Laver
    1 Rosewall tied
    3 Gonzalez
    4 Hoad
    4 Borg tied
    6 Djokovic
    7 Nadal
    8 Lendl
    8 McEnroe tied
    10 Becker
    10 Roche tied
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  10. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    Based on achievements what makes you place Gonzalez and Tilden higher than Fed?


    Did you intentionally not place you know who in there?
     
  11. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I totally disagree on Becker being top 10 all time under any measure. On grass and carpet he is well up there, but overall definitely not.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Nadal/Agassi, maybe I have ranked Becker too high...
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    forzamilan90,

    Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

    I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

    While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

    I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

    But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Don't mind Bobby. I don't think he believe what he's saying. Of course he intended to leave out Roger, who's widely consider the greatest player.
     
  15. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    Here's my take on things. I think any records that Gonzales or Tilden possess, have nothing on the eagle's open era achievements.
    Also, I think prime Fed would absolutely destroy the likes of Roche and Newcombe. Not thinking that his peak level of play is all time top 10 worthy is a travesty of the highest order (have you seen the dude play like really?) imo. The greatest open era tennis player by a considerate margin (records, streaks, dominance, ridiculous shot making, crazy level of play, all around package), and not even top 10 all time of level of play :confused:.

    lol you obviously know that I wouldn't rank either Laver or Rosewall above Fed. Rosewall is a level below Laver imo. Laver I really really hold in high regard, I got him at number 2 after Fed. Rosewall's longevity and overall records are great, but no peak insane level like Fed or Laver as far as I am concerned. See my top 10 greatest:

    My top 10
    1. Roger Federer
    2. Rod Laver
    3. Bjorn Borg
    4. Pete Sampras
    5. Bill Tilden
    6. Pancho Gonzales
    7. Ken Rosewall
    8. Rafael Nadal
    9. Ivan Lendl
    10. John McEnroe
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  16. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

    clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Yes. I know it's crazy. This is a "The Laver Forum", and that's what you would expected. For having Roger not in the top 10 but yet they criticize the experts from The Tennis Channel.
     
  18. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

    LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.
     
  19. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    counterracting by having Roche, Nadal and Djoker there?

    and btw regarding my sentence, absolutely nothing false written there
    ...
    most dominating in open era? yeah can't argue with that

    most documented open era player? well yeah along with other current players no hypothetical here, titles, tour events, highlights everything documented available to see.

    most analyzed open era player? do I even have to go here? Fed's name is constantly thrown around in tennis circles, forums, etc. and has been for a while. Add his chase for the record books, and analysis goes only deeper.

    most victorious open era player? undisputed here. ****load of big titles all legit, not counting exos or anything (lots and lots of slams, masters, wtfs)

    most revered open era player? yeah you know it's true. He's the definitive tennis figure. Fed's the tennis Michael Jordan basically.



    where's my melodrama when the above is f**** facts.

    my sentence aside, you cannot possibly think Bobby's list was that a sane, "historian" would write
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    At least it's interesting that we have the same top seven players (in different order).

    I'm aware I have annoyed the Federer fans.

    Now, to even offend the Laver fans, I still claim that Rosewall's record is about even with Laver's: Rosewall won 4 more majors than Laver; he won nine majors in a row (Laver 4), his longevity is much greater; their hth at majors is 10:7 in Ken's favour; at the biggest tournament of each year (Wembley, Wimbledon, US Open 1972 and 1973) Rosewall won 5, reached final 5 times and SFs 5 times: Laver is 6/0/0, and so on...

    Laver won his Wimbledons and his GSs in an age of life (23 to 30) when Rosewall was not allowed to play them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Nadal/Agassi, Thanks for the support.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    forzamilan90, Roche was not far away from Laver in the latter's great year, 1969.F.i. he beat Rod 5:4 matches that year. He is hugely underrated.

    Nadal and Djokovic cannot touch Federer?? Then, why has Rafa a positive balance against Roger? And why has Federer won only 1 (=one, =ONE) out of the last 11 majors and lost the Olympics? His dominance lasted only till the time when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (plus Del Potro) reached their peak...
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Only an idiot belives what Tennis Channel has ranked...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Just to calm down you a bit: Rosewall and Laver have still won more majors than your God...
     
  25. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    So anyone that doesn't think Federer is the GOAT has an anti-Federer agenda?
     
  26. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549

    I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.

    The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.

    Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.
     
  27. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    well pro majors if you want to count them. I don't think a pro major has the same value as a modern major. Fed's 17 is the benchmark as far as I am concerned
     
  28. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    not necessarily, but follow some of their posting patterns and you'll see what I mean. It's undeniable.
     
  29. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,549
    I would agree that that list was badly made, but it also shouldn't have included both genders in the same list, you can't rank men and women on the same ranking list.
     
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    this .......... BobbyOne is another one of those with an anti-federer bias ......
     
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    ha ha ha ha ..............

    good joke !!!!!!!!!!
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    BauerAlmeida,

    Yes, fanatics like TMF (Federer) and Dan Lobb (Hoad) cannot understand that this who does not praise their darling as much as they do has an agenda to belittle their God and they cannot accept that serious people consider along facts and logic...

    Thanks for defending me.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    forzamilan90, I'm grateful that you discuss with me seriously instead of insulting me.

    I still say that Federer dominated a rather weak field in several years. He is a great player but yet overrated.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree that the modern GS tournaments rank above the pro majors but the latter are still to consider very high as they had many all-time greats as participants.

    A player (Laver) who is able to beat Rosewall, Gonzalez and, say, Anderson in an eight man major is also likely to win a modern GS tournament with 128 participants.

    Laver and Rosewall have proved in open era that they are able to win open majors as they won 9 GS tournaments out of the first 13 open era majors where they participated, even when being oldies!
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree totally.
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Your little picture does show the greatest player of all time (or, to be exact, one of the two GOATS...).
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Of course assumed all players using the same equipment!!!
     
  38. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    You are NOT objective, not even one bit. Don't even pretend to be so. You cleverly pursue your anti Federer agenda in every thread.

    You would join some threads, then would pick on some silly comment made by some Fed blind worshipper and then use terms like "****s" or "*******s" in derisive manner and stereotype all Federer fans. Even in that hypothetical thread about Roger Federer being gay, you just seconded a post by another Fed hater who said he thought Fed is a gay. The point is your anti Federer agenda is as obvious as Bobbyone or kiki. Anyone can notice that how Bobbyone is biased when he can include Nadal and Djokovic while he excludes Federer
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, you overlook that even this who is a Federer fan can yet rank Roger behind a few (only a FEW) greats. I admire Federer as much as he deserves it (but not more just as most younger fans do).

    I give you an example from classic music: Most people (especially those who never listen to classic music) claim that Mozart is the greatest classic composer. They overlook that at least two other men (Schubert and Beethoven) are arguably even greater than "Amadeus". It's easier to value as the majority does than to value as only a minority does even if the latter has more logic and facts.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  40. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    10 seems more than a few to me, especially when they include the likes of Djokovic, Becker and Roche.

    And very clever of you to try and pass Federer fans off as being young, sneaky attempt to discredit them.
     
  41. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I know am wasting time with a Federer hater but still

    Let us analyze the Rafa - Nadal head to head 12-2 on clay to Nadal, 6-5 on hard courts to Federer and 2-1 for Federer on Grass. That means even at age 31 he leads Rafa on two surfaces out of three

    Roger was too good to reach consistantly the finals of clay slams and he lost to Rafa. He could have lost early like Pete Sampras and he could have saved his head to head

    Roger lost to Rafa in AO final when he was 28, in 2009. Roger was past his prime and Rafa is in his prime. What do you expect? If you claim to be a historian in Tennis then you would obviously know that there is nothing surprising in that result. Rafa didn't make it to the finals on hard courts when Roger was in his prime. That was not either player's fault

    All the surfaces have slowed down a lot considerably. It includes Wimbledon and US Open. You would obviously know that it would help defensive players like Rafa and Novak more when they play Roger. The slowing down or homogenization of surfaces has hurt Roger the more since he is the attacking player in the three..

    US Open, Roger and Rafa never played there. Roger lost twice to Novak but in those matches he was twice on match points. This despite Roger past his prime and the surface slowed down a lot.. You saw what happened on a fast Cincinnati court when Roger bagelled Novak Djokovic

    Roger is playing Rafa, Djokovic, Murray who are younger than him on surfaces that have slowed down a lot and he has to play a highly physical game at this point of his career to win matches. It's obvious that he will lose more. However, that doesn't take anything from his past..

    Unfortunately there is no variety in Tennis now. Put past prime Federer and Djokovic/Nadal on a fast court and you will see what happens :)
     
  42. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    So you mean to say that you consider longeity also and then include Djokovic and Nadal but exclude Roger.

    Nadal cannot even complete a season at age 26. Federer at age 31 is still top two. So what exactly do you mean by longivity?
     
  43. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    It's not like this. I am a die hard Federer fan and I have never posted that Roger is GOAT.

    Posters like NadalAgassi, BobbyOne. kiki etc have an anti Federer agenda and they pursue that religiously. You can accept a difference of opinion easily. My point is they are not at all different from few Federer fanboys who blindly believe that Roger Federer is good in everything!
     
  44. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    That's not even including posters such as NSK or Jacksonvile who continuously post ********. There may well be a Federer bias on this forum, he does have the most fans after all, but it is being severely exaggerated. Certainly doesn't merit NadalAgassi bringing it up in every single post s/he makes especially when they are filled with insulting generalizations and a victim complex.
     
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qindarka, I have ranked Federer at a top place (No.5 in my achievement list).

    His playing level is not very great as he won in weak years and lost in tough years.

    It's a fact that younger fans rate Federer higher than "oldtimers" usually do...
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, when you call me a Federer hater, any discussion is senseless!

    Just one last point: If you say that Federer was past his prime in 2009 (at 28!) then he cannot be a real great player...
     
  47. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Is it now? This forum is hardly representative of the general tennis fanbase.
    And I am not too certain that the historians here are older than the average fan either.
     
  48. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Many great players were past their prime at 28.

    Lendl, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander etc. Seems to be the norm in the open era for players to start or have declined by this age.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, Federer is good regarding longevity but f.i. far behind Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall.

    It does not honour you that you blame Nadal for getting injured!!!
     
  50. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Don't dodge the question. He wasn't comparing Fed to Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall but to Nadal and Djokovic.

    Sure, Nadal has been unfortunate with injuries but you can hardly credit him with longevity.
     

Share This Page