Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    I have a problem with Sampras. He dominated a fairly weak field. An inconsistent Agassi and Ivanisevic, Rafter and others of lesser talent provided limited opposition. Emerson also must be regarded as lucky, considering that after Laver turned pro, only Santana offered great opposition.
    Tilden also faced a relatively weak field, with only one or two serious opponents.
    Borg was fortunate to win five straight Wimbledons, as his game was made for clay, not grass. After Newcombe's decline, there were no great grass players until McEnroe came along.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  2. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    I'd bump Lendl up a tier, Mac up a tier and Wilander possibly up one. Lendl I feel gets underrated alot.
     
  3. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I dont think Lendl belongs in a higher tier than Connors, so the only way I would bump Lendl up is if I did Connors as well (which could be argued I suppose). I actually think Connors is the better of the two, both in overall record and level of play.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You damage a bit my Christmas joy by your stubborness.

    You are totally wrong regarding your rating of the 1953 top amateur. Even considering Hoad's great play in Davis Cup that year it's totally absurd to give Lew the top place. Look at the records!

    Kramer offered a pro contract to Hoad because of Lew's attractive, flashy power game not because Hoad was the best amateur. At least Trabert and Rosewall were more successful than Lew through 1955.

    In fact Hoad was better than Rosewall only in 1956 and arguably in 1959. In 1958 they were even. In all other years from 1953 to 1966 Rosewall had the edge.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I agree that Sampras, Emerson and Borg had rather weak opposition. I also would say that Federer in his prime had a rather weak field (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin).

    Borg did very well adapt his game to grass but I believe that the best grasscourters, i.e. Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe would give him tougher opposition.
     
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Hoad peaked at Davis Cup THE PREMIER EVENT IN TENNIS between 1946 and 1967. The best players peak for the best events.
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    We totally agree.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I never contradicted that Davis Cup was the peak event in those times.

    But the GS tournaments were also very important. Is n't it a shame for a players who claims to be the No.1 player to fail in the all GS tournaments with the exception of the US SF?
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Merry Chistmas, Dan.
     
  10. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Interesting thoughts. I dont think Sampras had weak opposition at Wimbledon though. Becker, Ivanisevic (who would be a 4 or 5 time Wimbledon Champ without Pete), Agassi (who usually played well at Wimbledon), is already substantial competition there, along with other challengers who were excellent on grass, like Rafter, Krajicek, Philipoussis, Henman. At the U.S Open it could be argued Sampras had fairly weak competition, but he did go 4-0 vs Andre Agassi there, all years Agassi was playing very well, and Agassi being one of the best hard courters of the Open Era himself, so that is solid evidence of his abilities there IMO.

    I agree with you on the others though. Bill Tilden seemed to play Bill Johnson in the final of the U.S Open every single year which doesnt speak much to the depth then, especialy as it is not like the other Bill is considered an all time great. Granted he was older by then, but once people like Cochet, LaCoste, began to emerge, and he began playing someone other than the other Bill in every single final, he was immediately not dominant, and rarely even winning.

    I agree there wasnt much depth on grass during the height of Borg's dominance. His only real competition was Connors, who wasnt exactly a grass specialist, despite his excellent resume on the surface. That is until McEnroe began to emerge as a major force, which at Wimbledon atleast wasnt even until 1980 (in general late 79, sometime after Wimbledon). On clay he didnt have that much competition either, his main rival was Vilas who could get barely get any games off him.

    I would also say Federer at the peak of his dominance had very little worthy opposition. Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin were his main competition off of clay in 2004/early 2005, then in late 2005-early 2007 that was downgraded further to Davydenko, Nalbandian, and Ljubicic as his main competition on non clay surfaces. Only when Nadal began to become a contender on grass and hard courts, and Djokovic emerged, did Federer begin to have some semblance of worthy competition.
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NadalAgassi, You have convinced me regarding Sampras and his opposition.

    I think Johnston is yet an all-time great and it's not a blame for the two Bills that they mostly met in the US finals. There were a few other strong competitors like Richards, Hunter, Williams and Patterson but Tilden and Johnston just were stronger.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  12. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I can expect a Wimbledon win from a guy who reaches 4 finals (5 including Wimbledon pro) !

    Certainly you can't call a guy with this record GOAT. If he was really GOAT he would have won at least one of these matches! It doesn't matter if he was 'prine' or not, if he was GOAT, he should have won one!

    I hope you understand my reasoning even I you don't agree with me.
     
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    I see your reasoning but I do think it's very flawed. Let's use Federer as an example. Federer first played Wimbledon in 1999 at the young age of 18 and lost in the first round. He didn't even come close to reaching the final. Federer lost in the first round the next year at age 19. At age 20 Federer reached the QF before losing in the first round again at age 21 the next year. Federer was too young and not matured as a tennis player yet. He would more than make up that later.

    Rosewall at age 17 reached the second round of Wimbledon. At age 18 he reached the QF and at age 19 he was in the final. As we all know he lost that final, but reached the SF and final in the next two years. Rosewall was not at his peak as a player yet. Rosewall turned pro and eventually became easily the dominant player in tennis on all surfaces. These were his best years but he was unable to play the majors at all. In the meantime Rosewall dominated for a few years in the Pros winning at Wembley, the pro equivalent in my opinion to Wimbledon five times. You are also not giving any credit to Rosewall for winning the Australian and the French in 1953 when he was a teenager. As you know Rosewall turned pro after winning US Championship in 1956 while still 19 years old. After that he was unable to play in 11 Wimbledons from 1957 to 1967. He would have had a fantastic chance to win several Wimbledons during that time. If Federer turned pro at 19 or 20 how many majors would have won so far? Answer would be zero.

    Losing in the final of a major is actually better than losing in the first round but still the results are the same. Would you say that Federer should have won QF of Wimbledon in 2001? By your logic if he was championship material he should have won. My opinion was that Federer wasn't quite ready yet to win Wimbledon. His game had not matured yet to what it would be. In other words he was too young and inexperienced. That is my point with Ken Rosewall also. Rosewall later played John Newcombe in the 1970 Wimbledon final. one of the all time great grass court players. Rosewall was 35 when he played Newcombe and lost in five sets. That's is hardly a bad defeat. Rosewall later that year crushed Newcombe in the 1970 US Open and went on to defeat Tony Roche in four sets to win the US Open on grass.

    Rosewall in 1974 at the age of 39 (!) reached the Wimbledon final against the great Jimmy Connors by defeating Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith. Rosewall was easily beaten in the finals by Connors who was clearly the superior player but the fact that Rosewall reached the final over that type of opposition is astonishing. During the Open Era Rosewall was too old to be the truly dominant player that he was yet he still won Australian Opens, the US Open, the French Open and two WCT championships.

    You can't penalize Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon much as you can't penalize Pancho Gonzalez for the same thing. They both weren't allowed to play the majors for many years. When Gonzalez and Rosewall came back to play the majors they were too old to be the dominant players they used to be. Rosewall was younger by a few years so he was still capable of winning majors.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  14. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
     
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Nothing against Rosewall, but he's only one person who came up with that top 4, which doesn't say much. Brugerra said Federer is 10 times better than Sampras, but you don't see people going around weighin on his opinion all the the time. Many experts don't even have Hoad in the top 10. A team of experts from The Tennis Channel have him at #19(top male player), far more insightful info than using one person's(Rosewall) opinion.

    ROFL you having Sampras at #10. He's definitely in the top 5, and only Federer is a slam dunk ahead of him.

    Having Hoad in the top 10 is generous. I wouldn't be a bit surprise if some experts out there have Nole ahead of him.
     
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    I didn't mean to say mickey mouse titles mean nothing. It's just that they have little value in comparison to the big events like the slams. If Connors was so great in winning 109 titles why did he only won 8 slams? While Nadal only has 50 titles but he won 11 slams. The difference is winning slam is 1000x more difficult than winning mickey mouse titles. Any unkown/unranked player can win a small title, but winning a slam? There' not that many players have managed to reach the slam final alone.
     
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Hoad nearly won Wimbledon in 1953 (he did win Queens Club, beating Rosewall in the final).
     
  18. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest



    Roddick and Hewitt even at their best are not all time greats, or even close to it, so for a so called GOAT they are weak to have as your main competition.

    As for the other top 4s you listed I would say 2002 is a bit stronger excluding Federer (who obviously doesnt count as his own competition as he cant play himself). All time great Agassi in the top 2, Hewitt at his true peak, not a bit past it like 2004, Safin at his true peak (which was really 2000-2002), and Ferrero who is comparable to 04 Safin or Hewitt probably. Still not outstanding but better than 2004. 1999 was easily stronger for the simple fact of having both Sampras and Agassi there. 2000 with Sampras near his best, Kuerten a 3 slam winner who also won the WTF that year, and Safin at his all time peak, I would say was stronger too. Not that any of that period (1996-2006) in a historical sense was a strong time for mens tennis at all anyway though.

    Just so you know even past his prime Agassi won most of his matches with Hewitt and Roddick. He was 3-3 vs Hewitt from 2002-his retirement, but won their biggest match at the U.S Open. He was 5-1 lifetime vs Roddick and 2-1 even in 2003 and 2004. So if Agassi was playing well enough to be top 4 he was still better than prime Hewitt or prime Roddick probably, even in his early to mid 30s. Hewitt benefited from Agassi not playing as much to preserve his back to end #1 in 2001 and 2002, but many felt Agassi was the better player even those years.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2012
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Rosewall is no Goat. He qualify to be in top 10 at best. Top 10 is such a short list when so many players can qualify. Adding Rosewall in the top 10, you would have to remove Budge, Agassi, or Connors, but these players have strong case to be in the top 10. Rosewall falls into a grey area, it's like a flip of a coin to put him in the top 10.
     
  20. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
     
  21. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Rosewall was close to prime when he played the Wimbledon finals in 1956 and 1967, but in those two finals he faced two of the all-time top three players. What bad luck.
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Not so. Rosewall made that evaluation in 2010, but in 1962 Rosewall made a similar statement:
    "I would have to rate Gonzales a notch ahead of Hoad, although when the latter is "on" he is the greatest of all time".

    Gonzales himself rated Hoad number one all-time in 1969 and 1995, both in interviews with Anderson and the NY Times.

    Laver (in January 2012) rated Hoad number one for the pre-open era, and stated that a Hoad/Federer match would be the greatest match of all time.

    Sedgman rated Kramer and Gonzales one and two, but stated (in 1964) that Hoad was "unbeatable" when playing well.

    Buchholz in 2007 rated Hoad number one all-time.

    Krishnan in 2011 rated Hoad number one all-time.

    Davidson rated Hoad number one all-time.

    Emerson, Newcombe, Roche all rated Hoad number one all-time.

    Why do I value these opinions over others? Because these guys played against Hoad hundreds of times.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  23. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,409
    regarding the weak era of fed:

    03-06 certainly was not a strong era but I would say the late 90s were worse.

    the 90s are generally regarded a strong era but this applies more to the early to mid 90s.

    at the end of the 90s (say 98 on) becker was gone and sampras was already in decline. guys like kafelnikov, moya and rios were number one.

    I would say 98-02 was a really bad era. look who won slams:
    korda, moya, rafter, kafelnikov, johanson, costa and goran. this time also saw rios, moya, safin and kafelnikov as number 1 players.
     
  24. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Bill Johnston was the second best player in the world during the period of Bill Tilden's dominance. They dominated in Davis Cup, winning it 7 years in a row.

    But Cochet and Lacoste had been around for a while before they toppled Tilden in 1926-1927. Cochet was winning the World Covered Court Championships as early as 1922. Tilden eventually got to grips with the Musketeers by 1929 and into the 1930s, winning another US Championships and Wimbledon, and generally owning Cochet in the professional game from 1932 onwards.

    Connors, Tanner, Nastase, Gerulaitis, Vilas, Gottfried.

    The matches between Borg and Vilas were pretty epic, even if the scorelines were one-sided. Other good clay-court players were Ramirez, Orantes, Gerulaitis, Nastase, Panatta, Pecci and Barazzutti. Borg was in a league of his own, though.

    Muster has won masters series titles on hardcourt and carpet. Without the latter, he would never have been world number 1.
     
  25. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Ok, lets take it step by step. 2002 has a strong top 4 but not nearly as the 2004 top 4, i stand by my view, Hewitt and Safin reached their peaks in 2004 (it could be argued if the best Safin ever was the one who won Madrid and Paris back to back and pushed Fed really hard at the TMC or the 2005 AO version, but both of them are really close). Hewitt played his best tennis ever at the 2004 US Open (didn`t lose a single set on route to the final, and it needed the best performance ever from Fed on an outdoor hardcourt to beat him. Ferrero was a decent player back in 2002 but he hasn`t even reached his best form on clay much less on other surfaces, if not for chiken pox and some injuries he would have reached his peak around 2004. Yes, Agassi was highly competitive still but his body couldn`t hold up a full calendar, such a player would not be the toughest rival one could ask for. Besides you had 2 "weak" slam champions that year (if there is such a thing) and way past his prime Sampras winning another, in 2004 only Gaudio could wear that label (and he only won because of a massive choke by Coria).
    About 1999.... really??? Enqvist??? and Kafelnikov was below Roddick, Safin and Hewitt level. So no, 2004 had a stronger field at the top.
    2000...well, a top 4 with Magnus Norman would never ever be strong, at least as the 2004. Kuerten was only a force on clay really with a few decent results on other surfaces but nothing outstanding. His 2000 tmc win seemed almost a fluke to me, he took advantage of an unusual slow surface at the time and the crowd was almost entirely behind him. I take nothing away from him, as he played at a really good level but the circumstances were mainly in his favor.
     
  26. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Muster has won masters series titles on hardcourt and carpet. Without the latter, he would never have been world number 1.[/QUOTE]

    It was his only decent result outside of clay in the entire year, for a top player that is pretty bad. He even skipped Wimbledon :twisted:. To close the deal, he went 0-3 in the Masters
     
  27. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Mustard, thanks for the "omnibus" answers. Saves space.

    The point about Tilden was that he had LIMITED opposition, which you confirm unwittingly by admitting that there was really no one around but Tilden and Johnston.
    Williams beat Johnston in 1916, before his military service, by about the same margin as Tilden did in the early 1920's, but Williams returned from WWI in lesser form. (In baseball, Grover Cleveland Alexander, the number one pitcher in the game, returned from war service in reduced form.)

    In a really great field you should have multiple contenders.
    Let's look at the greatest field of all, the pro tennis field of the late 1950's.
    In the two world tournament championships of 1958 and 1959, you had the following winners:

    1) Hoad: 7 tournaments
    2) Gonzales: 5 tournaments
    3) Rosewall: 3 tournaments
    4) Sedgman: 2 tournaments
    5) Trabert: 1 tournament
    6) Segura: 1 tournament

    In significant tournaments outside the championship series, the winners included Anderson and Cooper, with one win each.

    This is what a great field looks like, with about 8 or more players contending with a realistic chance of success.
    If one player wins about 97% of his matches, that is a clear sign of a weak field, regardless of how good the dominant player is.
    Kramer, Gonzales, and Hoad won about 70% of their matches in a dominant year, which shows the quality of the opposition they faced.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  28. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Agassi only won tournaments on hardcourt in 1995.
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983,

    I'm sorry, I neither can agree with you nor can I understand your logic. Your approach to tennis history (and sports history generally) seems to me very wrong.

    The prime issue is the key issue in our question. You can't expect from a player that he wins very much outside of his prime! It's fine if he succeeds as very young and/or very old player and it makes him thus the more great as in Rosewall's case who won several majors in off-prime years. But you cannot take as granted that he wins as much as in his prime years, not even as GOAT candidate or possible GOAT.

    If you take the same measure as you use in Rosewall's case also for Laver, Sampras and Federer then you must blame them for not winning Wimbledon at 19,21 and at 35,39. They all have won their Wimbledons in a life's age when Rosewall (and Gonzalez for that matter) could not participate at Wimbledon at all. If they would have banned from Wimbledon competing for 11 or 13 years, they would not have their 4, 7 and 7 titles. They actually would have zero (ZERO!) Wimbledon titles!!!

    Your argumentation remembers me to that of TMF and other Federer admirers.
    Most experts rank Rosewall rather high because they know about his bad luck of losing 11 (or13) years to the pros.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Rosewall was close to prime (which I rate for Rosewall 1957 to 1965) in the 1956 and 1967 Wimbledon finals he played in, but he faced two players from the all-time top three, both at their peak. What bad luck.
     
  31. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    No the difference is that in his best years he didn't play as many classic majors like they do now. He also focused on other tournaments like the WCT championship of which he won two. The WCT championship was really a major in those days and he also won the Masters. He also had one huge obstacle in his way during his peak years, Bjorn Borg. Connors was playing essentially two to three majors a year. That's not too many a year. Federer for example plays four majors a year almost every year.

    From 1974 to 1978, his peak years, Connors only played 12 majors and was in the finals of 11 of them, winning five. He lost to Borg in several of them and would lost to Borg in later years too at Wimbledon and the US Open. Connors was beating everyone else but Borg.

    Connors was a great player. You keep harping on the majors and calling everything else Mickey Mouse because your hero has won the most classic majors and that's his calling card to greatness. The problem I have is you put down others like Nadal or Connors because they don't have the number 17 in their resume. Now Federer has won 17 majors in 54 attempts which is a superb winning percentage of 31.5. But did you know that Nadal has won 11 out of 33 for a higher winning percentage? Rosewall for example has won 23 majors in 69 attempts, also 33.33% and higher than Federer. Now maybe Nadal won't keep it up but remember, great players, given the chance when they are at their peak and healthy tend to win majors. I don't think Connors had as many chances. Some of it was that he didn't play the Australian, a tournament he probably could have won several more times. Connors certainly was superior on grass at the Australian than Guillermo Vilas, who won two Australian Opens or Johan Kriek who also won two Australian Opens.

    It's simple numbers, if a great player plays a lot of the majors during his peak year or close to peak years, he or she has great chances to win a lot of majors. You don't have to be a super mathematician to figure that out.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's a Dan Lobb speciality to claim that Hoad nearly won Wimbledon when he actually lost already in the QFs!
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Sorry TMF, but I have expanded the list.
     
  34. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    He was all over Seixas in that QF, but lost in a strange way, as 18 year old players sometimes do.
    Hoad made up for it in the Davis Cup final, where one of his groundstrokes KNOCKED SEIXAS OFF HIS FEET and crumpled Seixas' composure.
    No contest.
    (I do urge you to obtain the DVD of that match and watch the point. Unbelievable.)
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, Thanks for your explanation of the matter. But I fear that Phoenix will not be much impressed by your or my arguments...
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Rosewall won more than Budge, Agassi and Connors and even your darling...
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, all the rankings of these players don't fit for a GOAT list. They all referred to Hoad's peak level, NOT to his achievements. I wonder when you will accept reality...

    When did Hoad play Krishnan, Newcombe and Roche hundreds of times??
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dominik, I agree.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, I cannot disagree here...
     
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Bobby, it IS an ACHIEVEMENT of the highest order to raise your game to the highest level ever, and MAINTAIN it at that level for a period of five years.
    As far as consistency is concerned, Hoad reached a high degree of consistency as well in that period, comparable to other greats.
    There is no dichotomy between peak level and achievement in Hoad's career, as you seem to suggest.

    Hoad played Krishnan sometime in 1956-7, as Krishnan states. Krishnan also states that Hoad's power exceeded the recent levels of Fed and Sampras.
    Newcombe and Roche played unofficially with Hoad many times, and shared arm-raising exercises at the bar.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, It's great that a player reaches the highest level and can keep it for five years (which years of Hoad? I only count 1958 and 1959) but rankings usually are made by considering a player's achievements alone or to the greater part.

    There really is a dichotomy between Hoad's peak level (very high) and his achievements (rather "medium").

    Please accept: Your No. 5 player, Rosewall outclassed your No.1 ,Hoad by far: Rosewall won 23 majors, Hoad won 4 majors.
     
  42. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    He was a semifinalist at Wimbledon and a quarterfinalist at Roland Garros. What were Muster`s results at the other Majors besides RG?? Even if you take his whole career he was rather weak outside of clay for a top player, only 2 semifinal at AO and 2 master series titles. Don`t get me wrong, he was a very good player who excelled on clay, and was below average on other surfaces for a top player standard.
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    This is an example of what I mean: which majors do you refer to?
    In my estimation, winning a major against peak Gonzales is worth more than winning a major against a lesser player. Only sensible to look at it this way.
    (And I think we disagree as to which tournaments constitute major status, for sure.)
    Yes, I think that Forest Hills Pro, Kooyong Pro are majors.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, you can argue that Forest Hills was a pro major, but it's just The One and Only Dan L. who claims that Kooyong Pro was a major...
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Incidentally since you brought up the subject of losing major finals I do want to point out a fallacy that I believe people have. People often point out Pete Sampras' great record in finals as proof what a great clutch player he was. I think he was 14-4. Now Federer doesn't have the same winning percentage in finals as Sampras winning 17 of 24. But looking at finals alone is an incorrect way of looking at things. The real numbers to look at is the amount of majors entered and amount of majors won. Sampras won 14 majors in 52 attempts for a percentage of 26.92. Federer so far has won 17 out of 54 for a superior percentage of 31.48. Federer is clearly better.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You obviously insinuate that all these players are or were idiots when ranking Hoad first. Of course they are/were aware about Hoad's weak record.

    Sedgman expressed it clearly what also the others think/thought about Lew: He was the best when playing well or even unbeatable.

    There never was a single expert who ranked Hoad all-time No. 1 altogether (that means including achievements). You are the very first "expert" to do so.

    Dan, A friend of mine said that I should not answer your strange posts in order to protect my nerves but for the moment I will continue the never ending story because I still hope and believe that a person can improve his or her opinions....

    So, let us hope you will improve in the coming new year...
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    I don't know if those are true. At least my quotes are exactly coming from these ex-players, and they are more recent than any of yours.


    "I have to give it to him," he said. "He's won all the majors[15] now, and he will win a few more. So in my book he is."
    -Sampras

    “For me he is the greatest player ever to play the game”
    -Borg

    “Roger is just the greatest player of all time”
    -McEnroe

    “Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing”
    -Laver
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, At least the players of your quotes are referring to achievements in comparison to the Hoad quotes and more reasonable.

    Nevertheless I would say that there are a few greats who achieved even more than Federer.

    I wish you fruitful discussions with Dan Lobb....
     
  49. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621

    you're just being an excuse machine. Federer won his 11th major 21 majors ago (2007 wimbledon) -- that's right, in his 33rd slam entered.

    In his peak, connors won 5/12 slams (42%); Federer won 12/20 (60%). Feel free to include the WCT and WTF if you wish. you're just being intellectually dishonest if you try to argue that connors' 109 titles are directly comparable to Federer's 77 (41 of these are masters 1000 or better -- i haven't counted, but can you give a similar number for connors?).

    Let's apply your argument in the last paragraph of your post to connors' and tournaments: during his peak years, connors frequently played 20+ touranments (23 and 25 in a couple of years). Compare that with Federer --the max he played during his prime was 17 IIRC, and he has a packed schedule. Obviously, connors is going to win more because he played more! Also, it calls into question the quality of the tournament wins when he only had to win 4 matches to win the tournament.. about connors skipping a lot of slams -- surely, he played other tournaments (and won) during that time, correct? given all this, it's not a stretch to claim that connors 109 titles are padded up with mm tournaments -- that is not a slight; that is the truth.

    why don't you ever bring that up, instead of constantly trying to explain away Federer's success as nothing special (your posting history indicates that -- you have a problem with acknowledging that Federer *could* be the greatest of all time, despite all that he has accomplished. And no, some of the records he has set has no parallel in history, despite how you want to twist arguments in favor of the old-timers).
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
  50. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Interesting explanation. I agree that major are not everything. It make me mad when people argue for example that Corretja is a better player than Andy Murray just because he has 2 slams to 1 for Murray. Murray has a far better resume on every other aspect of the game (total number if titles, number of master 1000, consistency, success on all surfaces, etc.). Similarly, titles is not everything. Finals and semi-finals mean something too.

    But where I think you have a bit of a double standard here. For different reasons, Connors didn't play a lot of slam, and we can reasonably believe that he could have won a lot more if he did. He focused on smaller tournament, and being a great player, he won a bunch. The same reasoning can be applied to Federer. For some reasons, he focused on slam and won more of them than anybody else (facing, if not the best opposition ever, a great opposition because nobody reach a slam final by mistake). For some reasons, he didn't play a lot of smaller tournament, but we can reasonably believe that he could have won a lot of them if he did.

    Next, winning percentage is interesting, but it is biased toward shorter carreer. Borg has the best winning percentage because he rose to the top very fast, dominated, then left before his fall. It is the same for Nadal, whom winning percentage is likely to drop if he continue. If he quit, he will artificially maintain his high winning percentage. Winning percentage means something only with a lot of data (Connors 90% winning percentage at AO doens't mean anything).

    Finally, if a great player plays a lot of major during his peak, he is more likely to meet other great player (Nadal) in the final than if he plays Gstaad or Acapulco.
     

Share This Page