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
    Feather, I don't rank Sampras ahead of Federer.

    I rank Borg a bit higher than both Sampras and Federer because of his strong domination, his three Channel Slams and his extraordinary numbers and records (percentages).

    Thanks that you concede Rosewall his "flaw" at Wimbledon. To be exact he missed 12 years if we consider the 1967 pro tournament at W.
     
  2. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I was asking why you rank Sampras ahead of Federer when Federer has bettered all his records and also won six masters and a major in clay. Sampras couldn't even make a clay major final. Just curios to see your reasons
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    I don't rank Samras ahead of Federer.

    Federer has not bettered all Sampras records.
     
  4. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Thanks for the list.

    Like Feather I'm surprised that you rank Sampras and Federer tied.

    I'm also surprised that you rank Nadal and Emerson so low. Both of them have won more that 10 majors (more than twice as much than Hoad). Nadal has loads of other amazing records on clay and a career slams.

    And don't you consider that ranking the players according to their touch skills (something that is really hard to measure) is a bit unfair to the more modern players) It's not their fault that the evolution of the game has relegated the touch skills to superfluous showcase shots. It's equivalent to ranking the players on achievement, playing strength and prudent baseline rally ability.
     
  5. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Oh year Sampras has one more year more at year end number one. My mistake, I should have said almost instead of all.

    Still, why you rank him ahead? No specific reason or because you like Sampras more?
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    Feather was not surprised that I rank Sampras and federer tied. Read his posts.

    Maybe I should include Nadal already in the top ten.

    Your mentioning Emerson is a funny joke. You know why...

    Touch is not superfluous. It's just a shame that Federer and Co are not as skilled as the old greats were.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Read my list once more!
     
  8. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I am surprised why you ranked Sampras and Federer tied. I actually asked you why you ranked Sampras ahead. I didn't notice that you ranked them together.

    Lemme ask you one thing. What do you mean by touch shots? Can you explain to me if you dont mind
     
  9. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Okay I read to fast: Feather was not surprised. Won't you answer to me why you rank Sampras and Federer tied?

    If you consider including Nadal in the top 10, where would you rank him, and why?

    I don't know why mentioning Emerson is a funny joke. I know that you consider Rosewall's amateur slams as full majors. That's why you consider that he has won 23 majors. Can you explain to me why Rosewall's amateur slams count as full majors, but not Emerson's amateur slams?

    Touch can't win you matches today. Touch has no longer the same place in a player arsenal that it had back in the 50's and 60's, where matches were won by touch. Or do you deny it?
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, I would say lob, lob volley, drop shot, drop volley, half volley, shots with sharp angle, backhand overhead and shots exactly into the corners.
     
  11. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Thanks for the explanation.

    The reason I asked is you always said Roger lacked touch shots while I never felt so. So I just wanted to know what are those touch shots that Roger lacked in his aresenal
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Rigid Flash, Do you want to make an interrogation? I understand that you want to find an insecure or wrong spot in my argumentation just to blame and discredit me. That's rather nasty, my friend.

    Since I have not yet included Nadal you see that's not easy for me to give him a special place in the top ten. But it's clear that it would be a low place yet. But I'm sure Rafa will add to his resume and thus increase his place.

    Amateur majors are really majors but don't reach the importance of open or pro majors. Where is the problem?

    Emerson never reached a ranking place of the top three or four while all my top ten or 15 were No.1 at least once. I give Emerson (the arguably most overrated player) a place around No.20.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  13. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Rafa is 26 and he has 11 majors now. How many more majors do you think he will win? I mean what possibly could be his final slam count according to you.

    I think he will win two more majors
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, It's difficult to say because there are Djokovic and Murray as very strong opponents and Nadal tends to be injured.

    But I guess Rafa will have a final balance of about 15 to 17 majors if he stays healthy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  15. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Well, he will be in his prime for maybe another year or two. Nadal's game is very much dependant on his speed. He has already lost his speed a lot. I don't think he can win a lot when his speed is compromised, thats why I said 13 majors. His game is very brutal on his body. I really don't see him playing into the 30s like Federer. No way he or Djokovic can have Federer's longevity.
     
  16. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Sharp angles, backhand overheads, shots into the corners, drop shots, half volleys are all shots Federer does extremely well. He's also got a good lob. I can't say I've seen too many lob volleys though...

    And Federer has surprassed virtually every single one of Sampras' records. He's got more majors overall and atleast as many at every individual slam. He's got more titles and that includes big ones like masters and WTF's. Federer has also got a much better clay resume.

    The only thing Sampras' has left is the 6 year end #1 finishes, but Federer has more weeks. It's not even close really.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I still believe that Sampras had stronger competition than Federer in the latter's peak years.
     
  18. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
  19. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    What about the huge gap between them in clay?

    That said, I don't agree with stronger competition.
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, You are right: that's a problem in my argumentation.

    I only can argue that Pete lost to very strong claycourters: Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov...
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  21. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Pete had one advantage. He had a fast Wimbledon and fast US Open. The slowing down of surfaces happened after his time. When he was in his late 20s he could serve his way to US Open finals. Federer didn't have that luxury. If US Open was as fast in the 90s, I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2010 and 2011. Both time he had double match points each. It was so closely fought despite Roger not in his prime..

    I don't think Roger would have lost to Nadal in Wimbledon 2008, had it been the old grass. May be he could have lost to Roddick in Wimbledon 2009, had the grass been fast.

    The slowing down of courts have hurt Federer the most and it benefitted his closest rivals Djokovic and Nadal a lot..
     
  22. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I want to understand your ranking and in order to do so I need more informations. If I find a weak spot in your reasoning, it could be useful to point it to you. You could either correct it, or show me that you have a good reason and convince me that the weak spot is in my reasoning. It happened before that I point something to be corrected by the answer. Of course, that presuppose that we are ready to change our mind with new informations/different angle of view of a same event.

    I understand that it is not easy to rank Nadal if you haven't analyzed his resume yet.

    And yes I think that it is a problem to claim that someone has won 23 majors, including amateur majors, without specifying that some of these majors should not be taken into account when we are comparing two player's resume.
     
  23. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Federer only really lost to the greatest clay court of all time at FO during his peak, him and Kuerten. Sampras also never made it past the 2nd round of the FO after 1996 IIRC. Don't place him and Federer in the same breadth on clay.
     
  24. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    One thing to note is that while Pete the surfaces of the USO and Wimby suited his game perfectly, it probably prevented him to develop an all surfaces game, which could have helped him to have more success on clay. Pete was specialized for the fast surfaces and there were a lot of fast surfaces on which he could rack slams. But he was too specialized to have serious success on clay.

    Fed was a bit less lucky because while his game was as suited for fast surfaces as Pete, he had less fast surfaces to play on. On the other hand, the work he had to do to adapt to these slower, higher bouncing surfaces helped him to develop a clay court game. Federer great merit is that he was able to have as much success as Pete on "relatively fast" surfaces, with a game which was also suitable for clay.
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, I'm ready to learn. But I will not learn regarding the amateur majors. You can't omit them in a player's resume. Otherwise you could also omit some open era majors including maybe even a few Federer majors due to lack of strong opposition, f. i. the 2006 AO.
     
  26. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I fully agree that some open era majors should be omitted from a player's resume when we are comparing two players resume.

    These majors tournament are those who had a depleted fields. A depleted field is a field where several of the top players of the moment are absents.

    If you consider that the AO 2006 fell in the same case and should thus be omitted, despite the presence of nearly all the top contenders, you can as well omit the full year 2006, the full 2000's, and every year since whatever date you feel a proper opposition existed.
     
  27. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    What was wrong with the 2006 AO? Baghdatis played well and reached the final. Even years past his best he's capable of pushing today's top players. He gave Murray a hell of a fight at Wimbledon last year for example. He David Nalbandian on the way to final who was coming off his YEC win over Federer as well. A player gets hot for a tournament and does some damage, that what happens when there's depth...

    Federer beat Tommy Haas and Davydenko on the way to the final, both of those are good players. His form at the AO 06 wasn't too great either. An Open era major >>> Amateur major.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  28. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Bobby, I have a few comments on your list.

    - In general I think a GOAT list should just be on achievements, but we are all of course allowed to make our own criteria.

    - There is no justification in putting Hoad in the Top 10. He only won 4 amateur majors and 1 pro major, and was overshadowed by Gonzales.

    - Nadal should be in the Top 10. He has won 11 majors in the Open Era (at all four venues), is the greatest clay-courter/single surface player of all time, and has dominated Federer.

    - I would rank Lendl ahead of Connors, but I admit this is very debatable.

    - I will not mention the relative rankings of Rosewall/Federer/Sampras as we have debated this many times...
     
  29. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    This kind of analysis is flawed because you are taking Sampras' already developed game and trying to fit it based on surfaces. I think it should be the other way around. If you read Sampras' book, you will see that when he was around 14, his "coach" Pete Fischer prompted him to switch to a 1HBH and develop a S/V game because, to paraphrase Sampras/Fischer, "If you want to win Wim, you have to have a good S/V game with 1HBH, and no baseliner with a 2HBH had won Wim since Connors in 1982".

    IOW, given Wim's importance as the premier tournament in tennis (and you will see that Sampras has mentioned numerous times that, for him at least and probably most others, Wim is the most imp. tournament in the sport), it's not far-fetched to think that Sampras moulded his game to try and win Wim. It's reasonable to assume that if Wim were on some other surface, Sampras would've tried to shape his game accordingly.

    *** I will not claim that he would've had the same success had that been the case, but he would've worked to build a game to succeed at Wim, regardless.***

    I think Fed would've lost to Nadal anywhere in a slam after the FO 2008 F. Because Fed has mental issues with Nadal. Same goes for the USO 2010/2011 losses to Djok. FWIW, in both the USO matches, Fed was in a position to win but choked.
     
  30. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Not a bad list at all.

    Mine would be fairly similar, except I don't have Connors that high.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  31. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Bobby, that is very lame.

    Pete lost to absolute nobodies in clay in RG. I can list you
    1995: First round loss to G Schaller
    1997: Third round loss to M Norman
    1998: Second round loss to R Delgado

    Seriously, do you think that Roger will lose to these guys?

    In the last nine years, from 2004 onwards, Roger Federer has lost at RG to four players. R Nadal, N Djokovic, G Keurten and Robin Soderling. Soderling defeated Federer in 2010 and R Nadal in 2009. Soderling loss was when he was past his prime

    Pete's best result at RG was a semifinal. Roger two semi finals, four finals and a win. All those finals and in one final he lost to Rafael Nadal. If not for Rafa, he would have had 5-6 RGs. It's NOT even close

    I don't think Roger is not going to have a losing record against Andre Agassi or Brugera or Kafelnikov or Courier on clay. Federer played one clay match with Kafelnikov, before he was in his prime, and still beat him 6-7, 6-1,6-1.

    I don't think anyone from the 90s, except for Guga will have a positive head to head against Roger Federer on clay
     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Federer did not meet a great player then.
     
  33. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I was not talking about what Pete would have done today or how he would have evolved or anything like that. I meant to say that in the 90s Wimbledon and US Open were faster compared to today. It would have certainly helped Roger against Nadal and Djokovic.

    I also felt that he has some mental block against Nadal since RG 2008. However, I feel that a faster grass would have helped him in Wimbledon 2008. Federer's problem of Rafa retrieving all his shots would be lessened on a relatively faster surfaces where he could play his shots. He never showed any of those mental problems in WTF. In fact he bageled him there..

    Regarding Djokovic, he had match points in both US 2010/2011 but in 2010 it was on Djokovic's serve. And he played very well then. So you can't call it a choke. Yeah, in 2011 he should have finished the match.

    Gotta give credit to Djokovic in one thing, when he is match points down he is totally fearless. He has saved match points against many p[layers in the last couple of years.
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Vines ahead of Newcombe? At most he equals Sedgman
    Wilander and Agassi could be top 15 considering how well they did against very tough competition
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, You are on my ignore list.

    But: Playing level is an important criterion to rank players. People like you use to blame Rosewall for his "weak" level in comparison to Gonzalez and Hoad and Laver.

    I included Hoad for his high peak level (arguably the best of all).
     
  36. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He met a good player playing great...

    Still far superior to Rosewall's amateur slam wins.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    shakes1975, I agree that Roger has a mental problem in some cases.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, Thanks. Yes, Connors might be a problem but he has such a great longevity.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, Convincing points.
     
  40. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Every player who played the game will have easy draws and tough draws. At the end of career, it all evens out. It's very childish to select one major and say that his opposition was weak and it should be omitted. It's like a teen age guy who cribs that my favorite player lost because he was injured!

    Roger Federer also had some relatively tough draws. So if a major should be omitted because it's relatively easy so should he be awarded two majors for a relatively tough draw?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Newk was never a clear No1 while Vines was.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Feather, absurd and nasty...

    Edit: I apologize for these words.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2013
  43. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,415
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    But true. I think Federer beating peak Djokovic and peak Murray back to back to win Wimbledon counts as 4 majors.
     
  44. shakes1975

    shakes1975 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Okay. Though I think Wim in the 90's had a lower (and more unpredictable) bounce, more than being *that* much faster. The fact that there were more S/V'ers back then adds to that picture too. Same goes for USO, IMO.

    But I am not so sure that Fed would've had his way against Nadal just by making the grass similar to the grass of old.

    Ah, but they never played a best-of-5 at the WTF (and it's not an outdoor tournament like the slams). And it comes at the end of the season. Sorry, I have to disagree with the extrapolation of their WTF results to faster courts in general.

    Fair enough. My point is that those losses had nothing to do with the courts being slower. Because he was still in a position (or close to it) to win both times.
     
  45. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Yeah, my post was absurd. I was replying in kind. But then so was your post. The difference is you don't accept that
     
  46. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    I do agree, he could have closed that out. However, if the courts were faster, I presume the matches wouldn't be that closer. He could have done it better.

    In 2012 both wins of Roger were on relatively fast courts. Wimbledon and Cincinnati. On the slower courts, Rome and RG, he was straight setted. He was also straight setted in WTF but the match was very close than scoreline suggests. He is in his 30s he can't grind against Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. I think fast courts will help him against these three guys. However it makes him more vulnerable against del Potro, Berdych and Tsonga. Still Roger is more a favorite against these three on a faster court than he is against the top three on a slower court. So I guess, it helps him more ultimately
     
  47. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Nadal moves ahead of Borg today.

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

    Pete M. New User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    I personally believe you just can put Nadal ahead of Borg when he wins 5 wimbledon tittles and one or two master cups.
     
  49. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    You can put Borg above Nadal when he wins a US Open or 8 French Opens.
     
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Drama Queen is right.
     

Share This Page