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 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,214
    macattack, Why Mac so high? Nomen est omen? McEnroe has won 15 majors (including "Masters" and WCT Finals). Rosewall has won 25 majors...

    Where is Pancho Gonzalez? Lost in history...
     
  2. macattack

    macattack Rookie

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    I love Pancho, but he does not make my top ten. To be honest I could have shuffled Agassi, McEnroe, Rosewall and Tilden in any order for the last four. I'm not as much of a stat hound as some on here are (nothing wrong with being obsessed with stats, though, of course). So this was more of a "feel" list for me. Off the top of my head, at a cocktail party, that's the list I'd throw out. It would probably get shuffled and changed a bit for 7-10 any day of the week.

    Also, great use of nomen est omen. You don't see a lot of Plautus references on the board. Haha. And yes, that probably had something to do with Mac above Rosewall.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,214
    NatF, I just counted all players who have won a Grand Slam tournament (in singles) and who have lost at least once to Rosewall. I got to the huge number of 42 (plus 2 players who won pro majors, i. e. Segura and Buchholz). He never beat Drobny and Borg.

    Using your list of Federer's great victims Roger won against 19 such players. We don't know yet about future GS winners.

    I don't know how many great players Gonzalez won but (after a short examination) I believe they are about 30 GS winners and 2 Pro majors winners (again Segura and Buchholz).

    That way, Rosewall seems to be the most successful male player regarding beating winners of majors. It's the first time I realized that so clearly...
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,214
    Mac, Thanks. Did not know that this Latin term was created by Plautus.

    Ceterum censeo: Pancho Gonzalez should be included in the top ten (without pushing out both Tilden and Rosewall). Pancho was the hell of a player and greater than Agassi!
     
  5. macattack

    macattack Rookie

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Fair enough! He just doesn't make my top ten list. Top 15 for sure, though. I do have a ton of respect for him as a player. You're really testing my latin! I'm very rusty. Haven't flexed those muscles since grad school!
     
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,809
    That is a very subjective opinion...most commentators accept the amateur slams of Tilden, Lacoste, Vines, Crawford, Perry, Kramer, Schroeder, Riggs, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver as being of some significance, and your blanket dismissal of them all is rather strange.
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,809
    Yes, I noticed that, but the words are so appropriate to our theme, I could not ignore the application.
     
  8. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,216
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I'm not sure why this is significant? Consider that due to the amateur and pro split there were 7 'majors' to compete in not just 4, not to mention many of those amateur winners would not have been slam winners in an Open Era. It seems you are omitting just those that won pro majors, however the split still means it was easier to win a major back then. Not to mention Federer-Nadal-Djokovic have locked up the majors almost completely since 2004 preventing many new slam winners from emerging.

    I am sure there would have been many less major winners for Rosewall to vanquish had tennis been Open. And regardless of this what does it actually prove anyway? Rosewall had amazing longevity to play so long and beat so many players - but again I would scarcely consider many of these players his actual competition.

    Besides that Federer also has wins over Kafelnikov, Costa, Krajicek- he also played Bruguera (though he lost) as with Rafter. So currently total would be wins against 22 slam winners. I would be interested to see the lists of other players, there's little doubt Federer's will grow when the next crop starts winning majors.

    If this is your criteria for strength of opposition I find it unlikely that Federer will suffer in this regard compared to players from the last 20 or so years. In the early open era and when the AO wasn't viewed as a true major lesser players could sneak out majors in the absence of the top players unlike now.

    I counted 25 or so roughly for Sampras, so considering Federer has likely played future slam winners already it seems unlikely that those numbers are going to be much different. For Nadal I can count 17 so far, Djokovic 12.

    I'm aware that it's subjective. Before the later 30's the Pro and Amateur major divide wasn't so pronounced, I'm only talking about the players previously mentioned.

    As far as strange goes, many of your views are surely stranger...
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2016 at 6:51 AM
  9. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,176
    I'm a big Agassi fan. And, I don't know your criteria for your ranking. But, I haven't see a strong argument for putting Agassi, McEnroe, Rosewall or even Nadal above Pancho Gonzalez. Gonzalez dominated for almost 10 years, and for most of that time, possibly the strongest field in tennis history.
     
  10. macattack

    macattack Rookie

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Your point is well taken. Like I said up above, it was a "feel" ranking in that I wasn't going deep into stats, but rather off the top of my head. I have no real argument for not putting Pancho in there, to be completely honest. The bottom four was pretty tough for me and I could have slide several in or out including Gonzalez, Perry, Emerson, Budge, etc.

    Oddly, that Tennis Channel 100 greatest from 2012 has Gonzalez at 35, with 12 women ahead of him making him 23 among the men listed. They have Edberg, Becker, Wilander above Pancho. I'm not saying I agree with that at all or that the Tennis Channel list holds any credence, but hey, it's there. I love making these lists for fun, but they are kind of ridiculous. Haha. I'd rather do a top ten "favorite" list!
     
  11. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,380
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    The Tennis Channel list is often lampooned on here, as the exemplar of poorly informed, simple-minded misinformation.
     
    macattack likes this.
  12. macattack

    macattack Rookie

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    And I agree with that characterization. It's a very strange list in general. I was just pointing out how ridiculous lists like this are in general. And yet I love making them for some reason.
     
  13. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,176
    In my view, that Tennis Channel ranking was embarrassingly uninformed and a disservice to the tennis public.

    Having said that, a word of warning. This is TW. GOAT lists on TW have nothing to do with fun. Like the game itself, it's not a matter of life and death. It's much more than that. :eek: Have fun! :D
     

Share This Page