Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
Must resist the urge to respond
Interested or not, we all know the answer because it's been on perpetual replay ten thousand times per week for about four years.
NatF, Don't you agree that Roger's balance as an oldie is rather poor in comparison with those of my top four?
Limpinhitter, Do you refer to your interesting claim that Rosewall is the all-time No.18?
And so it goes. . . .
I disagree with so much of that post Bobby
I'll start with your arguments on competition, I must be honest it very hypocritical that you slate Federer's competition and say nothing of Tilden's. Even for Rosewall's or Laver's it's easy to point out holes. I see no indication that any of those faced tougher competition than Federer across their careers.
- Tilden in his dominant period clearly had the worst competition of the 5
- Rosewall in his most dominant years was missing prime Gonzalez and Laver at the majors
- Laver dominated a not so great pro scene, Rosewall was clearly very strong but ageing and Gonzalez was obviously not the same. I'm not convinced by the strength of the second and third tier players of that time.
I find the fact that you chime in on Djokovic and Nadal being young in Federer's best years hypocritical considering Laver and Rosewall's overlap with each other (Rosewall get older from 1966/67, Laver not at his best until 1964) and Gonzalez (Gonzalez less focused on the Pro Majors from 1960 and then retired, not the same player in 1964). Nadal was competing in multiple major finals per year since 2006 for example. Federer also faced an older Agassi several times in majors and at the YEC.
I would say that Federer did win less than your fab four at an older age, that much is clear. However I would also say that his era is much tougher for older players and having peak Nadal and Djokovic around surely robbed him of as many majors as you consider Laver/Rosewall robbing each other of - possibly more.
It's a good top 10. I think I would have 8 of your top 10 in my top 10. Connors wouldn't be in there, and one of the others is very doubtful...
It is not worthwhile to contradict you, Bobby...you have your own space.
hoodjem, Please be more specific.
NatF, Thanks for your reply. I agree regarding Tilden's competition but not regarding Laver's and especially Rosewall's. Rosewall had to play against giants from Kramer to Borg.
70sHollywood, Yes, Connors as a top ten player is a bit doubtful. My other nine players are not doubtful in my opinion.
Pc1, I'm curious to find out your top 10, but only for the Open era.
By your logic Federer had to play against giants from Sampras to Djokovic (and perhaps future unknown giants)
Anyway I sense this is not a discussion you feel like having which is fine. I'm satisfied that I've said my piece and it's still amicable.
Off the top of my head, in no order it's Borg, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Agassi. Others could be Wilander who could easily be ahead of Becker or Edberg. Some players like Laver, due to his Open Grand Slam and many huge tournament one can be considered but I put him mainly in the pre-open era so I would leave him out. I probably forgot a few players.
Interesting. Out of the eleven you mentioned, I would place them in this order (as of now):
NatF, Yes, we seem to have found a way to discuss without aggression.
Federer played against Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick. I'm not sure if Dimitrov, Thiem, Zverev and Coric will ever become giants.
Rosewall played against Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Gonzalez, Hoad, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Panatta, Connors, Borg, Vilas. No comparison.
Rosewall played against fellow exhibition players who weren't trained or serious athletes until the mid 70's, then he disappeared. He was a fine exhibition performer in the same way the Blue Man group is, but has no place on a serious list of competent professional athletes. Neither do 90% of the rest of the trained circus monkeys on that list. Having your name in history books isn't the same thing as having talent.
Absolutely nothing that happened on a tennis court prior to the mid 70's, when the larder started to fill with actual junior talent that trained and developed into pros, has any relevance in a discussion of pro sport.
Separate names with a comma.