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
    Are you sure that the Federer fans on General PPD and the Federer fans of Former PPT are so different?

    At least I guess that kiki and I are older than you...
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Okay, but none of them is usually regarded as the GOAT. I think it helps a bit to become the GOAT if your prime lasts longer than till 28...

    Imagine Rosewall would have had his prime only till 28. He would lose 11 of his 23 majors!
     
  3. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Yes, you and kiki are probably older than me. So what, a sample size of one proves nothing. Of course, I have suspected that kiki is a lot younger than he presents himself to be, certainly doesn't seem to be very mature.

    Yes, I am fairly certain the fans are different. Most fans don't bother to sign up to internet forums to discuss tennis.
     
  4. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    We aren't actually talking about the GOAT here. We were talking about how Djokovic and Nadal can be ranked ahead of Fed on a scale that takes into account longevity.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I concede that Federer's career on or near top is (to this day only) longer than Nadal's and Djokovic's.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Because they are stronger than Roger.
     
  7. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, except rosewall hit his prime at a later age and the conditions of his time allowed for better longevity .........
     
  8. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL , just shows you are clueless or biased .......djoker at his peak just lost his no 1 ranking to a 31 year old federer and got beat by him @ both RG ( 2011 ) and wimbledon (2012) ... also got bagelled by him @ cinci ...

    even with him playing his best tennis and federer playing just very good tennis, he had to save MPs vs him @ the USO .......

    except maybe on the slow plexicushion @ the AO, federer's peak level > djoker's on any other surface ...

    as far as nadal is concerned, he is only superior on clay ....... federer is by some distance ahead of him on both grass and HC, level wise ....

    he was getting mauled by the likes of tsonga, gonzalez, del potro on HC whereas federer beat them comfortably ......

    and on grass, he has 7 wimbledon titles to rafa's 2 .... including 2 wins to one loss @ wimbledon H2H
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    this is a load of cr*p.

    Firstly the weak era non-sense......... parroted by those who were just jealous of federer's unparalleled dominance in 2004-07 ......or those who didn't actually watch federer in his prime years and followed the above .......


    secondly , regarding playing level, just by the end of 2004, many were discussing that federer's play was probably the best they ever saw ... and this was when he had only 4 majors ........
     
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    roche and newk would be mauled by federer on slow HC and clay ...... maybe somewhat competitive on medium-fast HCs ...... and would be competitive on grass/fast HC/carpet ... but they wouldn't lead federer on any surface ......

    as far as lendl is concerned, federer is essentially Lendl V 2.0 with that extra X-factor ... the ability to pull out of clutch situations better than lendl, better ability to produce insane shots at crucial moments,

    federer has a better FH, better movement by some distance , better returner, better serve, better clutch ability ....... only thing lendl does better is patience/topspin BH on clay .......

    coming to borg, IMO, he'd no doubt have the edge on clay, but federer would lead elsewhere ......
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Do you realize that Nadal is pretty much younger than Federer and has possibly more top years to come??
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    If you would consider Hewitt, Roddick and Safin on the same level as Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe and Roche, you would be a first class idiot. I guess you would not. Or yet???

    Federer's prime coincided with a weak era without a prime Nadal and so on...
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You underrate the important fact of the current racquets. Give Federer a wood racquet and you will be astonished how good Newcombe and Roche (two excellent claycourters!) would fare against Roger.

    A top player can attack Roger's defensive backhand...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  14. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    My friend, I have not spoken a word about Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall. I don't argue about things that I don't know about.

    Regarding Nadal getting injured, it's of course a sad thing to happen. Injuries are part of the game. He got an injury because of the highly physical style of Tennis he played. You can sympatize with him.

    You can't say that he has lonegevity if he can't complete a season at age 26! It's a very ridiculous claim coming from a person who claims to know a lot about the game
     
  15. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Nadal is pretty much younger than Feerer but for the past two years he hasn't won any Major outside of clay. It would be difficult for him to win majors like he used to win.
     
  16. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    That's another nonsense. Roger's backhand was made to look worse only by ONE player, Rafael Nadal, that too mainly on clay. His backhand couldn't adjust to the topspin shots from Nadal's lefty forehand. Nadal would have done the same to any great from the past who plays one handed back hand.

    On courts with lower bounce, not even Nadal could attack Roger's backhand. In WTF 2011, Roger beat him 6-3, 6-0

    EDIT : Regarding your first paragraph, its' just your speculation. There is no proof for that. You say that because you are a sycophant of the former players. There is no evidence for that. It's as silly as some fanboys claiming Roger/nadal/Djokovic would wipe the floor with the former players. Both are blind fanboy worshipping irrespective of how old you are :wink:
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  17. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    The pertinent point is slowing down of Wimbledon. Rafa plays five setters with absolutely nobodies in second or third round of Wimbledon. He struggles when the grass is relatively fast in the first week. Had it been old grass, I doubt he would have made all those finals..

    I read Rafa's biography. He describes about his match with Federer. He says that Roger has a more powerful weapon than him : serve. That was his main concern in the fifth set. He knew he had an edge in the rallies. That explains how much slowing down of grass helped him and put Federer at a disadvantage.

    Federer didn't have the benefit of Sampras to play on fast US Open and fast Wimbledon. He literally had to struggle for each point. That too with players who are in their prime. We all saw what happened when Roger played Djokovic at Cincinnati this year.. It's not like these guys don't know about these disadvantages that Federer face but they pretend to ignore
     
  18. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,481
    I think NSK and jackson vile don't really believe what they say about Fed. More of really good, funny trolling. They could even be Fed fans knowing how good he is simply trying to have some fun with trolling.
    Now the other names I mentioned I think really are quite vehement in their beliefs about the subject matter at hand.
     
  19. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    I've seen Bullzilla also post on another tennis forum, he may be trolling but he's also batsh!t crazy, LOLville on the other hand vigorously hates Fed (I'd hardly call it an act), Fed does have most fans on this forum but also has a ton of detractors from various fanbases (and before someones says, no, by detractors I don't presume people who don't think Fed is GOAT because then I would also count among them).

    Regarding most of the historians here (of course there are exception like Krosero who's probably the best TW poster in general and some others), their mental age is about the same as your average young (even teenage) tennis fan with his/her "my dad can beat up your dad" nonsense.

    I imagine that if BobbyOne said to/in front of Laver that Fed's level of play was/is not great that the old Rocket himself would burst out laughing.
     
  20. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    That's what Zagor! There are many Fed fans who don't buy the GOAT argument. I am also in that category. Roger has many dedicated fans and many dedicated haters from various fan bases. I think the reason is because of Roger's success. They need a reason to constantly downgrade him. It's easy to make out. Their level of argument would be exactly same as that of few teenagers who say that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic would blast the old guys off the court. The only difference is that they use their experience as a trump card to further their agenda

    EDIT : The funny thing is that these historians know more about Tennis than Rod Laver himself. Rod Laver said this about Federer "Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time - if there is such a thing. With Rafael Nadal not far behind,". Laver, obviously cannot say that "I am the best". But still the pertinent point to be noted is that the legend never mentioned any other great from the past. It's not that I indirectly say that Roger is the best of all time. But when these so called historians put Federer in third tier and outside top 10, it's nothing but bias. Sure, Roger cannot be that behind
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, I don't understand why we cannot call a career one of good longevity when the player loses a season due to injury or illness.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree. The reason is that Djokovic an Murray improved a lot.
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Why so nasty?

    You blame me as sycophant and say there is no proof for my thesis. But there is also no prove for your thesis that Nadal would have done the same to all former players. In fact Laver and Rosewall had much more variety in their backhand strokes than God Federer ever had...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    zagor, I'm sure that krosero is not a Federer fanatic as you and other youngsters are. He knows too much about tennis history to belittle the greatness of the Tildens, Gonzalezs, Rosewalls and Lavers, as some younger posters seem to do...

    I agree with your praise of him. krosero is one of my favourite posters, along pc1,Mustard, hoojem, urban and others...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, Rod Laver is a noble man.

    He did mention Lew Hoad as one of the two best.

    Laver is not infallible. Also Rosewall is not...
     
  26. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I admit, I got carried! Apologies.. My statement was also a stretch..

    However, I don't consider Federer God. I have never even stated that he is GOAT let alone God. I have been watching Tennis from 85 onwards and I had many faves starting with my childhood hero Stefan Edberg.
     
  27. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Oh but I never claimed he is, from what I've seen Krosero isn't a fanatic of any player, not surprised that you don't comprehend in the slightest the reason I made that assertion.

    BTW. disagreeing with the absurd notion that Fed's level of play wasn't/isn't great doesn't make one a Federer fanatic but rather a reasonable tennis fan who isn't completely blinded by his personal bias.
     
  28. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Can't disagree with anything you said here, I never bought the supposed evolution of the game so I consider those people who claimed that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic would blow past great away to be in the same boat as historians, given the same equipment and access to modern training, nutrition etc. I believe that the past greats would more than hold their own.

    Sorry but historians have spoken! Fed's level of play just isn't (and never was) great, we just have to accept that fact.
     
  29. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Considering Fed's level of play to be great (especially in his best years) = considering Fed to be a God.

    Following that logic it appears that I also consider Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal and Novak (among others) to be Gods as well.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    zagor, I had meant that krosero don't believe that Federer is stronger than Laver, for example.
     
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,001
    Yes, Steve Flink is also an ignorant idiot for having Federer at #1 on the list. He should try to be 1000x the idiot for not having Federer in the top 10.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    zagor, You will be astonished, but I also rate Federer's play as great. But there are several steps of greatness: Roche was great but Laver was even greater.

    Federer is great but Rosewall is even greater. And so on.
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,001
    Federer has won a record 17 Grand Slam titles, follow by Sampras at 14.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Putting Federer first is NOT the reason why I and others say that the Tennis Channel list is awful.

    The reason is: Ranking Emerson ahead of Rosewall is idiotic.

    Ranking Gonzalez at No.22 is more than idiotic...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    And you are writing about ignorance. Just you!
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You forgot Emerson at 12 who is the third best player of all time. Is n't he????
     
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,001
    Not to mention Rosewall's 4 of his 8 slams were from the amateur, and that even has less value than any of the 3 pro majors.
     
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,001
    Amateur slams doesn't the same value as the modern slams.
     
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,001
    It doesn't make sense at all. Even these players themselves don't believe they are in the top 10, let alone ahead of Federer.
     
  40. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    What does this post even mean? How is it even relevant to what was being discussed?
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    23 - 4 is still 19....
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qindarka, It's yet relevant as you and your young friends use to claim that Federer is better than the oldies.
     
  43. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    Um, that doesn't answer anything. I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to make with krosero here.

    I have never claimed that Federer was better than the oldies. It's impossible to compare between eras anyway, especially with the open era split. Kindly stop putting words into my mouth. Zagor and Feather have also mantained that Federer is not the GOAT and have not said anything bad about the great players from yesteryear.

    And again with the subtle discrediting on basis of age. It's not as if you and the rest of the historians are all so wise and mature either.
     
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    You just don't get it, do you? I don't believe Fed is stronger than Laver either, heck despite the fact that I don't adhere to the undisputed GOAT concept if I was pushed to name one I'd probably go for Laver because of his 2 Calender Grand Slams and lack of relative weakness in his resumee.

    Since I have to spell it out for you, he (Krosero) is one former pro regular who isn't biased up to his ears against Fed and looks at and analyzes his career/achievements/game with an open mind (same as he does for other tennis greats).

    Please, you said Fed's level of play is not very great and that he can only dominate when the era is weak and doesn't when the era is strong like his level of play is static and he himself doesn't affect the distribution of the biggest tourneys (and thus plays a role in whether the specific era appears weak or strong).

    The difference being that Roche isn't remotely in Laver's and Rosewall's league while Fed on the other hand is, yes Rosewall might be greater but there's not a lot separating them either way which is something you fail to understand.
     
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,334
    Guys,

    To be honest BobbyOne's achievement list is superb in my opinion. We can all disagree with the order but to me it's perfect fine and frankly better than just about any list. I can't stand achievement lists with players who have no business being in the top ten like for example Safin.

    Several things about the top playing level list. There have been a lot of complaints about Tony Roche being on the list but did you guys know that Tony Roche was considered the heir apparent to Laver? Did you guys know that Roche was so great (yes I use the term great) that in 1969, the year of Laver's Grand Slam that he was seeded number one in at least one tournament ahead of Laver! Roche had every shot. He had a terrific lefty serve, excellent backhand and forehand plus incredible hand speed that some believe was the fastest they have ever seen. His volley was around the level of Edberg and McEnroe. His backhand volley has often been called the greatest of all time. He moved well. Tony Roche won around 50 tournaments in his career and he won the French. It was only because of injuries that prevented him from being a super all time great. Did you know that when he was a coach for Lendl that he was beating Lendl regularly on grass in practice matches? And Lendl was trying because apparently he was upset at losing to old Tony Roche. Roche was an unbelievable player and to put him in the top ten all time for peak is actually a very informed and smart choice. You can agree or disagree but the man was gifted. He beat Laver and Rosewall regularly.

    The second list is the man's opinion. An opinion is just that. BobbyOne believes Federer is by achievement clearly one of the best that ever live. He also believes Federer isn't in the top ten for top level. So why the big fuss? Many of you argue that Laver isn't in the top ten for top level and some argue for achievement. Many of you argue Rosewall isn't in the top top for top level and achievement.

    Personally for top level I may put guys like Nastase and Connors in there also. I'm not sure but I would consider it. I remember reading about the match Connors played (never seen the match unfortuanately) in which Connors blasted many of Roscoe Tanner's first serves back for winner. And Tanner may be the hardest server I've seen.

    I may put Nastase there ahead of many top players.

    Tony Roche isn't spoken about much I believe because he wasn't controversial like Nastase however for top level I can see him ahead of Nastase and many others. I think for example he was more gifted than Becker and Edberg. Now that's my opinion so don't pounce on me for that.

    So what is the definition for top level? Personally I would put Bill Tilden on that list. Many believe Tilden's top level was super and his achievements are incredible. I don't understand anyone questioning Tilden being on the top achievements list. Here's Tilden's achievements from a thread I did a few months ago in the next post. Had to do that because this post would be too long.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,334
    Some of you may write that Tilden played in the 1920's. My viewpoint is how much better can you expect the man to do? He was virtually unbeatable for a decade. He won 98% when he was at his best and he played everyone from Lacoste, Johnston, Williams, Cochet, Nusslein, Vines, Perry, Budge, Riggs all the way to Pancho Gonzalez. He was about 6'2" tall, had a big serve, excellent forehand and backhand. And yes I do think he would adapt easily to today's game.

    Please don't jump on a poster simply because he disagrees with what seems to be the majority's viewpoint. I don't believe BobbyOne is writing this to incite people but simply to express his opinions. Do you really what another person going with the pack and being afraid to express his or her true feelings about a topic or do you want to see other people's opinions on a topic and see their viewpoints? I much prefer the latter. It's more to me of a learning experience. When you see different viewpoints you may understand things more. I like it when someone disagrees with me and we can have meaningful discussions. And I don't call people a troll when they disagree with me.

    I find nothing more boring than reading the same viewpoints all the time. The man is trying to express his well thought out opinions and he has spent many years apparently studying this information and researching this. You should be happy he gave the list.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  47. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,481
    Pc1 my main beef with his list was that he has the likes of Becker, Djokovic, Nadal and Roche but no Fed. Just like you historians think statements like Emerson is better than Gonzales cause he has more majors ate travesty, to me that lack of mention is travesty material too. Not talking bout ranking him Goat in this particular case, but come on playing level and still not make it but those guys do? Although it's an opinion, to me it's beyond ridiculous. None of those those guys' peaks or playing level are even close
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  48. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    If that's the case then why are you arguing with people who claim modern pros would wipe the floor with past greats? Or with people who claim Fed's BH is GOAT and Laver hit grandpa slice?

    Afteral it's just an opinion yet your reaction was one of shock and awe to that one poster's assertion that Fed's BH was better than Laver's.

    You can understand how for some of us not having Fed in top 10 list that is based on the level of play (or claiming his level of play is not very great) and longevity(particular LOLworthy) is just as absurd, yes? Or is that too much of a stretch for you? Oh and no before you resort to strawman, that doesn't mean all of us believe Fed is the undisputed GOAT, God among mortals etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2012
  49. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    By the same token, you and Hoodjem shouldn't jump on Arche3 jut because his opinion is different to the majority.

    I think it was very enlightening to see someone like Arche3 have such a radically different viewpoint, it made me understand more about the greatness of Fed's BH and weakness of Laver's grandpa push/slice of a BH (not really, but you get the point).
     
  50. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I don't know whether you are pretending ignorant or you are really ignorant.

    Neither me nor Zagor was trying to prove to you that Roger is better than Laver. I would sound like a total idiot if I watch the youtube links of Laver videos and then claim that Roger is better than Laver.

    What is the meaning of the word "longevity" ?

    You made a list of top ten players, excluded Federer, and included both Nadal and Djokovic. Come on, gimme a break. Roger is winning slam at age 31, you exclude them and include 25, 26 year old guys claiming they have more longevity. Doesn't it look incredibly stupid for such an esteemed historian like you?

    I can accept you including the names of players who played much longer than Federer play. There are greats who played Tennis till their late 30s or even into 40s. I don't know but Nadal and Djokovic, that's plain stupid..

    And you back up with weak era theory.

    Your intention was just to rile Roger Federer fans with that comment, some how state that Roger is not the best even in his generation let alone all time. And anyone question that would be labelled as a guy who believes Federer is GOAT..

    One thing is sure, a guy who has achieved this much in Tennis, widely accepted by legends as closest to the best, can't be third tier category as claimed by kiki or a weak era champion as portrayed by you!

    Seriously, Rod Laver and all those who anointed Roger Federer would have some sense to see through this weak era nonsense
     

Share This Page