Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

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

What has a high jumper to do with Tilden's competition? Tilden faced numerous strong players from Brookes to Gonzalez.

 

[TMF]

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.

I understand. However, there's no clear-cut as to who's ahead. some fans will say the 14 and the ranking was big enough to have Sampras ahead of Borg. It really depends on how one values certain criteria.

 

[pc1]

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

Have you read my last few posts? Just pick who you want but I'm trying to let you understand some info on the past.

And yes I do believe Tilden would be fantastic today. He was a super gifted athlete and more important a great tennis mind.

 

[TMF]

What has a high jumper to do with Tilden's competition? Tilden faced numerous strong players from Brookes to Gonzalez.

My point is there isn't much oppotunity for athletes to compete in the old days than today. Today, there's coaches, facilities available for younsters to develop, family can affort their child to pursue sport, but not in the 20s. And especially if you needed to travel from Aussie to US and vice versa when there wasn't any plane.

I didn't say Tilden has NO COMPETITION, but not as much as today.

 

[pc1]

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).

Flash,

He won about 14 majors, over 120 tournaments plus he won head to head tours for the World Championship of tennis over some of the greatest players in tennis history.

Like I wrote in the previous paragraph, many of these players in the head to head tours were against some of the best players in the history of tennis. Gonzalez faced Lew Hoad, Frank Sedgman, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Olmedo, Kramer and Trabert.

Gonzalez won all these tours but his first one against Kramer, when Gonzalez was very young. Gonzalez eventually overtook Kramer and became the number one player in the world.

The tours were very long. The players would play at one site and often drive themselves to play the next day at another site. For example Gonzalez beat Hoad 51 to 36, Sedgman 30 to 20 (around that anyway), Segura by about the same as Sedgman, Rosewall 50 to 26, Trabert 74 to 27 among his many tours. He won an incredible tour against Rosewall, Olmedo and Segura by a combined match score of 49 to 8 defeating Rosewall by a great score fo 15 to 4. Rosewall was to become 26 that year and he was probably in his prime.

Remember that these tours were to determine the World Champion of Tennis therefore they were more important than the majors for the pros. I spoke to a member of the Gonzalez family and this person assures me that Pancho Gonzalez's main goal was to win the tours to keep his title. In that way tennis at that point was somewhat like boxing has been over the years. Remember if he did not win the tours the ex champion was considered a has been and his earning potential goes down tremendously.

How do you value this tours? It's possible that you could value these tours as the same as a few classic Open Majors.

So his record is 14 majors, a ton of tours won, over 120 tournaments won. He lasted into the Open Era and in the Open Era he was able to defeat Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, Roche. This is after he turned forty years old.

As far as playing style is concerned, Gonzalez had perhaps the greatest single weapon in the history of tennis in his awesome serve. Vic Braden, the renown tennis coach does computer analysis on strokes. He wrote in his book Tennis 2000 that he was convinced Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range in the earlly 2000's. The difference however is that his motion was so easy that he would be able to serve with great power late in matches. Gonzalez had great footwork and excellent mobility plus an excellent volley. He was also an excellent baseliner with a very strong forehand. His backhand was not as strong as his forehand (as most one handers are) but very good for baseline play and he could hit brilliant shots off both sides.

Here's a video of Gonzalez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

 

[forzamilan90]

I cannot call Gonzales' serve the greatest considering some of the bombers we've seen recent decades. I think Tanner's serve from clips I've seen might be the greatest especially if you give him new racket tech

 

[pc1]

I cannot call Gonzales' serve the greatest considering some of the bombers we've seen recent decades. I think Tanner's serve from clips I've seen might be the greatest especially if you give him new racket tech

Tanner's serve was awesome. I've seen it in person a number of times but remember it wasn't as consistent (apparently) as the Gonzalez serve. From ball toss to getting to the receiver it may have been the fastest serve I've seen. I'd probably go with the Gonzalez serve. Tanner did have the advantage of being a lefty.

But remember Braden was of the opinion that Gonzalez at 6'3 and one half would be able to hit serves regularly at the 140 mph range. He had an ease of movement that allowed him to keep up the power late in matches.

Either way you can't lose.

 

[forzamilan90]

The thing that strikes about Tanner and I mentioned him...was watching him vs Borg (wimbledon) was drinking some pepsi expecting typical old school serving all of a sudden....BOOM a monster serve i was like wtf where did that come from and how is he doing it with that old racket? Blew my mind

 

[pc1]

The thing that strikes about Tanner and I mentioned him...was watching him vs Borg (wimbledon) was drinking some pepsi expecting typical old school serving all of a sudden....BOOM a monster serve i was like wtf where did that come from and how is he doing it with that old racket? Blew my mind

Seeing it in person it was the most awesome serve I've ever seen. Arthur Ashe thought Tanner was one of those with tremendous talent that underachieved.

Bear in mind that I never saw Pancho Gonzalez in his heyday in the 1950's.

 

[zagor]

I understand. However, there's no clear-cut as to who's ahead. some fans will say the 14 and the ranking was big enough to have Sampras ahead of Borg. It really depends on how one values certain criteria.

Of course, this is a highly subjective topic and as you said everyone has their own criteria, for example I value versatility very much which is why I hold Borg in such high regard.

However, I respect your opinion and hope you will not allow yourself to be bullied, you have as much right to say your piece as anyone else around here.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Flash,

He won about 14 majors, over 120 tournaments plus he won head to head tours for the World Championship of tennis over some of the greatest players in tennis history.

Like I wrote in the previous paragraph, many of these players in the head to head tours were against some of the best players in the history of tennis. Gonzalez faced Lew Hoad, Frank Sedgman, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Olmedo, Kramer and Trabert.

Gonzalez won all these tours but his first one against Kramer, when Gonzalez was very young. Gonzalez eventually overtook Kramer and became the number one player in the world.

The tours were very long. The players would play at one site and often drive themselves to play the next day at another site. For example Gonzalez beat Hoad 51 to 36, Sedgman 30 to 20 (around that anyway), Segura by about the same as Sedgman, Rosewall 50 to 26, Trabert 74 to 27 among his many tours. He won an incredible tour against Rosewall, Olmedo and Segura by a combined match score of 49 to 8 defeating Rosewall by a great score fo 15 to 4. Rosewall was to become 26 that year and he was probably in his prime.

Remember that these tours were to determine the World Champion of Tennis therefore they were more important than the majors for the pros. I spoke to a member of the Gonzalez family and this person assures me that Pancho Gonzalez's main goal was to win the tours to keep his title. In that way tennis at that point was somewhat like boxing has been over the years. Remember if he did not win the tours the ex champion was considered a has been and his earning potential goes down tremendously.

How do you value this tours? It's possible that you could value these tours as the same as a few classic Open Majors.

So his record is 14 majors, a ton of tours won, over 120 tournaments won. He lasted into the Open Era and in the Open Era he was able to defeat Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, Roche. This is after he turned forty years old.

As far as playing style is concerned, Gonzalez had perhaps the greatest single weapon in the history of tennis in his awesome serve. Vic Braden, the renown tennis coach does computer analysis on strokes. He wrote in his book Tennis 2000 that he was convinced Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range in the earlly 2000's. The difference however is that his motion was so easy that he would be able to serve with great power late in matches. Gonzalez had great footwork and excellent mobility plus an excellent volley. He was also an excellent baseliner with a very strong forehand. His backhand was not as strong as his forehand (as most one handers are) but very good for baseline play and he could hit brilliant shots off both sides.

Here's a video of Gonzalez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

Gonzales himself regarded the 1959 tour as a head to head loss against Hoad, 15 to 13 for Hoad. (NY Times interview with Dave Anderson, 1970).

 

[Mustard]

Gonzales himself regarded the 1959 tour as a head to head loss against Hoad, 15 to 13 for Hoad. (NY Times interview with Dave Anderson, 1970).

It was a 4-man tour. How many more times must this be pointed out?

Results of the 1959 World Pro Tour
1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48

 

[FedericRoma83]

It was a 4-man tour. How many more times must this be pointed out?

Results of the 1959 World Pro Tour
1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48

Gonzales won the tour without any kind of doubt, but he just couldn't accept that someone had a positive head-to-head against him. He suffered for that 13-15 score against Hoad, I've read him remark it on some interviews.
If you add that Hoad defeated Gonzales at the T.o.C. also, you can easily understand why Pancho himself considered Hoad the world no. 1 in 1959.
Anyway, many (including Kramer) were still pointing Pancho as the greatest even in 1959, because of his tour success.

Personally, if I have to choose, I will point Hoad as 1959 no. 1, but Gonzales is also a legit option.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It was a 4-man tour. How many more times must this be pointed out?

Results of the 1959 World Pro Tour
1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48

AND..Hoad 15-13 over Gonzales. (Did you forget that one?)
This last statistic was all that mattered to Gonzales.
I gave you the reference above.
Listen to the man himself.
Personally, I rate Hoad number one for 1959, but not on the basis of the four-man. Rather, the world tournament championship and total money winnings (on the same basis as 1958, where I also have Hoad number one.)

 

[Dan Lobb]

It was a 4-man tour. How many more times must this be pointed out?

Results of the 1959 World Pro Tour
1. Pancho Gonzales 47-15
2. Lew Hoad 42-20
3. Ashley Cooper 21-40
4. Mal Anderson 13-48

Note: The majority of Hoad and Gonzales matches were against each other, Cooper and Anderson against each other.
It was like two separate head to heads.

 

[kiki]

Ok yeah I think Laver is generally considered first tier. I was going more in line with Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden not being mentioned/considered much by contemporary media. Generally it's Fed, Laver, Sampras, Borg and Nadal that are thought upon as high tier greats by conntemporary media

Nadal in first tier has no basis at all.Too many shortcomings in any kind of aspect although great record agaisnt federer.

 

[kiki]

The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).

Borg,Connors, Nastase and Kodes.And Amritraj and others...a weak field?

 

[kiki]

I don't give so much credit to any list without Rosewall in the top-5... but if he isn't not even in the top-15, then it's just a joke.

Agreed.Rosewall is likely top 5, surely top 10 and undoubtably top 15.

 

[kiki]

Sidney Woods list gives every poster here the chance to say:" my list makes more sense than that of a former Wimbledon champion"
unless of course, kiki comes up with a list that includes Kodes in the top 10
i guess Mr Woods made a list of his own personal favourite players, rather than a best-ever list.

My top ever is Vines marketing agent

 

[kiki]

I don't know if I make Lendl greatest of the 80s. He had an otherworldly four years from 85-89(with the 84 French as the catalyst), but he had quite a few years where people wondered if he'd win a big one. Marc's 80-84 was very strong too, as was Becker from 85-89.

Pancho DID dominate the 50s, Laver the 60s, and Borg the 70s(although Connors is up there too). The 80s, though, saw an unbelievable amount of players that could just light it up. Mac and Connors(early 80s), Becker and Lendl, Edberg and Wilander...just a fun era of tennis.

Don't get me wrong, Lendl was a beast. But, IMO, there were too many players that had godly levels of play in that time to make him the best.

I agree.And never forget to incluede 1980 and 1981 Borg in that elite group.

Late 50´s, early 70´s and the whole 80´s are the three toughest eras, by a wide margin.Maybe the first half of the 90´s can get close to.But I don´t think so.

 

[FedericRoma83]

Borg,Connors, Nastase and Kodes.And Amritraj and others...a weak field?

Kodes was not in the top-10 at the time of the tournament, nor were Borg and Connors.
Saying "Borg" doesn't always mean "top-form Borg". In 1973 he was still immature. A year makes a lot of difference in tennis. Borg was no. 18 in 1973 and no. 3 in 1974 (no. 2 on my personal ranking). Boris Becker was no. 66 in 1984, no. 6 in 1985, and so on...

Wimbledon 1973 had only a player who was in the top-10 when we tournament began: Nastase.

 

[kiki]

Federic, My goal was not to find substitutes for weak Grand Slam tournaments (although it might be interesting to do so) but to pick those strong tournaments that are a bit below the majors but still very tough events.

For instance Laver won many important tournaments in 1970 but failed at the majors. Thus I give him a Co. No1 place.

Rosewall never beat Laver as Rod did to Ken in the 1968 Wembley final and in the 1968 L.A. final.

Even though I'm glad you admire Rosewall about as far as I do, I cannot accept your opinions on Laver. Both are in the same league.

I think you may have done a big effort to rate Laver above Rosewall but I like your post.It gives some perspective about who was the best of the two at their peak.Think is, while I consider it to be Laver, he didn´t play Rosewall during Ken´s peakest peak, from 1958 or 1959 till 1963.So this debate will continue for ever.

it is nice that their last two great matches ( 71 and 72 Dallas ) were won by Rosewall, the oldest of both.It is a great pitty that Laver never won the greatest indoor event but, if he had to lose it, the only guy who deserve the honour of beating him was, no doubt, Rosewall.

 

[BobbyOne]

Note: The majority of Hoad and Gonzales matches were against each other, Cooper and Anderson against each other.
It was like two separate head to heads.

Dan, It's not as clear as you suggest. Gonzalez played 28 matches against Hoad and 20 against Anderson.

 

[kiki]

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'...

He proved being the best cc player in 71, winning the French and reaching the other big final at Rome.

 

[FedericRoma83]

He proved being the best cc player in 71, winning the French and reaching the other big final at Rome.

1971 was his peak-season for sure, he also reached the final at Forest Hills, beating Newcombe and Ashe if I'm not wrong. An amazing performance!

 

[kiki]

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.

Yes, they compliment each other...maybe, that´s why they married???

 

[kiki]

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

Yes, since if we rank peak play, it would be compleltely unacceptable to have Hoad out of the top three, to say the least.

 

[kiki]

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.

TMF, even if your agend is blattant, some of your post have great common sense.I fully agree with you that it is very tough ( and somewhat unfair) to list the top 10, specially in tennis.I´d say any player ranked 11 to 20 could possibly be ranked in the top 10.

We should also separate achievements and talent.

We could also have a list of the most underrated top 10 ever.and, no doubt, kodes wins it, at least on TT

 

[kiki]

what if we rank top eras as opposed to top players? or as a complement?

Here´s mine:

Top Tier: 1980´s (Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl,Wilander,Becker and Edberg) and 1950´s pros (Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert,Sedgman and Segura)

second tier: first half of the 70´s ( Nastase,Laver,Rosewall,Kodes,Newcombe,Ashe and Smith) and first half of the 90´s (Sampras,Becker,Edberg,Agassi,Courier,Bruguera and Stich)

At least 7 different and very competitive players.

Third tier could be the 30´s, with Tilden,Budge,Perry,Crawford,Cochet,Vines and Von cramm or Riggs but I don´t think it is just as tough since Vines and Cochet were past their prime.

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, since if we rank peak play, it would be compleltely unacceptable to have Hoad out of the top three, to say the least.

kiki, In my list of peak play I rank Hoad No. 3 behind Laver and Rosewall (the latter two tied) even though Lew dominated never for a whole a year or even longer.

 

[kiki]

Flash,

He won about 14 majors, over 120 tournaments plus he won head to head tours for the World Championship of tennis over some of the greatest players in tennis history.

Like I wrote in the previous paragraph, many of these players in the head to head tours were against some of the best players in the history of tennis. Gonzalez faced Lew Hoad, Frank Sedgman, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Olmedo, Kramer and Trabert.

Gonzalez won all these tours but his first one against Kramer, when Gonzalez was very young. Gonzalez eventually overtook Kramer and became the number one player in the world.

The tours were very long. The players would play at one site and often drive themselves to play the next day at another site. For example Gonzalez beat Hoad 51 to 36, Sedgman 30 to 20 (around that anyway), Segura by about the same as Sedgman, Rosewall 50 to 26, Trabert 74 to 27 among his many tours. He won an incredible tour against Rosewall, Olmedo and Segura by a combined match score of 49 to 8 defeating Rosewall by a great score fo 15 to 4. Rosewall was to become 26 that year and he was probably in his prime.

Remember that these tours were to determine the World Champion of Tennis therefore they were more important than the majors for the pros. I spoke to a member of the Gonzalez family and this person assures me that Pancho Gonzalez's main goal was to win the tours to keep his title. In that way tennis at that point was somewhat like boxing has been over the years. Remember if he did not win the tours the ex champion was considered a has been and his earning potential goes down tremendously.

How do you value this tours? It's possible that you could value these tours as the same as a few classic Open Majors.

So his record is 14 majors, a ton of tours won, over 120 tournaments won. He lasted into the Open Era and in the Open Era he was able to defeat Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, Roche. This is after he turned forty years old.

As far as playing style is concerned, Gonzalez had perhaps the greatest single weapon in the history of tennis in his awesome serve. Vic Braden, the renown tennis coach does computer analysis on strokes. He wrote in his book Tennis 2000 that he was convinced Gonzalez would serve regularly in the 140 mph range in the earlly 2000's. The difference however is that his motion was so easy that he would be able to serve with great power late in matches. Gonzalez had great footwork and excellent mobility plus an excellent volley. He was also an excellent baseliner with a very strong forehand. His backhand was not as strong as his forehand (as most one handers are) but very good for baseline play and he could hit brilliant shots off both sides.

Here's a video of Gonzalez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

... and he even faced...Rod Laver¡¡

 

[BobbyOne]

what if we rank top eras as opposed to top players? or as a complement?

Here´s mine:

Top Tier: 1980´s (Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl,Wilander,Becker and Edberg) and 1950´s pros (Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert,Sedgman and Segura)

second tier: first half of the 70´s ( Nastase,Laver,Rosewall,Kodes,Newcombe,Ashe and Smith) and first half of the 90´s (Sampras,Becker,Edberg,Agassi,Courier,Bruguera and Stich)

At least 7 different and very competitive players.

Third tier could be the 30´s, with Tilden,Budge,Perry,Crawford,Cochet,Vines and Von cramm or Riggs but I don´t think it is just as tough since Vines and Cochet were past their prime.

kiki, Vines was not past his prime in the 1930s. He was the dominating player of that decade.

As usually you forgot Nüsslein.

 

[kiki]

1971 was his peak-season for sure, he also reached the final at Forest Hills, beating Newcombe and Ashe if I'm not wrong. An amazing performance!

Yes, although 1973 was almost as good.He was very very consistent from 1970 till 1974.His way of playing, however, hampened him and , from 1975 onwards he was never quite the same player.

 

[pc1]

... and he even faced...Rod Laver¡¡

Can you imagine if Laver and Gonzalez in their primes played each other and both were at their best? How much would you pay for that match?

 

[kiki]

kiki, Vines was not past his prime in the 1930s. He was the dominating player of that decade.

As usually you forgot Nüsslein.

right.I meant Tilden and not Vines.

Nusslein was like Segura, a solid top tenner.

As for peak play, it is true that Hoad´s peak lasted 2-3 years but that peak, some journalist were absolutley impressed.

 

[kiki]

Can you imagine if Laver and Gonzalez in their primes played each other and both were at their best? How much would you pay for that match?

There is no price for that.

Of course, I´d pay my ass to watch Kodes vs Vines, as you probably know...

 

[pc1]

There is no price for that.

Of course, I´d pay my ass to watch Kodes vs Vines, as you probably know...

That would be fun too. But I've seen Kodes already so I would have loved to see Vines against Budge, Perry or Nusslein also.

Okay Kiki. I will give you choices of five all time dream matches and where they would be played. Who do you pick and where?

One of mine could be McEnroe-Laver (current racquets) at Wimbledon.
Borg-Nadal at the French.
Federer-Nastase (old wood or current racquets) at the French or Wimbledon.
Pancho Gonzalez-Federer at Flushing Meadow
Sampras-Gonzalez at Wimbledon (old wood or current racquets)

Bonus-Tilden-Nadal with the current Australian Open surface.

 

[kiki]

That would be fun too. But I've seen Kodes already so I would have loved to see Vines against Budge, Perry or Nusslein also.

Okay Kiki. I will give you choices of five all time dream matches and where they would be played. Who do you pick and where?

One of mine could be McEnroe-Laver (current racquets) at Wimbledon.
Borg-Nadal at the French.
Federer-Nastase (old wood or current racquets) at the French or Wimbledon.
Pancho Gonzalez-Federer at Flushing Meadow
Sampras-Gonzalez at Wimbledon (old wood or current racquets)

Bonus-Tilden-Nadal with the current Australian Open surface.

All of them very interesting matches.There are many imaginary matches I missed.Many of them involving Hoad and Laver.What about Gonzalez vs Borg indoors?

A sensational one´d be Cochet vs Nastase on clay or indoors.Both were real geniouses.

 

[FedericRoma83]

ahah, I like this game!

Lendl-Budge at Flushing Meadows
Rosewall-Wilander at Roland Garros
Laver-Sampras at Wimbledon

I would also enjoy
Gonzales-Becker indoor

 

[kiki]

ahah, I like this game!

Lendl-Budge at Flushing Meadows
Rosewall-Wilander at Roland Garros
Laver-Sampras at Wimbledon

I would also enjoy
Gonzales-Becker indoor

great choice.I´d like to see like 25 or 30 imaginary crossovers, but just for a start:

Nastase vs Cochet on clay or slow indoors
Hoad vs Borg on grass
Laver vs Tilden on clay
Budge vs Connors on fast hard

What about Patty vs Rosewall on clay?.

 

[pc1]

great choice.I´d like to see like 25 or 30 imaginary crossovers, but just for a start:

Nastase vs Cochet on clay or slow indoors
Hoad vs Borg on grass
Laver vs Tilden on clay
Budge vs Connors on fast hard

What about Patty vs Rosewall on clay?.

You think Budge Patty would be a good match for Rosewall on clay? Might be fun.

 

[FedericRoma83]

You think Budge Patty would be a good match for Rosewall on clay? Might be fun.

At top-form Rosewall would win that 62 62 62, or even better...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, It's not as clear as you suggest. Gonzalez played 28 matches against Hoad and 20 against Anderson.

And 14 against Cooper, that is, Hoad and Gonzales played 28 against each other, and only 34 against the two rookies. And Cooper and Anderson played 27 against each other.
The numbers were strongly skewed towards two matchups, Hoad/Gonzales and Cooper/Anderson.
Small wonder that Gonzales considered it a head to head tour.

 

[Dan Lobb]

kiki, In my list of peak play I rank Hoad No. 3 behind Laver and Rosewall (the latter two tied) even though Lew dominated never for a whole a year or even longer.

Bobby, are you sure you are Austrian and not Australian?
Actually, I almost agree with you, but would add Gonzales and Fed, and switch the order a little.

 

[Mustard]

And 14 against Cooper, that is, Hoad and Gonzales played 28 against each other, and only 34 against the two rookies. And Cooper and Anderson played 27 against each other.
The numbers were strongly skewed towards two matchups, Hoad/Gonzales and Cooper/Anderson.
Small wonder that Gonzales considered it a head to head tour.

Gonzales was undefeated against Cooper and Anderson on the 1959 tour, unlike Hoad who lost enough matches against them to lose the 4-man tour.

 

[abmk]

kiki, In my list of peak play I rank Hoad No. 3 behind Laver and Rosewall (the latter two tied) even though Lew dominated never for a whole a year or even longer.

wasn't hoad was near the top in 58-59, arguable #1 for those years ?

and lol @ rosewall tied with laver for peak play @ no 1 ... rosewall *himself* acknowledged time and again that laver's peak play was better than his .... many others have said it too ... and rosewall's peak play over gonzales' ? really ? :lol:

when gonzales, at the end of his peak period was hammering rosewall at the start of his peak period 15-4 in h2h in 1960 ?

here's a list of players who'd rank over rosewall in terms of peak play ( given the tour conditions in the respective times )

from 50s onwards :

for sure :gonzales , laver, borg, mac, sampras, federer, nadal

debatable : lendl, connors, hoad, djokovic ( hoad, djokovic only because they've had less periods of peak play )

rosewall's serve in itself straight-away puts him out of the top 5 at the very least

 

[FedericRoma83]

So peak-play is all that matters?

Longevity doesn't mean nothing to you? What about a Major tournament won at 37 and two finals reached at 39?

This is an argument in favour of his peak-play too. If he was able to compete for Major titles even when he was 37-39, just imagine him during his prime.

Rosewall at no. 1 is a well-respectable choice (in fact, it is mine ).

I remember Laver saying that his "dream match" was Rosewall-Tilden, and that he would have been honoured to be their ball boy. So please pay some respect to Kenny

 

[urban]

I think, Budge Patty has a very good record against Hoad and Rosewall, positive at least against Hoad, whom he could beat until 1956. He also won the channel slam in 1950. The Drobny-Patty matches are rated by many experts as classics. DRobny himself was no slouch on clay. I think, some here are heavily underrating all things, which are combined with amateur tennis before 1968. Under modern comprehension, those amateurs were de facto pros and they could play really good tennis.

 

[FedericRoma83]

I think, Budge Patty has a very good record against Hoad and Rosewall, positive at least against Hoad, whom he could beat until 1956.

He had a good record against far-from-their-prime, amateur versions of Hoad and Rosewall. Not so impressive.

 

[abmk]

So peak-play is all that matters?

Longevity doesn't mean nothing to you? What about a Major tournament won at 37 and two finals reached at 39?

This is an argument in favour of his peak-play too. If he was able to compete for Major titles even when he was 37-39, just imagine him during his prime.

Rosewall at no. 1 is a well-respectable choice (in fact, it is mine ).

I remember Laver saying that his "dream match" was Rosewall-Tilden, and that he would have been honoured to be their ball boy. So please pay some respect to Kenny

no, peak play isn't all that matters .... but I was talking about peak play only in that post ..

overall, from the 50s onwards, I'd only rate gonzales, laver, borg, sampras and federer over rosewall ...rosewall's longevity is very impressive and deserves very high respect ...

but I don't think his peak was higher than when jmac was carving players up in 84 or when djoker was running roughshod over the field in 2011 ( can you even imagine what he'd do to the rosewall serve )

Like I said, at rosewall's prime - in 60 , he lost the h2h to gonzales, 15-4 , even if many the matches were indoors, that is a big margin ...

then when laver matured, he lead their h2h from 64 onwards ...

61-63, the pro field was weakened with injury ridden hoad, retired gonzalez, still laver not yet there and then not battle hardened laver ....as it is pro fields are weaker than full fields because of the much smaller draws and when these sort of things happen, they get impacted a LOT ...

whom do you guys think you're kidding when you keep on talking about so many pro majors in a row and making it seem like they're anywhere *near* full majors ?