Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    The video provided my Newpball is very short, but the tennis played in it doesn't seem physical at all. The guy is even walking on some replacing movement! The strokes and serves look soft too. Basically some flick of the wrist.

    Maybe the difficulties met by Tilden against the french are not only physical, but also stylish. I don't know if the musketeer played differently than Tilden?

    And does someone know how long did the matches lasted in Tilden's time?
     
  2. Chico

    Chico Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    9,197
    Agree. Only one thing is missing:
    2010s - Djokovic
     
  3. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,150
    And I repeat that Pete won the YEC in dominating fashion, against Agassi himself to boot. So the comparison is really 2 majors vs. 1 major + YEC, not as wide a gulp as it seems on paper.

    '77 and '99 are different in that Borg's "inferior" record had more to do with the tour than any injuries, and I've acknowledged it on this very thread. Still my main point stands: going by pure numbers alone Vilas would be the sole consensus choice over Borg (or Connors for that matter), but that wasn't the case then and is not the case today, for good reason. Ditto '99.

    Also if the H2H is double-counting I actually think the ranking system skews '99 more in favor of Agassi, because as it stands then and now the runner-up wins a fair number of points compared to the winner. That says nothing about how dominant one player was against the other, which I maintain is crucial in case of '99.

    Anyway we're almost going in circles right now about this. Let's just disagree.

    OK, we disagree then. No biggie.

    I think you'd be surprised at how little the net point-winning % has changed over the years. For (good) example Fed's net stats in the 30 Fedal matches belie the boilerplate about Rafa making it virtually impossible to volley against him. And I've seen some ridiculously high %s from guys like Djoko or Berdych, none of whom are considered beasts at the net.

    Of course we shouldn't read too much into these numbers. These guys win such a high % of net points because they come in mostly for easy put-aways. Likewise Fed has had the same success at the net against because he comes off relatively easy approaches; if he had tried to force the issue as much as a Mac, Edberg, or Rafter his %s most likely would've dropped accordingly.

    Still, considering the sheer # of Fed's approaches in some of his matches and his success rate, not to mention similar success by other players, I don't think one can plausibly blame the courts/racquets for the most part in this case. I do think the "big game" is still viable given the right players, and its "death" can be attributed more to their development than the usual suspects.

    Given how the game has gone through cycles throughout its history I think the placebo effect is bigger than you think, unless one can show that similar changes with the courts/racquets took place in the bygone eras.

    Also I guarantee you that there are more dissenting voices out there than one might gather from the news. Tsonga for one said during the '11 YEC (or maybe it was last year) that he didn't think the courts were slowed down like many of his peers were saying, but rather that it was the balls that gave the impression. I saw this in this report with the headline that said (what else?) "ATP Players Complain about Slower Courts," or something along that line. And I've seen Blake admit that he's very bad at judging court speeds, but again you rarely hear about this, because it doesn't make for as sexy a headline as the "game is changing" meme.

    And really, if you follow the post-match pressers closely you'll see that players often get the facts very wrong about matches that they just finished barely minutes ago. Given such unreliable recollections I frankly find it amazing that people are so quick to trust what these same players recall about such minute differences as court speeds that supposedly came about over several years, if not decades.

    Another thing that makes me skeptical is that their accounts are often carbon copies of each other's. Seriously, if you took out one player's name and substituted another's most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, that's how similar they are. It's almost like they're robots programmed to reproduce the same story over and over again. And I tell you, I've seen pressers from the '90s that read exactly the same.

    Maybe, or maybe not. But does it make such a big difference one way or the other, since both matches would be relatively competive 3-setters?

    Again there's no way to prove this, but I'm fairly confident in saying that per the stats that we do have the difference in court speeds between the USO and the AO is negligible.

    There's also the rust factor, and of course both factors affect players differently. Anyway let me repeat that I wasn't making a general point but rather a particular one about Pete.

    But if he'd suffered a blow earlier at the AO maybe he would've been in a better state of mind come the USO. Or matured earlier, you never know. A career is a continuum and should be treated as such.

    Thanks, but you didn't answer my question! What should we rename the Magnificent Seven now that Rafa can (IMO) take his own rightful place? Maybe the real Handsome Eight, despite some of their (pardon my candor) less-than-ideal pulchritude?

    Again I think Nadal belongs in the same company now, his one big record being the nine consecutive years in the Open era with a major, though I will say (and this will probably be my only definitive all-time ranking) that Federer > Nadal as they played in the same era. Some will say the two are actually from different generations, but I think that's going a little too far in the other direction.
     
  4. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Nadal
    4. Borg
    5. Rosewall
    6. Laver
    7. Agassi
    8. Connors
    9. Lendl
    10. Gonzales

    I can see Nadal getting to the 2nd spot and Djokovic getting to the 7th spot.
     
  5. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    That's all fine, Krosero, but the point is, he dominated his own era which had no other greats in it, and only dominated in the US. (Yes, I know he rarely travelled abroad, but I can't give him credit for what he might have done).

    Beating Johnston year after year in the US does not make one a GOAT contender.

    I rank Tilden at 8th all-time, which I think is reasonable given that he played almost 100 years ago when things were far less competitive than they are now.
     
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Laver as low as 6th? Wow.
     
  7. Pat Rafter

    Pat Rafter New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14
    My favorite 10 players are

    Patrick Rafter
    John McEnroe
    Jimmy Connors
    Alberto Mancini
    Novak Djokovic
    Henri Leconte
    Michael Stich
    Guillermo Perez-Roldan
    Alex Corretja
    Carlos Moya

    I know, it is a list, which entitleds not the best players of all time, but I liked them most.


    The best ones may be


    Roger Federer
    Pete Sampras
    André Agassi
    Roy Emerson
    Rod Laver
    Björn Borg
    Novak Djokovic
    John McEnroe
    Ivan Lendl
    Boris Becker

    but there are many others like Jimmy Connors, Rafael Nadal, Jim Courier...


    And here are the players, that I don't like


    Pete Sampras
    Rafael Nadal
    Björn Borg
    Boris Becker
    Brad Gilbert
    Thomas Muster
    Marat Safin
    Marcelo Rios
    Ivan Lendl
    Emilio Samchez
    Thomas Muster
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Pat Rafter, You have Muster twice. You have Emerson ahead of Laver! Maybe two Emersons would beat one Laver...
     
  9. Pat Rafter

    Pat Rafter New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14
    @ BobbyOne

    That list is not really in that order.
     
  10. 70後

    70後 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    725
    Don't pollute this discussion.
     
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ok, let's leave that at that. But I didn't get your response to my point about h2h being double counting if the 2 players in consideration are the most likely ones to win the event


    not sure why you think I went anywhere near the success at net% numbers. I only mentioned ..

    "even players outside of the top 20 many a times pass from well behind the baseline with ease .... that was much rarer earlier. and many of these are NOT the fault of the net-rusher."

    that is an observation made from watching tennis from the different eras.

    the success at net %s are not going to change that much as players these days come in mostly on the easier volleys ..

    Big game can be successful even now, but its just considerably tougher and riskier.

    yeah, but its not people listening to the players , is it ? Many watch it . Many do get the difference, especially when the change is significant.

    see wimbledon 2002 vs 2001
    see AO 2013 vs AO 12
    see talks about paris 10 being significantly faster than in other years.
    see reports about AO 2000 being quite fast.

    I absolutely agree that one needs to be careful while taking these statements/observations into account.

    Taking all factors into consideration , I don't think you can realistically say the conditions haven't slowed down by a non-negligible margin and attribute that much of the blame to coaching/prevailing mindset

    maybe, if roddick would be able to take one of the TBs ( though he rarely has vs fed :twisted: ). So yeah I'd say that's not a negligible difference


    I wouldn't call it negligible. The hold%s are one thing - but hardly a conclusive measure of speed.

    Unreturned serves% would be a better parameter. Ace% measure shows some difference. It'd be a fair assumption to make that difference in unreturned serves% would be more.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  12. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    He played in a shallow split field filled with his countrymen and still managed just 14 Majors. And 6th isn't low.
     
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    It won´t take much.red clay has already turned blue...
     
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Like Pierre Trudeau & wife?
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Eragon, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Buchholz countrymen?
     
  16. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    [​IMG]
     
  17. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,608
    The tennis then was less physical but it was a different game, based much more on variety of spins -- particularly because slices and chops were so effective on the low-bouncing (and bad-bouncing) grass used back then. They could hit the ball harder than you generally see them doing in these short clips, but those racquets were extremely heavy; the players often chose not to try to wallop the ball but instead to work with spins.

    You can imagine, with those heavy racquets, if they did go for pace and they met the ball in the center of the racquet, they could hit the ball quite hard. With so little footage it's not easy to find examples, but you can see some shots by Don Budge that give some idea of how much pace they could get on their flat shots if they went for that. But it just wasn't the percentage play, with that equipment -- and with the grass of the time period offering such great rewards for heavy cutting slices.

    Tilden in particular was known as a lifelong student and master of spins. Something to keep in mind when watching his clips. Others like Vines or Budge went for power more than he did. He was most famous for his cannonball serve and for the power on his forehand because those were his most dramatic shots; but he often chose not to go for the ace or for the big winner. That was especially true as he aged because he wanted to conserve energy (he's 38 in the clip shown).

    In his years of domination he could overpower opponents and was especially deadly if they gave him pace, because he could handle it and he would just turn it back on them. Cochet and Lacoste knew that an older Tilden was not going to be able to hit them off the court; so they deliberately slowed the pace and tried to get him into long exhausting rallies. It was an open secret that they were trying to exhaust him and capitalize on his aging legs.

    Tilden lost a lot of matches to them that way, and some observers (like Vines) felt that Tilden would have done much better if he had come to net more and ended these rallies. But Tilden could be a bit stubborn at times and wanted to beat opponents at their own game (reminds me a lot of the younger Federer that way).

    In the '27 French final Lacoste and Tilden were reported to have countless long exchanges, some as long as 42 shots.

    It was 63 games long and took 3 1/2 hours, which is actually swift by modern standards; they took very little time between points back then.

    The '27 US final between Lacoste and Tilden lasted 49 games and was considered a long match, but the actual elapsed time was only 1:53.
     
  18. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,608
    A couple of things to keep in mind about Johnston: he missed some years due to World War I; and he would have several US Championships if not for Tilden.

    Johnston won only 3 "Slam" titles (a term not used back then; there were other majors back then like the WHCC, which he won): but the war intervened just as he started winning them. He won the USO in 1915, and lost a five-set final there the next year. He would have had excellent chances to win in 1917 and 1918 but had to miss those years.

    And Wimbledon was not even held for four years during the war so there was no possibility of even going there (he did win it after the war).

    When the US Championships resumed in 1919, Johnston won it, beating Tilden in the final. The war was over and practically all the great champions of the day traveled to the US championships that year; some felt that the 1919 tournament had the best field ever assembled. Whether or not true, we can say at least that Johnston came out on top when all the best players of his day entered the draw.

    I've seen articles from 1919, or shortly thereafter, stating that Johnston's level of play was possibly the highest that had ever been achieved in the sport (and in particular that his Western forehand was something on a level never seen before). That was not stated as a fact: but even to entertain the idea shows that Johnston had achieved an extremely high level of play, at the very least.

    The only reason Johnston didn't keep winning was Tilden. In the winter of 1919-20 Tilden improved his backhand, and he edged ahead of Johnston as a player. Tilden won their 1920 US final in five sets and never lost to him in an important match again, though Johnston could keep pushing him to five.

    Johnston's singular misfortune, even more than the war, was that he was a fellow American in Tilden's generation. If he had been Aussie or English or French he would have snagged some other "Slam" titles and would not look so "little" in the historical record; but as Americans, he and Tilden rarely played abroad and their main event of the year was the US Championships. So Tilden overshadowed him.

    But they were the two best players in the world. That's why they met in so many of those finals: not because Americans generally chose to concentrate on the US Championships and Johnston just happened to be the second-best American around for Tilden to face, which I guess is how Johnston is remembered these days.

    In fact he was the second best player in the world, not just the second-best American. He won Wimbledon and the WHCC major in 1923, and rarely lost in Davis Cup. He beat Lacoste at the WHCC in '23 and at the US Championships in '24. He also beat Lacoste and Borotra in Davis Cup in '25 and '26, after those men had already won Wimbledon.

    He never beat Cochet, that I know of.

    Anyway I disagree with downgrading Tilden's place just because Johnston is viewed as some kind of minor player or something: but I'm not going to argue with your ranking him 8th. Tilden did play so long ago that where you rank him really comes down to how you view past/present comparisons. It depends on what you value. I can see him being regarded as a GOAT contender. I can also see him ranked much lower.
     
  19. newpball

    newpball Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Messages:
    5,355
    Location:
    Northern California, USA
    Yes, I am at a complete loss why someone would even consider this guy as the greatest tennis player of all time.

    I suppose I need a new brain.....:shock:

    Tilden - Lacoste
    Underhand serve anyone?

    http://youtu.be/xBM52H2RKDw

    The Tilden serve:

    http://youtu.be/izEbU5u5J-I
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  20. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    1. Borg
    2. Laver
    3. Federer
    4. Sampras
    5. Gonzalez
    6. Rosewall
    7. Nadal
    8. Connors
    9. McEnroe
    10. Lendl
     
  21. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,150
    Well, I thought it was obvious that I disagreed. I do agree that one shouldn't put too much stock in individual H2Hs, but when you're comparing 2 players with comparable achievements I definitely think the H2H is a valid metric to consider, especially when one is so dominant against the other (which, again, doesn't always show up in the ranking points).

    I'd like to elaborate on this more because it's not too different from the oft-misunderstood Fedal H2H, but for time constraints I'll save that discussion for another time.

    I brought up the net %s simply because that's the best way to measure success at the net. And I can buy that the big game is tougher today, but not by that much.

    Again let's return to the Fedal example. I focus on this one because it's generally and (rightly) agreed that Nadal is one of the best passers ever, and also because it's often claimed that this makes it a virtual suicide strategy, especially for Fed, to attack the net against him.

    But that second claim simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As you know Nadal has often struggled precisely against players who like to attack, and more on point Fed's success rate at the net against Rafa is actually quite good (hat tip to krosero):

    As you can see Fed generally wins over 50% of his net points against Rafa, and even 60+% isn't rare. That's a pretty darn good % by any historical standards! (Not sure if this was a sign of the times, but in a recent discussion this poster tried to tell me that those %s in the 50s were actually poor, when a Mac or Edberg wouldn't be much worse off with such numbers. In fact my guess is that their averages were about the same.)

    OK, but the comparison doesn't hold because Fed comes in off easy approaches, right? Fair enough, so let's throw out extreme cases like '06 Rome (arguably Fed's best match ever on clay) and '12 IW with only 13 approaches. But then how do you explain such "normal" performances like his winning 36 out of 59 approaches at '05 RG--61% on clay(!)--or 42/75 for 56% at '08 Wim, or 43/60 for a whopping 72% at the '09 AO? The # of approaches here isn't too far off what a Becker or Pete used to average off clay, and again the %s are good by anyone's standard.

    Granted this doesn't prove that Fed came in with similarly difficult approaches, but does that really matter? I mean, how can one argue that the likes of Mac, Edberg, Becker, Pete and Rafter, generally considered more natural net players than Fed, cannot at least match this and more? Maybe they'd do even better than Fed himself managed with easier forays to the net!

    I don't know if I've told you this before, but the more I learn and study tennis history the more I'm convinced that the game has changed remarkably little, as shown by these S&V/net/attacking/big game examples.

    First of all, let's clear up one thing: the 1st Wimbledon with the new "slow" grass was 2001, not 2002. It's amazing how this rather simple matter has turned into something of a cottage industry, but despite what the naysayers would like to believe the evidence is overwhelming that the grass courts were overhauled in 2000, the year before the Wimbledon we all fondly remember largely due to the classic S&V battles.

    Consider the following:

    - The official Wimbledon website says the courts have been played on the new 100% ryegrass "since 2001"--not AFTER 2001--which usually includes the year indicated (2001).

    - This Spanish-language article quotes Wimby's former head groundsman Eddie Seaward (Neil Stubley took over this year) as saying that he and his team finished remodeling the grass courts in 2000. Right from the horse's mouth, and lest there be any misunderstanding the article's author states the same himself:

    http://tenis.as.com/tenis/2010/06/22/mas_tenis/1277233057_850215.html

    (You can see a Google translation here.)

    Now to be fair some of the confusion is understandable, because even the supposedly reputable media often get this wrong. A case in point is this TIME article (its website now requires a subscription for full articles, hence the link to another thread), which says the new grass was planted in 2001:

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4281119#post4281119

    Apparently this writer was clueless that it takes about a year to prepare the grass courts. (And to digress a little, he also says "an exceptionally rainy two weeks had kept the courts soft," which is rather dubious because 1) I don't remember it being so rainy except near the end of the 2nd week and 2) a damp weather generally makes for slower tennis, though the slippery grass could reward faster play.) Now if a TIME sportswriter is this ignorant or misleading then it's hard to blame the general public for not knowing better. Still the article makes it clear that the new grass debuted in 2001, and that's one out of at least dozens of similar articles that say as much.

    But despite all this evidence there are still too many people who cling to this idea that 2002 was the 1st year with the new grass courts just because 2 baseliners happened to make the final (never mind that a guy like Krajicek made the QF that same year in only his 2nd event after coming back from a year's hiatus) or because Henman threw some sour grapes about "the slowest court I've played on this year" (which, BTW, come almost always after a frustrating loss like his).

    And I guarantee you that people calibrate their impressions accordingly when they read stories like this. The Wimbledon example is obviously a rather extreme one, but you can see the same placebo effect in the umpteen conversations about the "slow" surfaces. As I've shown upthread these seemingly clear but perceived differences are usually negligible. Sure there might be an exception here and there, but over time the service/return %s have remained pretty constant.

    In short people are most likely fooling themselves when they say they can see these differences just from watching. As we've both agreed one should take everything into account.
     
  22. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,150
    If the ace % is any guide the unreturned-serve % is probably not much different. Remember, the % of points won by aces is nearly identical between the AO and the USO, and as I like to point out the % of unreturned serves has almost certainly increased since the '90s, which, much like the % of service games won, doesn't support the "surface slowdown" talking points.

    And again I return to my main point: if players are holding serve and winning more free points than possibly ever per these stats, then what does it matter whether the surfaces are slower? And you can't point to the racquets as the main culprit, either, because 1) again whatever advantages they afford the returner are somehow offset by the server's own advantages, and 2) the net stats today do not show such a big divergence from those of previous eras (or at least the last couple decades). Then what's the problem?

    That's why I say people are missing the big picture when they focus so much on the courts/racquets. Despite all the complaints the fundamentals of tennis haven't changed all that much. What have really changed are the players, and these changes began long before the so-called surface slowdown/racquet revolution.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Great list.

    But any list including Cochet,Lacoste,Perry,Budge,Kramer,Hoad,Newcombe,Sedgman,Agassi would also be welcome
     
  24. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Kiki, I know! I know! The top 10 is so tough in tennis man. I really like the attributes of a tier system. I could easily bring in Budge and Tilden in the top 10 and of course it's very debatable as to exact placement in my estimation. Yet, to continue with 11-25:

    11. Tilden
    12. Budge
    13. Hoad
    14. Lacoste
    15. Kramer
    16. Lacoste
    17. Newcombe
    18. Sedgman
    19. Agassi
    20. Cochet
    21. Wilander
    22. Becker
    23. Edberg
    24. Ellsworth Vines
    25. Emerson
     
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I´d probably have the same list of players in my top 25, maybe in a different order.of course, if we only came to mere talent, Nastase should be right there.if we focus on just one surface,Santana, Courier and Kuerten could be there, too.What about Patty? Drobny? Wilding? Brookes? maybe even Borotra?

    I think you duplicated Lacoste: I´d fit in Crawford and Trabert, both deserve serious regard due to achievement.
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Fred Perry¡¡¡
     
  27. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    My mistake Kiki. I meant to have Perry in there. So, here's 1-25:

    1. Borg
    2. Laver
    3. Federer
    4. Sampras
    5. Gonzalez
    6. Rosewall
    7. Nadal
    8. Connors
    9. McEnroe
    10. Lendl
    11. Tilden
    12. Budge
    13. Hoad
    14. Perry
    15. Kramer
    16. Lacoste
    17. Newcombe
    18. Sedgman
    19. Agassi
    20. Cochet
    21. Wilander
    22. Becker
    23. Edberg
    24. Ellsworth Vines
    25. Emerson
     
  28. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    By that idiotic logic, there'd have to be 10 Slams a year in the 2000s compared to 4 Slams a year in the 1970s. Seriously, how does this guy even know how to operate a computer?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
  29. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Having Tilden below Lendl looks completely out of place, seems like not a lot of thought has gone into your list. Maybe you should've just stuck with an open era and pre-open era list,that would've given your list a little more credibility.
    And placing Laver above Federer is absurd since the former was 5'8 and all the champions since 1980 are 6' and above which means Laver wouldn't win squat in the 90s let alone in this era of extreme physicality. GOAT is someone who should be able to win across all eras. This is one of the biggest reasons why Fed is the consensus GOAT because if he was put in a time capsule, he'd win in any era with his game.(case in point is pre-prime Fed beating Sampras at his own game in Wimby 2001.)

    As far as placing Borg at 1, well that's your bias kicking in which is ok by me,everyone chooses their fav player as #1,you're no different. Quite frankly you're nothing more than a nostalgic fanboi albeit with grey hair.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2013
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Have you ever heard the concept of " relativity"?
     
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If Laver was a fair guy, he´d pitty " tall" federer and give him one of his THREE GS ( amateur, pro and open)...
     
  32. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    How in the world would you know if I have grey hair or how much thought I put into my list Monfed? Actually getting out and playing more tennis would be my suggestion. I've been thinking about this question for decades. When did you start playing tennis? Have you played competitively? When did you start watching tennis? Have you trained a lot and played a ton of tournaments? Have you read all you can about tennis history? These things do make a difference you know in terms of perspective Monfed. You are one of a kind. Laver above Federer is absolutely justifiable. Same with the whole 1-25. Feel free to provide your own list. As for the age comment, dude I'm 44 and I can still run circles around most accomplished junior players, so ease up on that stuff. I have followed tennis much more than yourself and over many more years. I've studied tennis since 1978. I follow current tennis like a hawk too, so I've watched many careers begin and end. How about yourself? Grey hair? You probably have more than me and maybe less hair period lol. Plus, most juniors don't exercise as much as I do so ease up on the age references and the assumptions that I haven't put a lot of thought into my list. It's all very subjective when you try and specifically differentiate between great players across eras. That's the way it will always be. Can't get around it. It's an inherently objective and subjective discussion. Laver above Federer is absolutely justifiable, no two ways about it. Being in the top 10 is stellar given how many great players there have been. You can make arguments for several players to be at the very top in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
  33. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Yep. Today's era is about 10 times stronger than back in the 60s when the sport was mainly limited to a handful of countries and "Majors" (LOL!) could be won with just 3 matches in a draw of 8 (SUPERLOL!). I still wouldn't say "1 Slam today is worth 10 in the 60s" because there are only so many Slams each year and new ones don't materialize out of thin air like you seem to believe. But it's not your fault, we should blame the guy that gave you a computer when you should be learning math and alphabets.
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If you had attended a correct high school - maybe you haven´t reached HS level yet- some good teacher could have taught to you that, in Laver´s and Borg´s time, there were far less countries ( or official ones because most are a joke).

    The USSR, which means in terms you can hit "Soviet Union" was a federal republic with 15 states inside, now each one is a different country.Yugoslavia, another eastern bloc country was a federative republic with 6 countries inside, now all of them independent ( even more, there was no Kossovo such as you know it) and the Czechoslovakian Federal republic consisted of the current Czech and Slovakian countries.

    BTW, can you tell me how many top pros have you seen , I mean top guys, from countries like New Zealand,Australia,United States,Brasil,Mexico,Italy,Poland,Hungary,India,South Africa, Great Britain,Germany,Sweden,Ecuador,Peru,India?

    I doubt you can hit 10 names all those countries combined.In Borg´s time, for example, there were around 30 or 40 players considered top pros from those countries.
     
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Great list. I bet I have the same 25 names, in a slightly but not terribly different order.
     
  36. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Yes placing Laver above Fed is ok but placing Borg above Laver is also ok. :lol: And no a player at 5'8 can't be above Fed,sorry. Like I said nothing more than a fanboi. Endof

    lol@knowing about tennis history. Yea placing Lendl,Connors,Mcenroe above Tilden is tennis history for you,looks like you couldn't find wiki pages of the early 1900s. :lol:
     
  37. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Look, kid, most top players from back then were from a grand total of two countries. Two. LOL!

    And last I checked, America and Australia weren't split into a gazillion countries :lol:
     
  38. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Thanks Hoodjem! If I have the same names basically as you and Kiki, I know I must have a lot of names right lol. I cannot speak with as much conviction when I try to rank players before about 1950 compared to top players from about Gonzalez/Hoad forward as the equipment variances/conditions, etc. become greater and greater.
     
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    oh¡ I forgot Paraguay

    P-A-R-A-G-U A- Y

    Round the middle of a continent your text book I hope still shows, named South America.yes, souther of texas, right.
     
  40. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    No wiki required, I've lived it dude. I read about Tilden by the time I was 10. What is it with Laver's height? Agassi was what 5' 10"? I see you didn't answer any questions from my post. There's no way a listed 5' 9" guy could make a final at a major these days right? Oh wait a minute......
     
  41. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    ^^^I've said before that all GOATs are exceptional in some way or another.

    A GOAT candidate from Switzerland? Where? You gotta be kidding, right?

    No.




    (A decent player from Scotland? I wonder what would Monty Python think?)
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
  42. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Imagine if there weren't any players from Spain in this era, Fed would be on 20+ slams right now with 1/2 CYGS with a ton of other shattered records.
     
  43. Eragon

    Eragon Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    Alagaesia
    Forget that, if Nadal had decided to pursue Football instead of Tennis (and he probably would have if not for Tio Toni), Federer could potentially be sitting on 23 Slams. No such luxury, because Tennis is a Global Colossus unlike back in the "Grannie" 60s.
     
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Greek God Bagdhatis should be considered for GOAT

    After all, he took a set off The Lord of the Unknown Dimension, Federer
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,973
    Gonzales wrote in his autobiography the Australia was the hotbed of tennis in the late fifties, and the major stadiums in Australia were usually sold out for his matches with Hoad. The pros made their biggest money in Australia, and this explains the heavy weighting of the tournament schedule of the pros in Australia.

    There was a big difference in the U.S.A. where there were small crowds for the pros in major stadiums.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,973
    Hoad wrote that he was very unhappy to beat Rosewall in the 1956 Wimbledon final because of the financial implications, and Rosewall took a lower guarantee to turn pro as a result.

    Vines should be given a draw with Budge for 1939 as a result of Budge's late withdrawal from the U.S. Pro for no apparent reason.
     
  47. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Rankings, as you said, are very subjective.What if we group players in homogeneous slots of, say 20 years and make them play the WTF/Masters for those eras?:

    1900-1920: Wilding,Doherty,Brookes,Johnston,Gore,Mc Laughlin,Sears,Max Decugis
    1920-1940: Tilden,Budge,Perry,Lacoste,Cochet,Crawford,Vines and Von Cramm or Borotra
    1940-1960: Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert,Schroeder,Sedgman,Riggs
    1960-1980:Laver,Borg,Newcombe,Connors,Emerson,Nastase,Vilas and Santana or Ashe
    1980-2000: Sampras,Mac,Lendl,Agassi,Wilander,Courier,Becker and Edberg
    2000-2013: Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray,Hewitt,Ivanisevic,Safin,Roddick

    I´d make the winners play a play off on a medium to fast indoor court, such as Supreme court.I´d have Wilding,Tilden,Gonzales,Laver,Sampras and Federer as direct qualifiers plus Rosewall and Borg as the best of the second classified players.Just a game.
     
  48. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,636
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Imagine if tennis was as big in the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia these days as it was back in say 1950-1990. Federer may have fewer majors and the same goes for Nadal. You'd have countries with rich histories producing many tough players, which is somewhat different than brand new countries on the scene having tennis gain a foothold. There are more "tennis playing countries" these days, but there are offsets as well. That's something that many simply gloss over.

    With the greater popularity of tennis post 2003 (due largely to the Federer/Nadal rivalry among other things relative to say 1999 or so, why aren't there more great players following behind those guys? Where are all the great players inspired by Nadal in Spain? More juniors and pros from there right? Well, why will there likely not be another Nadal from there anytime soon? How about Switzerland? More players playing there now, inspired by Federer. How many great players will come out of Switzerland in the next decade? More players, more greats, right? No, there are many other factors. More players does not automatically translate into more great players or even greater players. Depth at the top is important and there is something about great players facing off and basically sharpening their skills in the process (a very tough top 10/top 10 even in 1950 or 1960).

    Some things are tougher now, but somethings are easier. Just look at these factors: time between points, sitting during changeovers, coaching during matches, challenging calls, tougher travel, central air/heat, sports medicine. What the guys were doing in say 1950 was not easy by ANY stretch of the imagination. In fact, in many ways, they had it significantly harder than the players today.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    To be able to compare one needs a wide range and vision and be able to relatiise concepts.You cannot translate the same metrics of the, say, 1950´s or 60´s, even the 70´s and 80´s ( where WCT and Masters were head and shoulders above AO ) to the tennis played from 1990 onwards.

    By the same taken, somebody could easily claim that, because of the vast technology and means, the US army of the XXI century is the greatest of all time.It is not if we use the correct focus.I am not saying that it is not, but we need to put things in context.

    people still litens to the classical music and classical rock great compositors of bands.or admires the classic painters and reads the classic writters, from Shakespeare to Garcia Marquez.

    Greatness should be a concept that stays and is not easiliy beaten up by the need to assert superiority of one context over the other.
     
  50. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Roddick= American , took over from Pete.
    Hewitt = Australian,one of the mentally toughest players of all time.

    Two biggest rivals of Fed(heck Hewitt owned Fed at one point) both got shellacked with a aggregate H2H of 39-11. Thanks for playing.
     

Share This Page