Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    The kind of reply I expected, sadly.

    When you win a slam title, you win it at the expense of others. That is the nature of tennis. When you get players who dominate the sport, others don't win slam titles.

    Apparently, if you want to be the "goat" you must dominate other players, but let them win some slams every now and then.

    Better luck next time. :)
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    hahaha...have you heard of how great Bagdatis,Philipoussis,Nalbandian,Tsonga,Berdich,Soderling,Gonzalez ( not Gonzales) were????

    How many titles against that creep turns it to be?
     
  3. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I haven't heard. If I had heard such a thing, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic wouldn't have won as many slams and displayed such domination.

    Greater parity does not imply a stronger era.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You must have iron in your head to write such a nonsense. Give us facts to disprove me and others!
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Both is right: The giants of the past had tougher opposition and yet amassed so many titles (more than GOAT Federer)...
     
  6. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Would you mind proving it? Kiki has already posted six or so names that have failed to show anything, but perhaps you have something else?

    If you had any intellectual honesty, you would also remember the things we have discussed before so that we don't have to talk about the same things over and over again.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I think it's very difficult to argue against Iron Man and NadalDramaQueen because we have a different kind of objectivity....

    NadalDramaQueen did too long read and post on GeneralPPD to be objective...
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The great names of the past (I could provide a huge amount) speak for themselves. You will never admit that a Laver was greater than a Federer and a Ashe better than Roddick. So I can't help you...

    I must confess: I'm too stupid to understand your logic!!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2012
  9. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I figured you didn't have anything better. One day, you will understand what it means to have a discussion where you try and back up your points with facts and understand that your interpretation may be incorrect.

    Until then, you will continue bashing on players you dislike and making up things to support the players you do.

    At least have fun while doing it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2012
  10. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,215
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Ignore him - he and kiki post the same drivel over and over again even when you try and get an earnest insight out of them. At least the others in this forum back up their opinions with articles, videos, book quotes, etc.
     
  11. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I think you are new here.

    Kiki is probably jealous of Roger Federer. The weak era crap is something that they invent to belittle Roger. We all recently saw how an old washed up Hewitt took a set off Novak Djokovic at his fave surace this year, lolz This poster is obsessed with Roger and is here only to express extreme hatred for Roger. If you try to reason with that particular poster, the response would be "*******" or something like that. According to Kiki, Roger is in the third tier. Why waste time arguing with such a person?

    I consider Roger Federer as one of the greatest players of all time and I am happy with it. I think the term GOAT is a disservice to all the players who have played so well in different time playing against different opponents and with different equipments.
     
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    1. federer
    2. sampras
    3. borg
    4. gonzales
    5. tilden
    6. lendl
    7. nadal
    8. mac
    9. connors
    10.agassi

    ..........

    30. laver
    40. rosewall

    laver and rosewall - because they won mostly in the weakest era of all time !!!!
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  13. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    dumbo kiki has no clue whatsover about tennis. There was not one year, not one, where laver,hoad,rosewall, gonzales played anywhere near their best tennis ......

    63, gonzales was not there...

    by 64 Hoad was affected by injuries ...

    kiki and his imaginary foursome ...... bah !!!!

    mac,borg, connors, lendl had those years in 80 and 81 .....

    lendl, edberg, wilander,becker in 85,86,87,88 .....
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  14. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I respect your knowledge and just out of curiosity, may I ask one question. Where would Stefan Edberg come in your list of all time greats? Approximate position. I used to be a die hard fan of that guy as a kid, my childhood hero :)
     
  15. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    he was 5-2 vs nadal outside of clay ( from 2004-2007 ) ...... still steamrolls him every time at the YEC ( 4-0 ) ... still leads H2H outside of clay , 8-6 .....

    jimmy connors was able to dominate a young borg - they didn't play that many matches on red clay at all....... but was almost completely overwhelmed by borg once borg hit his peak ..... federer OTOH can and still crushes nadal when in form ( see YEC 2011 with a bagel , even IW 2012 on a slow HC with windy conditions , comprehensive straight sets win )

    yes, federer does have a matchup problem with nadal, but that is skewed hugely by their clay court matches ( more than 50% of their matches on clay even though clay is only about 30% of the tour ? half their slam meetings at RG, only one of the 4 slams ? ) ......

    the matchup problem and H2H is often over-stated ....

    mono affected federer in 2008 ...... he played quite a bit better in 2009 .... even 2012 may turn out to be a better year for federer than 2008 ....
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    all those players are better than someone like drsydale who beat him at the US Open in 68 .....

    roddick, tsonga,scud in particular inflict blowouts on Kodes outside of clay , one of the representatives of the Laver era - weakest era of all time !!
     
  17. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,050
    Location:
    Weak era
    Er, people consider Fed to have declined in 2008 (or just having a subpar year for his standards) not because of his matches/losses to Nadal but rather because of his peformance against the rest of the field, I thought that was self explanatory to everyone who has followed the game at the time (I was wrong apparently).

    In 2008 Fed:

    -Got destroyed by Mardy Fish (who was getting 30% 1st serves in), first loss ever to him.

    -Lost to Karlovic for the first time ever.

    -Lost to Blake for the first time ever.

    -Lost to Stepanek for the first time ever.

    -Lost to Roddick for the first time after 5 years.

    -Was on the brink of losing in the early rounds in both HC slams.

    -Went into USO that year without reaching a single final on HC (which is his best or 2nd best surface).


    Now either all of those guys improved alongside Nadal or Fed's level also dropped.

    I personally think it was a combination of Fed's level dipping and Nadal improving as a player but of course I'm a Fed fanatic (certainly not an objective historian) so take that with a grain of salt.

    Not really, no one stabbed Nadal.

    No, you said he has GOAT credentials, there's a clear difference.

    It would be like me saying Justin Bieber sells a lot of records, that doesn't mean I don't consider him to be a vastly overrated talentless hack, not that it's the best example as the music field (or any field that can be considered to be a form of art) isn't that comparable with any professional sport but I'm sure you'll get what I'm trying to say .
     
  18. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,947
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    It's amazing how often this fact is forgotten, or dismissed. For about half a year he would randomly sweat a ridiculous amount during certain matches, and it must have messed up his training for a while as well. Certainly, his results against the field were indicative of an obvious dip in level, but even without that, if one just uses their eyes and watched and compares the quality of his play generally in 2008 to the few years previous, then it's strikingly clear and obvious that his level had slightly deteriorated.
     
  19. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,947
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Your positions of 30 and 40 are troll attempts, right? Please say it is so...
     
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Would "knowing that he's better than your worshipped heroes" be an example of the reason and objectivity you are demanding of others? How about "you overrate players who have neither the talent of Federer nor his resume?"

    From what I've seen, your post above is representative of the extent of reason and objectivity that I've seen from TT's sub 18 club who think tennis started in 2003.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  21. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Your arrogance is exceeded only by your hypocrisy.
     
  22. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Really? Prove it? What do you know about Drysdale or Kodes? Have you ever seen either of them play?
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  23. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Thanks for the kind words. It's tough enough to make a top 10 list, and I could change my mind tomorrow. One of the criteria I rely on is my personal observation. I've seen all of the players in my top 10 list play, except for Gonzales.

    Arguments can be made that Edberg, Becker and Rosewall should be in the top 10. (BobbyOne thinks Rosewall should be tied for #1 with Laver. I don't see it). Certainly a peak Edberg could beat anyone on a fast court on any given day. He had an all time great net game and an all time great backhand. He had a great kick serve to come in on. But, his forehand was erratic. It could be attacked and he shanked balls at inopportune moments.

    Top 15 is easier to justify in light of the players I've got in the top 10. But, in addition to those 3, there are also John Newcombe, Jack Kramer, Don Budge, Bill Tilden. Since I didn't see Kramer or Tilden play (or Budge in his prime), it gets all the more difficult for me to reconcile where they should be ranked among each other.

    That's the best I can do for now.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    If you go through my posts you will realize that I often back my opinions by facts.
     
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    well ...... not so subtle, is it ? :twisted:
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I use to back my claims with pure numbers and facts, f.i. I repeatedly gave the Rosewall-Laver balance of 10:7 in big events. But some posters seem to ignore that...
     
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I would say the deterioration was more than slight ..... the footwork and FH in particular had gone haywire ....... only thing keeping him in in many matches was the serve .....

    then he had back problems that affected him from end of 2008 up until madrid 2009 or so .... withdrew from Paris because of that, took MTOs in the YEC match vs murray in RR in 2008 ...... his serving was affected quite a bit by that ....
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks for that funny joke!
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I must correct you: In 1964 all four were pretty strong: Gonzalez almost as strong as Rosewall and Laver, and Hoad, f.i. beat Rosewall 8:1 (pro set) at Wembley...
     
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    drysdale made only one grand slam final in a highly weakened amateur field .......... Do I need to say more ?

    I've seen Kodes play in a few matches ....... peak levels of roddick, tsonga, scud easily exceed that of Kodes outside of clay .......
     
  31. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    I have for Laver-Rosewall in "big" events: Paris Coubertin 0-4,US pro champs Forest Hills and Boston 3-2, Wembley 3-0, Wimbledon pro 1967 1-0, Paris RG clay 1-1. For big events in open era its quite difficult to separate "big" events: probably WCT Dallas 1971 and 72 0-2 (the third place playoff 1973 was imo no big event), maybe Masters 1970 1-0 (if one sees really the Masters as a big event in 1970). One can also consider at least the Classic Series final of 1970 at MSG a big event, it was for the then unheard sum of 35.000 $ for the winner. One could also consider the LA 1968 final as a big event, because it decided the World ranking of the year, or the 1970 Sydney Dunlop final. Not a big event but quite important for both players was the 1973 Sydney indoor semi, because it decided the inclusion in the Davis Cup singles spot.
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    I never hated Federer. I even like his character.

    I rank Federer at No.6 or 7 in my all-time list. Not too bad, I think
     
  33. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    was talking about playing at a high level for many matches over a year ...not isolated matches here and there ....

    As far as I am aware, Rosewall beat Hoad handily, 6-3,6-2 in the british pro championships in 64 @wembley ....
     
  34. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    At least Gonzales and Tilden snuck in there.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I understand your objections but I still mean f.i. that Wimbledon 1967 was not a major because it was held only once. I also still would rate Dallas 1973 a big event, even the match for third place. Remember the prestige of the event.
     
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    A weak field? In 1965, the top seeds of the U.S. Open were Roy Emerson, Fred Stolle, Dennis Ralston, Manuel Santana, Arthur Ashe, Rafael Osuna, Chuck McKinley, Cliff Drysdale. Only Ralston and Drysdale did not have a major singles title. Drysdale beat Rafael Osuna (U.S. Open Champion), Charlie Pasarell, Dennis Ralston (U.S. Open finalist), Vic Seixas (Wimbledon and U.S. Open Champion), among others and eventually lost to Manuel Santana (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, 2 time French Open Champion), in the final in 4 sets.

    Tell me, where did you see Kodes play?
     
  37. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Its the typical end of those threads here, a war between *******s and "haters". Maybe some of the young posters here should think twice about opinions by people who saw and studied a lot of tennis. I think all here respect Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, but not all those people rank them first in those alltime lists or have to rank them first. Its not a crime, to highlight the play and records of former players.
    Some of the posters here i respect very much, because they did really research on tennis history, especially tennis pro history, and that doesn't mean copying some wikipedia stats, but going to archives and libraries, and writing articles and books on tennis history (no not only Bleacher report posts), some before the internet age. Without them, whole important parts of tennis history would be left in the dark.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hoad had fine wins against Laver that year.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You are speaking "out of my soul"...
     
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, a pretty weak field ......weakened by the fact that the best players were in the pros ....

    emerson is the only ATG in that group there ...

    santana was good ....

    ashe as well, but he was just rising up then ....

    a 42 year old vic seixas ???? are you serious ? :???:

    stolle and drsydale are pretty over-rated around here IMO .....

    umm, full length match videos ?
     
  41. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    you do realise when someone like kiki who places federer in the 2nd or 3rd tier of all time greats, his credibility goes right out of the window ..........obviously people will respond to dumb posts like those scathingly .....

    people respect opinions when they are based on facts , not when they are immersed in hypocrisy, bias and ignorance ......
     
  42. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Thanks for your time. I am happy with your response. I know he is not in top ten and I was just wondering whether he would be in top 20. He was my childhood hero, and even now I scan youtube and watch him with starry eyes. You don't forget your childhood heroes. I must say I am very happy with the bolded part.

    I know it's very difficult to rank and once again, thanks for your response :)
     
  43. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yet another back and forth exchange between dumb and dumber (kiki and abmk) turning a TW thread into mindless drivel. Nothing new around here.
     
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    as bad as it is, still doesn't trump the conversation b/w you and your other 'profiles' ......:twisted:

    and if you actually went through the posts in this thread, there are plenty of posts from me responding to others ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  45. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Please let me correct you in a point: The US Pro balance of Laver vs. Rosewall was not 3:2 but only 2:2. In 1967 Rosewall did not lose to Laver. He lost to Gimeno.
     
  46. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Laver won the semi vs Rosewall at US pro champs Boston in 1969. We had a discussion here some time ago, whether to rank the French pro 1968 and the US pro, which continued after 1967, on the same status as the pre 1968 pro champs. They were certainly equally or more difficult wo win, had for example bigger draws. There is room for debate here, but the problem shows, how difficult it is, to single out big events in those pro and early open years. I remember a discussion with Carlo Colloussi, who tried to single out 4 major events per year, by draws and participation. He pointed to the fact- and i agree with him here - that in some pro years pre 1968, some events like US pro indoor, Forest Hills tournaments, Madison Square Garden pro were equally or more important than the 3 so called pro majors. We also agreed that events in the years 1968 or 1970 like LA, Sydney, Wembley were very important, because we had not the full real 4 majors with good particpations in those years.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I understand but I don't agree. Pro events after 1967 should not count as majors. Otherwise Rosewall would have won 24 majors (or 26 if we count the WCT finals). The WCT finals were important (see my including them in the L/R balance) but they were not majors.

    I concede it's pretty hard to decide for those years...

    But remember that the three big pro events were the equivalent to the GS tournaments till 1967 while 1968 and later we yet had open GS tournaments which means that Frnech Pro, WEmbley and US Pro lost significantly of their importance.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  48. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,374
    Yes, its part of the oddities of tennis history, and i confess that i have no definitive solution. I have always believed that Laver won 5 US pros, and Rosewall 3 (including his 1971 win at Boston), Gonzalez 8 and even Borg 3. And so stand the record books. Also Wembley was continued after 1967, and Rosewall won one more in 1968 (called Kramer Tournament of Champions) and Laver another 2 in 69 and 70, when it was called British Covered Courts. Its especially difficult to decide what was a biggie in the early open years, when many open majors (with the exception of 1969) had weak field without most top contenders due to the political struggles of promoters and federations.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2012
  49. tennisplayer1993

    tennisplayer1993 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    All Around The World
    i would have to agree with this. My favorite player is Sampras of the bunch
     
  50. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,416
    Location:
    USA
    Actually back in the 90s I was a big Sampras fan, though I had no idea why. Roger made me into a a fan of tennis again, but this time I knew WHY.
     

Share This Page