Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Do you notice how BobbyOne is very rude when responding to those who don't agree with his opinion?

    Note how he calls you the "chief ignoramus" just because you don't agree with his opinion.

    He seems to believe that his opinion is the truth, just because he has corresponded with Bud Collins and other experts. He is a very arrogant man, for sure.

    I agree that Fraser vs. Roche would be very evenly matched. Roche of course only won one amateur slam, and that was gifted to him when Gulyas agreed to delay the match by a day.
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Bobby used his hidden sense of humour before but agreeing is hurting him
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    1722, I'm only rude when a man writes nonsense and/or nasty words.

    I have told the facts to kiki several times but he uses to ignore them because he still has not realized that a 1969 Roche was stronger than a 1960 Fraser, and that the pros were much better than the amateurs. Thus his mistakes and misjudges always.

    Now you have three idees fixe: Rosewall/Wimbledon; Rosewall's death and the Roche/Gulyas affaire...Congratulation!
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's not a case of agreement or disagreement. It's a case of facts and non-facts!
     
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I concede the pros were more competitive than the ams,But in the 50´s and 60´s, as well as in the 30´s and 40´s the very best amateurs were just as good or better.Where would the pros take the raw matherial if not from the amateurs?

    As for Roche 69 vs Fraser 60 is not a matter of Roche being a better player, which he most likely was.It is a matter of something else that Fraser had and Roche not, which made Neale more competitive than Tony

    Fraser , as Dan Lobb reminded us recently, Fraser even beat peakest Hoad in the 58 AO.And he beat Laver at two major finals.If you value facts as you stated, you´d praise Fraser a bit more...
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I bury my last hope that you will ever understand. Such a nice person with such wrong opinions and such great stubborness!!

    Your first statement would deserve the first prize in the competition for most absurd claim.

    Trabert better than Gonzalez? Emerson better than Laver??? In which fantasy world do you live, kiki?

    Beating Laver 5:3 in 1969 makes Roche more competitive than all amateur successes of Fraser!
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I don´t make a living out of tennis...but you dou.

    And with your opinions here, I think it is a miracle, Bobbyone
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Tennis writing is my hobby!

    YOU are the worst miracle since Delphi...
     
  9. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    I'll take a stab at a top 10. This is a work in progress, will definitely tweak it over time.

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

    My GOAT rankings are based on two things:

    1) Period of dominance. Defined either by number of years where you're #1 or in the discussion for #1, or in the cases of Nadal/Borg, if you faced some great competition and had an advantage over literally everyone on tour, IMO that should be factored in as well.

    2) Bonus points for longevity. Guys like Nadal/Borg/Budge/Kramer were incredible at their best, but each of the top 3 were not only dominant at their best, but also was among the world's best for a period of like 20 years.

    Notes:

    I comfortable with my top 3, in whatever order. At least on paper, it's all there. Gonzales and Tilden were likely the best in the world for 7-8 years, they were contenders for about 15 years, still very relevant for 20+ years. Rosewall had maybe 4 years where he was clearly the world's best, but he was also smushed between Gonzales and Laver, and his first and last Slam SF berths spanned 25 years. Laver had an excellent career but lacked the longevity of the top 3.

    I'm putting Nadal over Federer because I'm not sure there was an age where Federer was better than Nadal. Federer won his first Slam right when he turned 22, and by that age Nadal had 5 Slams. Over the next three age years, Federer would win more Slams, but we actually saw an age 23-25yo Nadal consistently widening the H2H gap with an age 28-30yo Federer in real life, so unless Federer fell off dramatically I think Nadal at least has an argument there.

    Everyone after Federer has a hole in their resume somewhere, be it a short career or missing a key Slam.
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    YaoPau, Interesting and unusual list and criteria.

    Your top 4 are also my top 4. You are rather courageous putting Rosewall ahead of Laver and putting Nadal ahead of Federer in this Laver and Federer forum!

    Rosewall had a 24 years span (big SFs) and was undisputed No.1 only for two or three years (but altogether 9 years an arguable No.1). He was in the top 10 for 23 years.

    I think you rank Budge too high as he did not have a long career at the top. When making the Grand Slam he did not have to play against Vines, Perry, Nüsslein, Tilden and von Cramm. He also had a claycourt weakness (losses to Bitsy Grant, to 46 years old Tilden).

    Laver of course has his three GSs and the 200 tournament wins (albeit he lost only five years to the pros whereas Rosewall lost 11 and Gonzalez lost even 18 years).

    Facit: Well done.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  11. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Thanks for the detailed review. Couple of initial thoughts:

    Budge is Monica Seles to me. Pre-injury, he had set a pace to put him in discussion for GOAT over an entire career. Thoroughly crushed the amateur circuit, moved up to the pro level against some quality competition and made the leap seamlessly, notably cruising by Fred Perry and Bill Tilden in head to head tours. Then he gets hurt, never wins a Slam again, but is still around top-5 in the world for the next decade.

    My first thought is Budge at #7 is fine. I think, for those 3-4 years he was as dominant as Borg/Kramer/Sampras were. But while the other three had around 10 years of elite play each, Budge's relevance spanned around 15. Budge was still making Pro Slam finals at age 38... despite not winning any of them, a decade of just missing out on Pro Slam titles is worth something I think.

    As for Rosewall over Laver... there's a lot of support for it. Rosewall won 23 majors compared to 19 for Laver. Rosewall was relevant for around 23 years compared to 13 for Laver. Rosewall turned 29yo the first year Laver turned pro (when Laver turned 25), and won the H2H convincingly (34-12). Rosewall turned 30yo the next year and Laver turned the H2H around, but Rosewall still split Pro Slams with Laver 3 to 3 over the next two seasons. I think people forget how old Rosewall was when the Open Era began.

    Expanding on that, to give the nod to Laver based on H2H (which I think is what a lot of this Laver over Rosewall comes from) is similar IMO to giving the H2H nod to Djokovic over Federer because Djok is 10-5 vs Federer after Federer turned 30. I think if Laver and Rosewall had been the same age we might've seen the overall H2H look a lot closer, or even in Rosewall's favor.

    And not only that, but despite Laver being four years younger, both players were essentially done by '76. Laver's first and last Slam Finals spanned from 1960-1969, while Rosewall's spanned from 1953-1974! That's crazy.
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver played 59 Wim final
     
  13. 1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Sampras
    4. Borg
    5. Budge
    6. Nadal
    7. Pancho
    8. Lendl
    9. Rosewall
    10. Connors
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2014
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    YaoPau, I'm still not convinced regarding Budge. He was outplayed by Perry in 1941 and lost at least three matches to Tilden in 1939, and several in 1940. Don was a top 5 player only till 1949.

    But I agree regarding Rosewall/Laver. Yes, people forget how old Muscles was in open era and yet so successful. I also agree that R&L equal old would have had a different hth. And most fans and experts ignore the fact that Rosewall has a positive hth againt Laver in big events (10:7)!

    Laver's first GS final was in 1959.

    Laver won six amateur GS tournaments, Rosewall won "only" four: Edge to Rosewall in their general balance of majors.
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federer 2014, Lendl won eight majors, Rosewall won 23.....
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,461
    I appreciate your list but I do feel there is a flaw with number two. Period of longevity means nothing without accomplishment and we look at several things when we discuss a potential GOAT and that is level of play and TOTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS. If a great player plays for only five years and yet accomplishes more than another great player in twenty years should we really reward the one who played twenty years more for simply playing longer?? For example let's say a racecar "A" went 200 miles per hour and drove for 15 hours before blowing out. Let's say another racecar "B" went 100 miles per hour and drove for 25 hours before blowing out. Do you really reward the latter racecar "B" more bonus points? It went only 2500 miles on its trip. Racecar "A" went 3000 miles on its trip which is far more than racecar "B." Just because it had a lesser period of time doesn't mean it accomplished less.

    Incidentally Laver won his first tournament in 1956 and last one in 1976. Hardly a short span of time.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    For the upteempth time could you not equate amateur slam and pro slams to open-era slams ?:twisted:

    It's not even funny to begin with.
     
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I don´t know if Bobbyone considered the 2 WCT finals as part of the 23 majors

    In any case, adapting to current standarts ( which is very difficult and tricky because those eras were so much different), Rosewall should be around 12-14 or so majors.
     
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,461
    There are so many different tournaments that could be considered majors for some because tennis has been so in flux, especially in the Open Era and a bit before. If you use Laver as an example you could pick the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, the 1970 and 1971 Tennis Champions Classic, Dunlop in 1970 which was the real Australian Open that year. Does a person still count Wembley in April of 1968 because the Australian wasn't Open that year and the French had not been played?

    No matter what they were still top tier tournaments with great fields.

    Clearly the WCT Championships were worthy of majors status of those that lasted for a number of years.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  20. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Totally agree with your point, and I think my leaving out a player like Connors reflects that. But at the same time, if one racecar driver wins 5 year end championships then retires, and another wins 5 year end championships, then goes on to remain in the top 4 for many years before retiring, I think the second guy deserves a career boost.
     
  21. Vensai

    Vensai Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Mortis
    I would probably rank Connors above Lendl (though it's close) and Gonzales above Nadal. Peak Pancho was probably around Rod's level.
     
  22. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    I'm not sure there's any way to convincingly argue for Budge, there's definitely a lot of gray area there. But here goes.

    1941 is a strange case, and I'm definitely not an expert on it. But from a quick lookup here's what I'm going off of: Budge won his tour with Tilden convincingly, then only played in three tournaments and didn't win any. The guy had a streak of 10 Slam wins in 11 attempts from 1937-1942, losing only the 1941 match, I'm willing to give him pass, especially with his dominance in both 1940, 1942, and on the Tilden tour in 1941. Very, very possible I think that Budge was the best player in the world that year, and small sample sizes just occasionally produce strange results like that.

    I think Budge has a decent case for world #1 from 1937-1942, with main accomplishments listed below. Again, not 100% on their accuracy, but it's what I was going off of in making the ranking.

    1937: Budge wins both Amateur Slams he enters
    1938: Budge wins the Grand Slam (meaning he's won 6 consecutive Amateur Slams). Turns pro.
    1939: Budge def Vines 22-17
    1939: Budge def Perry 28-8
    1939: Budge def Vines 15-5 (in a separate tour)
    1939: Budge wins Wembley Pro Slam RR (3-0 vs Nusslein, Tilden, Vines; dropped just one set to Nusslein)
    1939: Budge wins French Pro (without dropping a set in any round; beat Vines in Final)
    1940: Budge wins US Pro (drops just 1 set over four matches, to Perry in the Final)
    1941: Budge def Tilden 46-7
    1941: Budge loses first round at US Pro to John Faunce (straight set loss; no idea of the context)
    1942: Budge easily wins round robin tour with 52-18 record over group of Riggs, Perry, Kovacs, Stoefen
    1942: Budge wins US Pro (without dropping a set in any round; beat Riggs in the Final)

    Ok just looked up Budge's loss to Faunce in 1941. It came the day after he got married. LOL. Only Slam loss in a 6 year period comes the day after his wedding. (We need more digging to find out his blood alcohol content during that match.)

    Anyway, it's pretty unheard of for an Amateur to turn pro then immediately knock off the world's best player (and a quality one in Vines) by a tour H2H of 37-22. And unless you're giving a massive amount of credit to three tournaments in 1941 over the hundreds of tour H2H matches he played, I think it's safe to say Budge was the likely clear #1 from at least 1939-1942, with a good argument in 1937 and 1938.

    So that's pretty good, and unlike Borg who left on his own terms, or Kramer who had injury issues, Budge's dominance got interrupted by mass genocide. Again, willing to give him a little bit of a boost there, as he likely pads his numbers a bit (and doesn't hurt his shoulder) if it weren't for the, you know, mass genocide. Then he comes back, still top-5 through 1949, still making Pro Finals until 1953 (his ranking into the 1950s is murky, I agree).

    Lots of subjectiveness in that analysis for sure. But compare that career to Borg's. Borg was dominant on two surfaces, but clearly had his rivals and never won the US Open. I'm not sure Budge had a rival during his prime. And while Borg's career as an elite player spanned 8 years, Budge's spanned at least 13 and possibly a bit more.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Even if you reduce the value of the old majors, Rosewall is still far above Lendl...
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, With WCT it's 25. How do you come to 12 -14? In any case, your darling, Laver would have less majors.
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    YaoPau, Excellent analysis. Here only a few thoughts. Budge lost to Tilden (46) in the 1939 British Pro at Southport.

    Vines was almost away from tennis in their second tour.

    You can't count Budge's 1941 tour against Tilden as a big success: Tilden was 48 and was able to win several matches plus losing often a close match.

    Therefore 1941 goes clearly to Perry.

    Budge reached the 1953 US Pro final only by beating one player, the inconsistent Kovacs (still a great player).
     
  26. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    I agree with everything there. My point with Budge having a claim to 1941 is just a sample size thing. Perry obviously had the better year, but he played just 5 tournaments and Budge played just three.

    If we went with who was the best player from the first 5 tournaments in 2014, Wawrinka would be #1, but that's not exactly an accurate depiction of who the best players are in the world right now.

    That's part of the challenge in ranking these guys from the Pro Tour era. It's not as easy as just pointing to Pro Slams, or a few of these super small tournaments mixed in ... Pro Slams were often the distant second-tier draw of the tour behind the main H2H tours. Budge dominated Perry before and after 1941, and I'm not sure they even played each other in 1941, so very hard to prove Perry was the better player. Very hard to prove Budge was the better player too, just saying there's gray area there and anyone saying Perry was the clear best player in the world in 1941 is missing the point IMO.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  27. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,639
    They did play at least once; it was an easy victory for Perry but even he admitted that Budge had been off his game since falling down a flight of stairs and undergoing surgery for a broken nose in the first week of May: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&dq=fred-perry-beats-budge&pg=4091,2641342

    Budge had also been hospitalized in October 1940 for scarlet fever and strep throat. He returned to competitive play in January 1941, for the Tilden tour, which ended in May, shortly after Budge's fall.
     
  28. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Budge lost two majors in 1941 due to a broken nose, which was not healed, and caused him to be careful not to overrun and fall.

    This is why he lost to Perry at Forest Hills that year.

    (Ah, I see Krosero has already pointed this out.)
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2014
  29. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    This is a very fine post.

    I rank Budge at 9th all time, can't give marks for coulda-woulda, but it would have been interesting to see what he could've achieved if WWII had not broken out.
     
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Budge,Riggs,Perry,Kramer,Parker,Kovacs,Nusslein and maybe Tilden and Vines

    and that unfortunate Hunt fellow who had such a promising future as well.
     
  31. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    After today, I rank Nadal among the top 5 all time.

    1. Federer
    2. Laver
    3. Sampras
    4. Gonzales
    5. Nadal
    6. Rosewall
    7. Borg
    8. Tilden
    9. Budge
    10. Lendl
     
  32. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    I would agree with those 5 as the top 5
     
  33. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Being tied with Sampras in majors, but with more dominance on his favorite surface and with better distribution across the others, I have moved Nadal up ahead of Pete.

    JMHO
     
  34. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540
    Got Nadal at 6 after today Just moved ahead of Sampras

    1. Laver
    2. Pancho
    3. Rosewall
    4. Tilden
    5. Federer
    6. Nadal
    7. Sampras
    8. Borg
    9. Budge
    10. Connors/Lendl
     
  35. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Amazing! Your top-8 and mine are the same names, with only tiny differences in the order.
     
  36. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540


    Oh how does your top 10 go? :)
     
  37. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Depends how you define "better distribution".

    What's better? 1-9-2-2 or 2-0-7-5

    The first shows complete and utter domination of one surface, and occasional ability to win on all others.

    The second shows great domination on more than one surface, but inability to win on one.

    Not clear to me which is greater.
     
  38. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    I think you mean "top 5" on clay, right?

    Certainly not grass.

    Today was the RG final, remember?

    Red clay?
     
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    To me the former shows greater distribution.
     
  40. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    Of Rafa's 14 GS wins, NINE have come on clay.

    Enough said.

    A one-surface man.
     
  41. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    You really think his ranking is about clay when he ranks Pete ahead of Nadal?
     
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Nine is more than seven, and four is more than three. One is more than zero. C'est dommage, mais vrais.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2014
  43. Dan L

    Dan L Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,087
    One may be better than one.

    Depends on the field.
     
  44. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,765
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Mais oui. Absolutement!
     
  45. monfed

    monfed Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,474
    Location:
    Ad court
    1) Federer
    2) Laver
    3) Borg
    4) Sampras
    5) Tilden
    6) Rosewall
    7) Gonzales
    8 ) Agassi
    9) Connors
    10) Lendl
     
  46. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Shouldleave aside your fanboyism here.Nadal´s domination on clay is worthy a top ten spot.
     
  47. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,354
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    lol at Nadal being any less than number 8.
     
  48. forehand fan

    forehand fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    309
    well i can understand that as he/ she doesn't like nadal and may be thinks a player with his play style should not be in the top 10. but i don't think he has such biases regarding others... why is agassi ahead of lendl when aside from the career slam lendl is ahead in every criteria?
     
  49. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I'm not sure of your point.

    If looked at in a very forensic light, neither Sampras nor Nadal's 14 majors are especially 'aesthetically well balanced'.

    Sampras of course has the big fat zero at the FO.

    Nadal, while having won all majors at least once, is also in the position where he has won four and a half times more at his best slam (9), than at any other slam (2).

    Again, I'm not sure either man has a particular advantage.
     
  50. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Stop trolling.
     

Share This Page