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
    Federic, I have the impression you seek problems that are not existent. I never denied that a pro Grand Slam has (much) more weight than an amateur one. But still the latter has some significance.
     
  2. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Five on my personal count, but I can accept if for you it's a four Majors margin. Anyway, it's still a huge gap.


    I consider the 1967 and 1969 Grand Slams, but Rosewall also had one (1963), so he also showed a great dominance, just slightly below Laver.
    The fact that he entered 14 more Majors is a credit in my opinion: he was able to play 14 more Majors, while Laver wasn't.
    The percentage game is a risky thing, would you say that Connors was inferior to McEnroe? Because the percentage says that...
     
  3. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Not in my tennis history (and not on as many tennis histories as possible, I hope). In your, it has significance.
    There are a lot of tennis histories, Laver doesn't need mine (anyway, I consider him a top-5 and you're acting like if I'm saying he was a loser, that's why I thought you was a fanatic :D ).
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  4. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,375
    Now, in all tennis histories i know, by Tingay, Collins, Clerici, Parsons, Barrett, and others which i must look up in my library (its in my souterrain) the 1962 Grand Slam is given high significance (not in the way of the open Grand Slam of course). All pro champs were very proud on their amateur achievements at the majors or at Davis Cup, it would be a great error, not to reckon Rosewall's great year in 1953, when he won the first two classic majors, and got to the semis at Wim against Kurt Nielsen, when his run was halted, his heroic Davis Cup performances together with Hoad in 1953 or 1955 in front of over 20000 people or his triple crown at Forest Hills in 1956.
     
  5. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    They were nominally prestigious titles, I'm glad they achieved them too.
    But please answer me: who will rate Laver higher than the top Pros in 1962?
    Who will rate Rosewall higher than the top Pros in 1953?
    Every serious historician consider the Pro tournaments more important in that era.

    On his book "500 years of tennis", Gianni Clerici said:
    "I successi di Emmo sono invece la denunzia della mediocrità degli anni Sessanta, e della sciocca politica di dirigenti che si accanirono nel non riconoscere che il vero tennis era ormai giocato dai veri professionisti"

    I translate this: "Emerson's victories are the evidence of the mediocrity of amateur tennis of the 60s. The Federation was stupid: they can not accept that the game at his highest level was played by Pros at the time".
     
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    A Grand Slam includes both Wimbledon and Roland Garros.
    Laver in 1967 and Rosewall in 1963 won neither of these, so there is no grand slam.
    No one at the time suggested that this was a grand slam.
    "Professional grand slam"?
    Hardly worth suggesting, because the "major" pro events were not major tournaments.
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    What is your idea of a "major"?
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, the pros themselves considered Wembley and so on as pro majors (the most important events on their calendar).
     
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,982
    But no one mentioned anything about a "grand slam".
    This concept had no meaning for the pros.
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    Actually Jimmy Connors' lifetime winning percentage is higher than John McEnroe's despite playing many more matches.

    I also take into account the peak years of the players and in their five best years Connors won a higher percentage of majors but McEnroe won one extra major. Connors won far more overall tournaments than McEnroe.

    The percentages much be taken into account to understand the entire story. We look at Sampras' 14 majors and some look at it with awe. It's not quite so awesome when we see he won 14 majors out of 52 attempts. Majors are far easier to win if you are allowed to enter more of them. So do we penalize Gonzalez for not entering the classic majors?
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, It was a de facto Grand Slam, not de jure.
     
  13. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,534
    1. Gonzales
    2. Rosewall
    3. Laver
    4. Sampras
    5. Federer*
    6. Nadal *
    7. Borg

    * - still going up...
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ultradr, Interesting list. I only miss Tilden.
     
  15. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Exactly. If we want to understand who were the greatest, we have to watch "facts". If there are two quality tournaments, then the prestige will separate the normal and and the big one.
    In simple words: a quality Roland Garros is way more important than a quality Italian Open.
    But if there isn't quality, the prestige doesn't help us in our analysis, because we are not here to decide which tournaments are nominal Majors (we already know them).
    In simple words: a quality WCT Final should be more important for us than a weak Wimbledon, if we want to understand who was stronger in 1973.
    I'm not saying that Wimbledon was not prestigious in 1973, it was, but it lacked quality players, so it couldn't help us if we want to build a ranking. By winning it, Kodes didn't prove anything. He proved a lot more in reaching the final round at the US Open that year.
    I like Kodes anyway, it's a shame that there are only a few public videos with him playin'...
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  16. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    my list at the moment would be
    1. Rosewall,
    2. Tilden,
    3. Federer,
    4. Laver,
    5. Gonzales,
    6. Lendl, then the others...
    anyway, it's a debatable list, like every list... :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  17. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    LOL @ Sampras being ahead of Federer.
     
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Disagree

    1. Federer*

    2a. Sampras
    2b. Laver

    3a. Nadal*
    3b. Borg

    4. Pancho

    5. Agassi

    6. Tilden

    7. Lendl

    8. McEnroe


    * - still going up...
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    Gee, I'm surprised at your first pick. Never would have guessed. :) Any logical reason you have Agassi over Tilden? Is there any area Agassi ranks over Tilden except that he played more recently?
     
  20. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    What about Rosewall. Seems a rather glaring omission when you included old players like Gonzalez and Tilden.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    It's hard to ranked either one ahead, and that include Lendl and Mac too. On paper Tilden have accomplished more than Agassi, but he was 90 years ago. There's no footage of him back then, his career is not fully unkown, or not quite clear. I heard a lot players he played against are from his own country. Tennis was so young, very small number of players, and far from being a global sport. Agassi played in a much bigger/stronger field, and we know exactly what he has accomplished. I believe most people would have Agassi, Lendl and Mac ahead of him.
     
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    The top 10 is a short list so obvious I'm missing players that deserve to be in there too. If I add Rosewall, then I would have to remove one player from the list, and someone will ask me the same question why I didn't include that player. Some people may want Don Budge in there too. Of course, anyone has their own list and can't satisfy everyone.

    The reason why I added Pancho because so many posters have him in high regard, and if I don't, you guys will say I'm biased.
     
  23. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    TMF, I think Rosewall is legit bro, probably on par with Laver and Gonzales, just not as a popular choice yet his career is easily on par with them, even surpassing it to an extent.

    The really big name I still have trouble giving props to (we are talking top top contenders) is Tilden. No question he's the greatest of that early era, but where to put him in a top 10 list I don't know considering the other candidates for me are way more recent.

    1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Rosewall
    4. Gonzales
    5. Borg
    6. Sampras
    7. Tilden??? Idk how to rank this guy
    8. Nadal
    9. Connors
    10. Lendl
     
  24. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Not much respect for tennis history here, at least in my humble opinion.
    Bill Tilden was able to serve at over 200 km/h in the 20s-30s, with those ancient rackets and balls. On occasion he was able to beat Perry, Budge and Vines (three world no. 1s) even when he was over-45. That says a lot.

    Also, Rosewall can't be omitted from a top-10...
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  25. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Exactly the same difficulty for me. In general it is difficult for me to rank players from the pre-open eras because I don't know enough about the real competitiveness of the pro tour: either we don't know the field which played a given tournament, or we don't know the real context of a tournament: early pro-tennis was organized by promoters as show all around the world. That means that there was some economical constraint on the pro tour: you had to hype the few pro-players who were touring to make the show attractive. For the later pro on the 50's, we can rank them because some of them played, and had success in the open era, where we know better the context. Rosewall and Laver where dominant pro who remained dominant during the open era. Gonzales was a though opponent for them, and it is thus probably safe to say that Gonzales would have had a lot of a success in the open era as well. But the further back we go, the less certain this assumption is.

    I agree mostly with your list, but I would rank Rosewall ahead of Laver for his longevity. Gonzales would be in the top 10 but a bit lower, because his US pro championships (bigger part of his resume) had sometimes questionable fields. He would be at least behind Sampras. Borg I don't know, because I don't really like him. I'm not sure that Nadal should be ahead of Connors and Lendl yet. I know I'm biased toward them, but both have them have won a lot of titles and were extremely consistent in slams.
     
  26. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Not sure how the speed of his serve was measured...And we don't know very well the context of these matches between old Bill and the other. Might be that nobody was playing for his life.
     
  27. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    He has beaten them even in great tournaments (i.e. Southport 1939 against Budge), not only on tours. Nobody plays for his life, not even today. Only Gottfried von Cramm did it, for other reasons. :D
    Tilden speed of serve was measured, once in the early 30s è reached 263 km/h if I'm not wrong. They estimated that speed calculation of the time had a 20-30% margin of error. That means that he served at around 200 km/h anyway.
     
  28. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    So in others words you're guessing. Despite the fact Tilden played players from Australia, England, France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand among others. You're ranking Agassi over Tilden despite all indications that Tilden was taller (that's a big thing with you) and probably much faster and perhaps stronger. You're ranking Agassi over Tilden despite the fact it's almost impossible to dominant tennis more than Tilden did.

    I guess it's okay but let's not have that much prejudiced against the past. Do you really think Federer could do much better than Bill Tilden? No one could.

    What TMF respects is the present. That is clear. I don't know what Tilden has to do to be ranked ahead of Agassi. Win every match in his career?? Again, while I disagree that's his privilege.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  29. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,874
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Rosewall
    4. Gonzales

    5. Sampras
    6. Tilden

    7. Nadal
    8. Borg

    9. Lendl

    10. Connors

    I feel like the top 4 should always be those guys, maybe Tilden should be up there too for his extreme dominance. However I just can't put Tilden much higher due my personal preference for the modern game. Sampras should always be near the top IMO.

    Federer is number one for me due to my belief that his peak level is superior to anyones. I think doing a straight top to bottom list perhaps does those first 4 guys a disservice but if I had to pick I'd go with that. Likewise with Borg and Nadal I could switch them and be quite happy.

    Lendl was incredibly consistant and Connor's longevity round out my top 10.
     
  30. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federic, As far as I know you are rather focussed on major titles won. So I wonder you have Federer ahead of Laver who has won more majors than Federer. I'm sorry, I just realized you use to omit the amateur titles! I consider this as a mistake though.

    I would rank Connors ahead of Lendl considering the many SFs Jimbo reached at majors.
     
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, You join those who completely neglect Rosewall. I only can wonder...
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, You should rank along your expertise not along other people's opinions.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Forza, I have the same top seven but in another order...
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Gonzalez is mostly respected by his great world tour wins, not by his US Pro achievements.
     
  35. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    I agree. I may disagree with his reasoning and frankly his agenda but if he truly wants to rank, let him rank on what he thinks.

    I do want to know how TMF ranks players on objective accomplishments.
     
  36. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Crap, then it is even harder to rank him! Then two questions: how do you rank these world tour wins among different kind of achievement (majors, total number of titles, longevity, ranking...); where do you rank Gonzales in your top 10 (what's your top 10).
     
  37. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,060
    Location:
    Weak era
    What a unique viewpoint, refreshing to see (and nice to see Agassi who's so often underrated around here getting his due).

    However I cannot, in good conscience agree with ranking Sampras ahead of Borg.

    Compared to Sampras, Bjorn Borg had a higher peak level of play, dominated two surfaces that were polar opposites, did much better at his weakest slam and had much tougher competition.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Crap?? Is this the new French Switzerland speaking?

    Ranking is much more than only count numbers and figures. Otherwise it would be a must to rank Rosewall first with his 23 majors.

    You can't omit the big world tours of the old pros. As pc1 rightly said it's the question if they were not greater accomplishments than pro majors.

    Pancho's beating Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad and the other strong players should be considered and highly considered. Otherwise you come to the strange conclusion that Emerson, Cooper and other lesser players are greater than Gonzalez...
     
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    I loved to watch Agassi play but I also thought he wasted a few years of his career. It's a shame. He could have had a record close to Sampras.

    Hey if you pick the best strokes of Agassi and Graf (relatively speaking) you're have the perfect player.:)
    I'd pick the Graf serve, Agassi backhand, Graf forehand, Graf volley, Graf speed.
     
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, My top ten regarding achievements (not playing strength!) are

    1 Laver
    1 Rosewall tied
    3 Tilden
    4 Gonzalez
    5 Federer
    6) Borg
    7) Connors
    7) Sampras tied
    9) Budge
    10 McEnroe
     
  41. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    BobbyOne,

    Do you think that perhaps Kramer or Lendl could move ahead of Budge?
     
  42. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    Haha so in other words, you pick Graf
     
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    would still back another strong player to draw that composite player to the net and exploit that weakness @ the net ....
     
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, Yes I could imagine that Kramer and Lendl plus Vines could be ranked ahead of Budge. Also Nadal if he recovers totally. My first seven were easier to rank than the following players...
     
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    You're getting all upset just because your list isn't exactly the same as mine. If I'm prejudice against the past generation then why would I included Pancho, Laver, Tilden? Instead I would pick Connors, Becker or Edberg, right?


    I believe the latter generations deserve a little more credits than the past, simply because the different in scale of the sport. Do you actually bellieve Tilden would have won 138 titles in this era? I don't think you would say so with a straight face. The standard is higher for Agassi to endure than Tilden. Also, not only the smaller population, but many athletes aren't allow to compete. Give you an example, in 1936 Olympics, most competitors are white, and in Germany, the Jews were not allow to compete. eg world class high jumber Gretel Bergmann
     
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Like I said, there's only 10 players that you can list, so I can't make everyone happy. I'm sure Connors fans disagree that I didn't include him either. What do you and PC1 want me to do? Perhaps I should exclude Federer just to make you guys happy.:-D
     
  47. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Alright, fair enough. One thing though, I notice Rosewall have been creeping up the list while Sampras is the opposite.

    The more we go back in time, the more difficult it gets, and Tilden is an excellent example. And people should get petty whether he's in the top 10 or not.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I would already be a bit more glad if you would rank more reasonably. As Carlo Colussi once wrote: Every top ten list without Rosewall (and Gonzalez, but you have him included) is a wrong list...
     
  49. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Yes, I've heard that Tilden had a powerful serve. But do you know Isner also has a powerful serve? Had Isner was from the 20s, people may say he would be a force in the current era. But as today, Isner is just another player on the tour, with a great serve.

    I'm not against Rosewall being in the top 10. My list isn't to say it has to be this way. Although I don't think the top 3 will ever change(my opinion).
     
  50. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,413
    Just make yourself happy and pick the list you want. I know Federer will be numero uno but pick players afterwards that you think qualified. I may criticize the list of course but I'd rather you pick on your own merits than be influenced.

    What I would prefer of course is that the information may change your opinions somewhat on past players but frankly I've given up on that.
     

Share This Page