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:
    10,684
    abmk, This thread is not about peak play or great longevity but about your top ten of all time! Peak play and longevity are only two parameters (among others) of overall greatness.
     
  2. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    Has anyone noticed that Hoodjem and Phoenix1983 have never been seen together?
     
  3. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Bobby, top 10 is whatever parameters the person decides. It is not what you think the parameters are. Yes I agree with you about players like Tilden and Gonzalez belonging in the top 10 but it doesn't have to be. I have often disagreed with people about the parameters of greatness. But when you ask about a person's top 10, it's that person's particular opinion. It is not yours.

    Picking the amount of players a person may defeat in the majors is not exactly what I call a great parameter for greatness! It looks good but it is a made up statistic meant to make a particular player look better. As they say it is full of sound and fury signifying nothing!
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
    Limpinhitter and Dan Lobb like this.
  4. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Here's a top ten list of mine that is based on totally different parameters than my real parameters. Heck I'll add a few more than ten. It's really not my normal parameters. Is it necessarily wrong? I don't think the list looks that bad. Any comments?? Anyone figure out what categories or category I based the choices on for this list? It really doesn't matter. Incidentally it just occurred to me that every player on this list (with the exception of perhaps Nastase and Nastase had been called the most talented ever by many) has been called the GOAT at times by a decent amount of experts. There may be more players on this list (at least by percentage) called the GOAT than my regular list.

    Vines
    Hoad
    Nastase
    Cochet
    Gonzalez
    Kramer
    Laver
    McEnroe
    Tilden
    Connors
    Borg
    Sampras
    Federer
    Djokovic
    Nadal
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
  5. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,950
    Location:
    U.S
    yes. But almost everyone here knows about Rosewall's longevity. And whatever your attempts at trying to convince people of his greatness, you'll never be able to convince them that he had an amazing peak level of play, because he didn't - as evidenced by what most of the players/commentators/experts felt at that time. Atleast not in the top 10 of all time, probably not even top 15. No point in trying to impress people with more longevity related stats. That's my whole point.
     
    Limpinhitter, Dan Lobb and pc1 like this.
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,658
    I agree that Gonzales is no GOAT candidate. Only Federer and Laver are.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    abmk, It was YOU who mentioned longevity. I did not before you did.

    Your claim about peak play is wrong as f.i. krosero has proved a few months ago (Rosewall's great balance against prime Laver and prime Gonzalez in best-of-five matches). But that's not my point. My point is that peak level alone is NOT the only parameter to define greatness. It's just one among several parameters just as number of majors won (where Rosewall is No.1), span between first and last major won (again Rosewall No.1), Channel Slams won (again Rosewall No.1 with Borg) and various other criteria!

    For your information: Rosewall leads Laver in major encounters by 10:7 or is equal with Rod if we add Wimbledon 1967, Dunlop 1970 and TCC 1971.

    "Probably not even top 15"? A player who was able to beat peak Laver in majors in straight sets?? A player who was able to beat the world's No.1 at Wimbledon when being 39 plus???
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    Phoenix1983, I don't agree with you that Pancho is no GOAT candidate. Of course he is!!!
     
  9. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,985
    There is a tendency to find more of a consensus among players' choices for GOAT than there is among armchair experts.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  10. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,985
    The problem , Bobby, is in defining what constitutes a "major" or a prestigious event...you seem to have your own private definition...should we be surprised at that?
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  11. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    The information about major encounters is by your definition and your pick of matches. You can also use the 1970 Year End Masters, the Tennis Champions Classic of 1970, the 1969 US Pro, the 1968 Pacific Southwest, and a lot of other tournaments. By the way all the tournaments I mentioned in the last sentence had Laver defeating Rosewall.

    I believe Laver is ahead in big matches by my subjective count by a very good margin. By your subjective count which I believe includes a third place match for the WCT Championship in 1973 which I don't think should count. You have Rosewall ahead 10-7 in major matches. I define big matches as high stakes matches not a third place match. Amazing how you ask about whether you should include the 1967 Wimbledon Pro which was arguably the most important tournament ever on the Old Pro Tour. It's a no brainer that it should be included. Laver won the 1967 Wimbledon Pro in straight sets by the way.

    The 10-7 number you give is your number alone. It is not a stat but your opinion. My opinion is that Laver is clearly ahead in important matches.

    Rosewall was never a dominant player like Tilden, Federer, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Djokovic and Nadal just to name a few. His best season was 1962 in which he was 52-7 against a field without Laver and Gonzalez. Rosewall never won 90% of his matches in any one year. To compare, Federer, Borg, Tilden, Lendl and Connors averaged over 90% for five consecutive years! McEnroe was close at 89.6% over five years. Rosewall's best five years in 75.1% which is hardly awesome. This means that during Rosewall's BEST FIVE YEARS he lost about one out of four times he played. This is not dominant or even close. By comparison Federer lost about one out of ten times he played. Tilden was ridiculous in that he lost about one out of fifty times he played in his peak five years. Rosewall's best year is not up to the level that Federer maintained for five years!

    Beating a great player in straight sets in a few matches is hardly an example of dominance. Nadal has beaten Federer in majors in straights several times. Big deal. Sometimes players can beat other players in straight sets. Did you explain why peak Rosewall lost 19 of 24 matches to past peak Gonzalez in their 1960 head to head World Championship Tour?

    The thing is that Rosewall was a great player. He was capable of beating anyone when they played with wood. He was extremely consistent and played at a very high level most of the time. And I am sure he could reach high peak levels in individual matches at times but so could non all time greats like Mecir, Henri Leconte, Frank Kovacs, Pat Cash who have beaten many an all time great in big tournaments. Leconte for example beat Ivan Lendl in straight sets at Wimbledon. Cash also beat Lendl in the final of Wimbledon in straight sets. Edberg who was a great player but imo not a GOAT candidate crushed Jim Courier in the final of the US Open in a match people still regard with awe today. Did Rosewall ever play at this level? Possibly but it means nothing.


    Now I'm with you that I do believe that career accomplishments should be included but it doesn't mean everyone has to do that for their own criteria for all time top ten.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
  12. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,658
    Too weak on clay.

    Only Federer and Laver fill all the boxes for consideration as GOAT.
     
    macattack likes this.
  13. macattack

    macattack Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    670
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Agreed with this wholeheartedly. GOAT doesn't mean top 10. It means top 1, as in the greatest. Sampras, Borg, Nadal...certainly some of the greats, but even they aren't in GOAT consideration in my opinion. Djoko could still get there, possibly.

    Let's face it, though, gentlemen...Steffi is the real GOAT when all things are considered. 22 slams, calendar year golden slam (when she was 19) and FOUR career slams. A record 377 total weeks at number 1 (a record for both men and women).

    And during her calendar golden slam year (1988) she also won Wimby doubles for good measure.

    She didn't reign on grass or clay or hardcourt. She reigned on them all!
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
    pc1 likes this.
  14. 70sHollywood

    70sHollywood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    717
    Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez and Sampras don't exactly look dominant using the above method though, do they?
     
    krosero likes this.
  15. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Gonzalez in tournament play may very well have done well as well as Kramer but we don't have all the records. Budge did win 92 in a row in tournament play but that was the amateurs.

    However that's why I didn't include these players in the discussion, I will say that Kramer in beating Riggs 69-20 in a tour (which Kramer thinks perhaps Riggs tanked but Riggs denied it) and young rookie Pancho Gonzalez 96 to 27 is more impressive than winning 90% of your matches over average competition.

    That's 77.8% over great competition. Kramer also won the only major in 1948, the US Pro over Riggs.

    Gonzalez of course would get better but he was still a top player.

    Kramer was virtually unbeatable as an amateur in 1947, winning his last 41 matches. Now some may discount amateur play but Rosewall and Hoad never had that type of winning percentage in the amateurs although you could argue Hoad's 1956 year was superior due to one extra major won.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    pc1, Due to a computer's error I was able to read your newest posts.

    My friendly request: Please don't address me personally in your posts and don't make questions toward me. As you might know I'm not allowed to answer your posts and to contradict any of your statements.

    Thanks for your understanding!
     
    treblings and krosero like this.
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    70sHollywood, Yes, and the old pros did not have overwhelming percentages as they mostly played against fellow all-time greats. For instance even Laver lost many matches in his maybe best year, 1967.
     
    krosero likes this.
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    Edit: Laver lost at least 23 matches.
     
    krosero likes this.
  19. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    In my view, the measure of a player's greatness is his peak level of play sustained for a reasonable period of time, at least 3 years I would suggest. Longevity is admirable. But, being #2 for 20 years doesn't make anyone a GOAT candidate.
     
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    Not to mention that, as urban has pointed out several times, LAVER LEADS ROSEWALL IN 5 SET MATCHES 21-15.
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,950
    Location:
    U.S
    your stats were derived from longevity, that's what I pointed out.

    all your own definition of big matches.....

    Here's a list of players with peak level better than Rosewall :

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Djokovic
    4. Nadal
    5. Borg
    6. Gonzales
    7. Hoad
    8. Vines
    9. Budge
    10. Tilden
    11. Mac
    12. Kramer

    then others arguably

    1. Lendl
    2. Connors
    3. Agassi
    4. Becker
    5. Sedgeman
     
    Phoenix1983 and Limpinhitter like this.
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,546
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I haven't. I rather imagine that we have never been "seen together" ever. (I must confess that I don't follow Phoenix's posts nearly as much as I follow yours.)

    You are just so interesting.;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
  23. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,745
    Open era top 10 based on achievements:

    1. Federer
    2. Djokovic
    3. Nadal
    4. Borg
    5. Sampras
    6. Connors
    7. Lendl
    8.
     
  24. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,893
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    8. McEnroe
     
    macattack likes this.
  25. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,985
    This may be the most significant statistic between the two players.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  26. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    It's pretty consistent with their total H2H statistic: 80-63.
     
  27. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,619
    Could be 81-64.
     
    krosero, pc1 and Dan Lobb like this.
  28. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Good chance of that.
     
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    Two missing matches?
     
  30. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,745
    Yes, of course.
     
  31. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,745
    Current open era ranking based on a mix of achievements and peak:

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Nadal
    4. Borg
    5. Djokovic
    6. McEnroe
    7. Connors
    8. Lendl
     
    krosero and NatF like this.
  32. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,532
    I think there's an argument for Laver at or near the top in the open era.
     
  33. BlueB

    BlueB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,527
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    No Laver and Agassi? Borg on top of Nole? Mac over Connors and Lendl?

    Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    Limpin, You "forget" that Rosewall not only was No. 2 about 10 times but also No.1 for about 7 years...
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    Mr. or Mrs. Limpinhitter, 36 five-set matches between Laver and Rosewall?I'm astonished because I have not found even half or your number. Do you have different history books in contrary to tennis experts who use true history books? Whatever you mean, you "forget" that Rosewall was almost four years older than Laver...
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    abmk, Oh, a new Rosewall fan? Rosewall at least as strong as Laver?

    Who is Sedgeman?
     
  37. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,893
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I must say I find the constant correcting of other peoples spellings quite petty...
     
    Phoenix1983 and pc1 like this.
  38. Rafa the King

    Rafa the King Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    Messages:
    535
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,546
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Pretty?
    Pettey?
    Petey?
    Pety?
    Pity?
     
    Phoenix1983, pc1 and NatF like this.
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    I must say I find the constant critisizing of only one poster (a certain BobbyOne) quite disgusting...

    Since four years you use to attack me and my "crimes" but I never read any criticism of other posters' "crimes" or heavy insults. You never critisized Limpinhitter's lies, not even his mean lie about the "40 Rosewall majors in open era", a lie where Limpin tried to represent me as a village idiot!!

    If "Sedgeman" was a typo, I don't care about it. But I'm not sure it was as many posters use to spell names of famous players wrongly: Emmerson, Sedgeman, Bucholtz. Nobody ever writes Fedderer or Natal...

    Even though I'm trying, I fear we will never become friends because of your negative attitude against me and my opinions...
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    Rafa, I have already given my Top 10 recently.

    Here they are (slightly adapted):

    1 Laver
    1 Rosewall
    3 Gonzalez
    4 Tilden
    5 Federer
    6 Borg
    7 Sampras
    7 Nadal
    7 Djokovic
    10 Connors or Budge orKramer or Vines
     
    krosero likes this.
  42. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,893
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I've criticised Phoenix for his obituary jokes and Limpinhitter for his '36 majors'. So no it's not constant and it's not only you.

    It just comes across ass an attempt to discredit the posters arguments by pointing out spelling mistakes is all. If that's not your intention then you should be grateful that I've pointed out how it comes across ;)
     
    pc1 likes this.
  43. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    A couple of things here. I see no reason not to comment on occasion on another poster's comments if they are public. I will try not to quote that poster but I see no reason not to comment just because the poster can see my comments. That person is an adult and doesn't have to look at my posts. Trust me I've haven't commented as much as I should have on certain inconsistencies.

    Second, everyone makes typos and sometimes we don't have time to check things because for a lot of us we have very little time to do things. People are human and we all make mistakes. The same poster who comments on spelling errors also makes a number of spelling errors but no one comments on them because everyone understands what this person means.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
    Phoenix1983 and NatF like this.
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,684
    NatF, Thanks. I forgot your criticism of Phoenix's obnoxious obituary crap. But you did not criticize Limpinhitter's behaviour. But you rather often criticize my behaviour...Please use the same measure stick at all posters!

    If we concede all wrong spellings of tennis players then we also support non-exact thinking as it is so usual today, see Limpinhitter's 21:15 "five set" balance of Laver vs. Rosewall. In fact the two Aussies met very seldom in a five-set match.

    I don't know how my criticism comes across at the majority of my readers...
     
  45. xFedal

    xFedal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,148
    Yh I also felt '36 majors' was nonsense...
     
  46. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,950
    Location:
    U.S
    What on earth made you think I consider Rosewall's peak level as strong as Laver ?

    Let me make it a bit more clear...Laver could blow hot and cold. Which is part of why Rosewall could even beat him in straights at Laver's peak - when Laver was 'cold'.

    Its one reason why I don't have Laver at #1 and have Federer at #1 - no, not him getting beaten by Rosewall, but that he could blow hot and cold that much.
    For all of nadal getting the better of federer , it still took him hard fought ,brilliantly played tennis - usually 4 sets or 5 sets to beat federer ..Federer was just that much more stable at his prime - the 23 slam SF streak and 18 of 19 GS finals being a clear pointer towards that.

    Another major reason of course being Federer's serve being clearly better than Laver's.

    I meant Sedgman and you know it. But continue pointing out stuff like that ..because you have no other valid point to make.

    Like I mentioned through my list, Rosewall's peak is not in the top 10 and maybe not even top 15.
     
    Phoenix1983 and Flash O'Groove like this.
  47. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    19,950
    Location:
    U.S
    no, there isn't.

    At least 10 players better than Laver's career in the open era :

    1. Federer
    2. Sampras
    3. Borg
    4. Nadal
    5. Djokovic
    6. Mcenroe
    7. Lendl
    8. Connors
    9. Agassi
    10. Becker
    11. Edberg
    12. Wilander
     
  48. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,975
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    abmk,

    I won't disagree or agree with you but I will point out a few facts about Laver in the Open Era. Obviously Laver won the Open Grand Slam which I think should count for extra credit. He won five classic Open Majors but here's the thing, the system wasn't what it was now. The 1970 Dunlop was essentially the Australian for that year and Laver won it. Laver won the 1970 and 1971 Tennis Champions Classic, the latter Laver won 13 matches without a loss in defeating a field with Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Okker, Ashe, Roche, Taylor and Ralston. Laver played a number of these players twice in winning $160,000 for the tournament, by far the richest amount won by a player. These were coveted tournaments and perhaps even more important than a major.

    Laver also won the US Pro and French Pro in 1968 which were Pro Majors over extremely powerful fields that included players like Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Ralston, Buchholz, Pilic, Anderson, Gonzalez, Anderson, Drysdale in the the US Pro and Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall, Gimeno, Drysdale, Gonzalez, Taylor, Emerson, Segura, Anderson, Stolle, Pilic, Buchholz in the French Pro.

    He also won a ton of Masters 1000 level tournaments like the 1971 Italian Open, the South African Open, the Pacific Southwest etc.

    Laver won 76 total tournaments in the Open Era alone.

    Analyze and decide for yourself. It's up to you.

    I have no qualms with your list with or without Laver. Your list is fine with me. Incidentally I'm curious how much do you think Djokovic has to go to pass Nadal and later Sampras?
     
  49. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,745
    I don't want to separate Laver open and pro career, and I don't want to rank pro players. I find it unfair to rank Laver without taking into account the bigger part of his career.
     
    krosero and pc1 like this.
  50. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,745
    Laver's case is explained in my previous post. This ranking does not only take into account achievements, but also peak play. That's why Sampras, Borg and Mcenroe rank higher than Djokovic, Connors and Lendl who fare better in an achievement only ranking. I feel these players at their best are as good as anyone, while Djoko, Lendl and Connors are exceptional for their average level and longevity. Agassi to me makes neither list (top 8 only) but he is obiously 9th before Becker and Edberg.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016
    krosero and pc1 like this.

Share This Page