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
    ...but without any success.

    Wimbledon Pro 1967 had a eight strong players including your darling. Participating were, according to my 1967 rankings, world's No.s 1 to 5 plus No.s 7 and 8 Missing from the top ten only the amateurs Newcombe, Emerson and Roche...
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    Guys like Pancho Gonzalez wouldn't hold a candle to great athletes today like Nalbanian and Isner. :-?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  3. qwertre

    qwertre Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    274
    I know we've been off the musical relations for a while, but would Leander Paes be equivalent to Stravinski?
     
  4. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Hoad came out of reitrement for this one event, and played only a few weeks more.
    Really, just a two-man tournament.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Stubborn Dan, You have not read or understood my post where I gave the world ranking numbers of the 7 other players. Only Hoad was a rather weak player then and even he beat Gonzalez... All others were top ten players including the top five of the world...

    Your philosophy: If Hoad is weak the whole tournament is weak!
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    qwertre, Strawinsky is about comparable with Emerson: both around place 20...
     
  7. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Since you are talking about Wimbledon, the grass was much faster then than today. Roger would have loved to play in the fast grass. On a fast Cincinnati, Roger bageled the current number one, who is in his peak and prime. Even at this age, put him on fast old Wimbledon and you would see what he can do.

    I don't think Roger would still go without winning Wimbledon if the grass was as fast and he was banned for 14 years :)

    This is a grinders era, unfortunately
     
  8. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Arguments are all 90% subjective, kiki. If your fave player fail to win a particular tournament, he is lucky. If a player who you don't like fail to win, he was not good enough to win.

    Disclaimer : I am no way referring to Borg's hard court proficiency.
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    He
    Borg is not my fave
    But facts I put on table speak volume
     
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Gladyou mentioned Ramirez.Great player, all round game, very quick but not too strong
     
  11. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Djoko probably has the best FH-BH combo on tour today along with a not-so-bad serve, but IMO Pete's and Fed's serve-FH combo and extra weapons (especially Pete's net play and Fed's variety) trump it. See my response to abmk below for more details.

    Both Djoko and Fed were pretty lousy for most of the 2011 USO SF (Nole in the 1st and 2nd sets and Fed in the 3rd & 4th). Better points of comparison for me are the same year's FO SF and last year's Wimby SF, where Fed's controlled aggression and all-court play proved superior to Nole's rock-solid court coverage off both wings. It was quite instructive to see Djoko struggle with Fed's onslaughts.

    Now to be fair Nole was somewhat rusty in the FO SF (probaby from not playing his QF due to Fognini's withdrawal--contrary to popular belief extra days of rest don't always help) and grass is simply not his most comfortable surface, not to mention his less-than-stellar returning in the Wimby SF (think Fed had 44 of his 101 serves unreturned that day). But he's had his shares of problems with big servers before (Roddick certainly, and Isner in their most recent match at IW and even Tsonga at RG of all places last year), and while Fed (or Pete for that matter, compared to his fellow Yanks) doesn't serve quite as big as those guys he picks his spots just as well if not better. This is not to say that Djoko's return itself isn't up to par, because we all know it's an excellent shot, but he often struggles to find a balanced way to deal with the big servers, who are wont to go for broke more often than the typical baseliner. Also I don't think Djoko's passing shots are as good as advertised (I'd certainly not rank them among the top 5 of all time, as Steve Flink did recently).

    Long story short I don't see Nole winning the majority of matches against Pete outside of clay.

    Yes, and 1977 to Borg. I've already explained why in my previous posts and don't want to go into the details again (certainly not regarding 1977), but it's not just the level of play that clinched it for me.

    Actually, I don't know if you're familiar with the rankings of 2003, but there was all of 160 points separating Roddick and Fed at the year-end. Not so hard to think how they could swap places per a slightly different ranking system. And don't forget Ferrero, who finished just 330 points short of Roddick. (In fact I'd rank Juan 1st for '03 without any shadow of a doubt if he'd managed to carry his countrymen to a DC victory, ATP points be damned).

    You have to understand that in the past the smaller tourneys and even the majors (or their equivalents) weren't given such consistent "points" year after year, which makes sense because the importance of an event changes according to its draw, format and other circumstances (which remains true to this day). So in 1960 you could see Gonzales ranked 1st (along with Rosewall) based on his dominance in the world championship, although he was inactive for a great part of the year. Ditto 1999, when Pete clearly got the better of the offical No. 1 Agassi and was on a tear before an injury stopped him right before the USO.

    One can argue for this or that ranking system. The official ATP Rankings (which, BTW, still neglect DC for the most part) are just one among many possibilities.

    P.S. What was abmk banned for? He was one of the more reasonable Fed fanatics around here.

    Bach, Mozart and Beethoven jockey for 1st place in just about all classical GOAT rankings. The same can't be said of Schubert, so if I "underrate" him so does everyone else.

    If anything it's easy to overrate Schubert since he's probably the greatest tunesmith in history and arguably the most prolific of all the major composers. At the same time he was not very comfortable with longer forms for most of his life; even such immortal works as the Unfinished Symphony and the piano trios (BTW I consider the opening theme of the 2nd trio's Andante movement the single greatest tune ever written) lose your interest pretty quick after their melodic beauty wears off. It really isn't until his late piano sonatas that Schubert can hold your attention longer than a few minutes with his more varied and tight development. Had he continued on that path for a few more years he could've well joined the Big 3, but of course we all know he suffered an even more premature death than Mozart.

    Again my assessment is not a matter of preference. I prefer Schubert to, say, Brahms whom I tend to rank higher. At best I'd put Franz in 5th place, below the Big 3 and Handel.
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    In Rock music it is much more one sided.Nobody touches Led Zeppelin
     
  13. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    On a subjective basis I would agree. Sampras' first strike ability with his great serve, excellent volley and powerful forehand is very hard to beat. It used to frustrate Agassi because Sampras could be play terribly and yet remain even with Agassi. Agassi would complain that Sampras could play 5 minutes of good tennis and all of a sudden the set was Sampras'. Now imagine Sampras playing well.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NonP, You are wrong: True experts rank Schubert very high, some of them even at first place.

    The melody of the opus 100 trio is in fact a Swedish folk song heard by Schubert from a Swedish singer in Vienna.

    I rate as his greatest melody the Et incarnatus est from his last mass.

    You diminish Schubert totally. His music has all what you could wish: great melodies, daring harmonies, speedy rhythms, tension and so on.

    The Unfinished is grandious from the beginning to its very end when Schubert is quasi leaving this world (this the reason why he did not complete it!A completion would not have given any sense as he already reached a better world). Schubert has proved rather often that he can master the great form: Great C-major symphony, Der Tod und das Mädchen (Death and the Maiden), G-Major String Quartett, Piano sonatas, String Quintett with that heavenly second movement (Rubinstein's favourite music...).

    Schubert was able to "paint" all feelings and emotions of a human being. Just listen and let him move your soul...
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
  15. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Lets see, insulting all posters who disagreed with his godly opinions (which were for the most part incredibly stupid and biased), excessive use of profanity, excessive and annoying use of hyperbolic and capitals to get his point across, I can only imagine.

    LOL, well atleast you got the Fed fanatic part right.
     
  16. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    I just gave that example to show one point could've turned djoko's season from an all-time great one to one quite a bit below that .......

    I have to disagree with your assessment of the match though ... I think djoker played well throughout ..., level rising a bit from set 3 onwards ...

    fed's level dropped quite a bit in set 3 and massively in set 4 ... his footwork was all over the place ....

    the lousy things about the match were fed's performance in set 4 and him not recovering & falling apart after djoker had saved those 2 MPs ...

    agree ...

    to be fair to djoker though , fed did serve darn well in both those matches, the wimby SF even more so ... having rewatched the wimby SF recently, I really couldn't blame djoker that much ....fed was serving exceptionally ....

    though others like agassi, hewitt, connors, murray would've done a bit better (would put fed ahead as well when it comes to dealing with big servers on a medium to faster than medium surface )

    as far as passing shots go, from the start of the open era ; laver, rosewall, connors, borg, lendl, wilander, agassi, chang,hewitt, federer, nadal are clearly superior ... I'd rate others like bruguera, rios, kafelnikov, murray superior as well ...

    would take djoker over pete on slow HC ...


    I'd agree with borg in 77, he was the best player on red clay & on grass & had a very good record on the other surfaces ...


    yeah, like I said it was close .... but roddick's performance in the majors was quite a bit better than fed's ... (also had the canada-cincy-USO triple )

    and before the YEC started, IIRC, for fed to get to #1, he needed to win all matches & roddick to lose all of them ... a very unlikely scenario ...the 2nd part in particular ...

    again, subjectively given fed's wimbledon & TMC performances in 2003, subjectively, I can understand rating fed over roddick ... but would any objective system ?

    yeah, only pete's record at majors in 99 read : absent, 2R, W and absent ..

    agassi's read : 4R, W, F & W ...

    that's a massive difference ...

    if we're just going by level of play in "select" tournaments, then you could argue for agassi over pete in 95 ( better on HC, better on clay ), argue rafter over pete in 98 (got the canada-cincy-USO triple )

    as you probably know, sampras barely edged out agassi points wise in 95 ..

    subjective analysis is ok when it is close ... but pete/agassi in 99, apart from h2h, there isn't a strong argument for sampras

    agassi's RG win here is one defining factor for me ...

    agassi was also on a tear in 95 before the USO ... turned out he had peaked a bit early, in it !?

    take any objective ranking system, pete wouldn't come close to agassi in 99 points wise ..

    as far as the gonzales example is concerned, that's quite different ... that time h2h was lot more significant ... he lead rosewall 15-4 h2h that year ... clearly was the best player overall until he became inactive ...he retired part-time convinced he'd beat all his challengers ...

    got into a bit of namecalling with some irrational posters... well you know .....should restrain myself at times :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, should I start with the names of your accounts that have been banned ... listing you do all of what you 'accused' me of ? Are you sure you're not looking into a mirror ? :)

    oh and did I mention your actions are downright cowardly ...... supposedly having me on ignore ...... yet keep on talking about me ... but not reading my replies in case they consist of me owning you like I used to before ...... :)
     
  18. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    2 words, HUSKER DU:)
     
  19. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Reading some of this thread now and again, it really is hilarious!

    As much as I like reading about tennis players history, trying to compare accurately even Nadal with Lendl is almost impossible, going back to Tilden is just ridiculous, tennis is almost a different sport back then.

    I did a top 10 in the open era (about 50 pages ago), and it is very subjective even then. Anyway carry on!
     
  20. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    who are those journeymen?
     
  21. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    The opposite of journeymen. Husker Du released 7 amazing albums in only 6 years and then split up in 1987. Amazing songwriters, and would blow anyone off the stage live!

    Now if Led Zeppelin had split up in 1975 after 7 very good albums (in 6 years as well ironically) then things may be different. However they meandered on for another 5 years. They should have done a Borg like Husker Du did, and split up at the peak of their career:shock:
     
  22. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Anyway back to the tennis, this is my top 10 of all-time (in the Open era) from about 50 pages ago, in case anyone missed it:-

    1. Rod Laver
    2. Roger Federer
    3. Jimmy Connors
    4. Bjorn Borg
    5. Pete Sampras
    6. John McEnroe
    7. Rafa Nadal
    8. Ken Rosewall
    9. Ivan Lendl
    10. Andre Agassi

    And Federer will be number 1 if he wins 20 Grand Slam titles in my, and I think his, opinion as well, from what I've read!

    I think the top 2 are way out in front, the next 8 very close (could easily swap them around, as so difficult to compare eras).
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715

    Yes, after Physichal graffity, they slowed down, due to Robert´s personnal disgraces and Jimmy´s taste for heroin.Still, they recovered part of their luster in 1979-1980, and they´d have crushed the 80´s, had not Bonzo drank those 40 vodkas in 1980.Page overcame heroin in 1983 and JPj and Plant kept a very high profile by themselves.
     
  24. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    I didn't know that about Jimmy's heroin, interesting as Grant Hart (Husker Du drummer and best songwriter) also had a bad heroin problem at the end of the bands career in 1987, and this was part of the reason Husker Du split up!
     
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Jimmy got hooked around 1976 or 1977.I´ve seen concerts where he was at the point of blowing it up, in another cases, though, that kept him rolling.He overcame it.I would have enjoyed so much if the XYZ group had just been a reality: how could they mix it up? talent and passion is the answer.But, the chemistry...
     
  26. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Well at least Page and Plant did at least get back together as Led Zeppelin for that gig at the O2. Grant Hart and Bob Mould just refuse to ever play together as Husker Du again, I really think they should before one of them dies.....

    Anyway back to the ridiculous impossible tennis discussion comparing different eras etc.
     
  27. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    and to finish our funny and small musical argument, I just add that the Golden Era of Tennis and the Golden Era of Rock just overlap.:)

    I agree it is difficult to compare eras, but still, there are weak and there are tough eras.
     
  28. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Yes without a doubt true, for me the golden eras of music and tennis were 60's (more music), 70's and 80's (more tennis), and comparing the eras can be good fun as long as not taken too seriously I reckon:)

    PS The reason I rate Connors so highly is that he performed at such a high level though such tough eras (70's and 80's), and I'm a huge fan:-?
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    The 70´s are the best for both, but still I´d say while there were great bands in the 80´s, tennis is a bit better and while there were great players in the 60´s, rock was a bit better.But 70´s had it all.i could go hours and hours with those amazing bands and players.

    The secret was the mixture of talent, passion, styles and will to go further.

    I also loved Connors.He was a fave of mine.
     
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    ...and for all of you, Kodes haters, that affirm he can´t win against full fields, here are two gems:

    1971 USO: Kodes dominates all time greats Ashe,Newcombe and Roche ( and french pro Pierre Barthes)just one after the other.he´s too tired to reach a final fifth set against Smith in the finals...
     
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Madrid, 1975 CC Gran Prix, assembles five of the best ever clay courters: Borg at his peak, Vilas at his peak, Nastase at his peak, Orantes at his peak and Panatta at his peak...you know who took the title? YES, HIM¡¡¡
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,353
    I don't know if all were at their peak but all were great players at the time. I think Borg's peak was about 1978-1979. If Kodes managed to win that over this field, that's very impressive.
     
  33. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Yes, they were at their prime years, even if the best Borg would be, as you mention, that of 1978 to 1980.But he had already won 2 FO and played a Masters final and 2 WCT finals.

    Nastase would reach a Wimbledon final a year later and Orantes had his best year in 1975, winning the US Open on clay just a few weeks before the Madrid event.

    I think there were other excelent cc players also, such as Ramirez,Bertolucci,Fillol,Dibbs and so forth.

    Kodes path in the 1971 USO is also amazing.He had other wins were he had to defeat a similar amount of big names.
     
  34. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I have changed my list again, moving Rosewall back down to No 6.

    I have decided a man with a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals cannot be ranked in the all-time top 5.

    1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Sampras
    4. Gonzales
    5. Borg
    6. Rosewall
    7. Nadal
    8. Tilden
    9. Budge
    10. Lendl
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, I'm sad...
     
  36. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    A team of 10 different players to play for my life against any other team and keep me away from damnation. I'd pick these 10, in chronological order:

    Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Benhur, with these players you would win even against E.T. players. I agree with this list.
     
  38. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I have moved Rosewall (yet again!) this time up one place to 5th.

    1. Roger "GOAT" Federer
    2. Rod "Rocket" Laver
    3. "Pistol" Pete Sampras
    4. Pancho "First Name Is Already A Nickname" Gonzales
    5. Ken "Muscles" Rosewall
    6. Bjorn "Ice Man" Borg
    7. Rafa "Knees" Nadal
    8. Bill "Lolita" Tilden
    9. "(The Don) Budge"
    10. Ivan "Drago" Lendl
     
  39. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,334
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Good list. I find it hard picking between Connors, Mac, Agassi and Lendl. But I think Lendl is a good choice.
     
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,060
    I like Lendl ahead above them. He has better numbers, some of ridiculous records/streaks.
     
  41. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,334
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I think they all have plus points;

    - Agassi has the career slam in pre homogenized conditions.
    - Connors has ridiculous longevity, also the time at #1.
    - Lendl obviously has the consistancy.
    - Mac has that 84 season, an incredible peak.

    If pushed I'd put Connors and Lendl together, with Agassi then Mac. But I think they're all tier 2 and all have plus points. Djokovic is creeping into that group as well IMO.
     
  42. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Lendl above Connors? No way.
     
  43. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,334
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Why no way? I remember reading some impressive arguments for Connors but I can't recall what they actually were...
     
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,060
    You say it as it's a slam dunk. Come on...Lendl was more dominant against the field than Connors during their primes. He has better slam performances(e.g. 19 finals), more weeks at #1, and multiple years winning over 90%. There's good reasons to put him ahead of Connors.
     
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,068
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Connors has a longevity that is unmatched in the era of hardcourt prevelance on tour, which includes the majors. Connors had a clear edge over Lendl when it mattered most right up to 1984, by which time Connors was 32. Connors won both their US Open finals in 1982 and 1983, despite Lendl winning their previous match before both those finals in one-sided fashion.

    Connors just had "it" much more than Lendl. That's my opinion.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, Well done. Just keep on improving your list...
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
  47. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,668
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    TMF makes an excellent point. I concur.

    I have The Mighty Lendl slightly ahead of Connors, etc.

    Of those listed, I'd rank it this way:
    1. Lendl
    2. Connors
    3. Mac
    4. Agassi
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  48. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,095
    I was looking for your own list but couldn't find it. What is it?
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, My list is an overview on achievements, playing stregth and (touch) skills.

    It's extremely difficult to make a clear distiction between the players since sometimes two or three players are about equal.

    Here my newest list

    1 Laver and Rosewall tied
    3 Gonzalez
    4 Tilden
    5 Borg
    6 Sampras and Federer tied
    8 Hoad
    9 Connors
    10 Budge

    11 McEnroe
    12 Vines, Kramer, Lendl, Nadal about equal

    Nadal can of course jump up with the time.

    It's hard to decide between Connors, McEnroe and Lendl...
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  50. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,430
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I can accept your argument that Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon because he was banned from taking part in it for 13 years. That's acceptable and it's not a knock on his greatness. I am with you on that.

    Bjorn Borg didn't win AO and US Open. AO was not an important major then so that's fine he didn't win it. Borg didn't win US open and Sampras didn't win FO though they both got many chances to win there. Borg got nine chances and that too in three different surfaces. Pete couldn't even make a final at RG. Federer has 5 US opens and one RG.

    What's your reason for putting both Sampras and Borg ahead of Federer? Borg, I can understand he won both on fast grass and slow clay. I highly respect Borg for that. Not that I don't respect Sampras, he used to be my favorite player at one point of tike.

    I am just curios and asking your reasons for your choice
     

Share This Page