Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,964
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Brett,

    NatF is pretty cool about stuff.
     
  2. gino

    gino Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,976
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Does this clay-courter make anyone's top 10?

    [​IMG]
     
    craigster and pc1 like this.
  3. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    FYI, the ATP didn't exist for the first 5 years of the open era, and then, only as a players union and a computer ranking system, not a circuit. The two main pro circuits were the Grand Prix and the WCT. The international circuit was administered by the ILTF. The ATP Tour started in 1990. Connors and others won many important non-ATP events in their careers, many of which the current ATP doesn't keep track of. For example, I've read sources that have Lendl, Rosewall and Gonzalez winning more than 130 titles, each. In addition to all of that, the ATP website is notoriously unreliable and incomplete, especially data that predates its existence.
     
  4. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    11,506
    Well, I have had the privilege of seeing him play, live, several times in his prime. In my view, he is about as talented as anyone. His return game, second only to Agassi's in my opinion, is testament to that.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Brett69, In open era Connors won about 150 titles. ATP did not count many of them.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    NatF, I'm glad I finally can agree. But you and I and all others should try to avoid the word "silly". I concede it's sometimes difficult to do so...
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,655
    Limpin, I agree.
     
  8. craigster

    craigster New User

    Joined:
    Wednesday
    Messages:
    61
    He/she didnt say that was their rankings, just their likelihood to be GOAT. I doubt he/she would rank Sampras 10th, just that he is that unlikely to have any GOAT argument. Which I can understand since Sampras achievement and career wise is basically just a poorer version of Federer. His career is most similar to Federer than anyone else, and he is behind Federer in everything, so how could he possibly be GOAT, whether you think Federer is or not. Gonzales atleast is very tough to compare to Federer and many others due to the era he played, was #1 as long or longer than Laver, so has possible avenues to argue him as the GOAT. Not that i would but you could atleast try much easier than Sampras who is just a poorer Federer career about 10 years earlier in modern days.

    As for all time rankings I would put Gonzales over Sampras easily.

    1. He was #1 for 8 straight years. Sampras only 6. 6 is still mighty impressive, but this is one of the easiest points of comparision and one of the strongest points of both, and Gonzales wins comfortably.

    2. He was better on clay than Sampras by a significant margin, even if both are very weak for great standards. His equivalent is better than having only 3 good clay tournaments your whole career (Roland Garros 96, Davis Cup final, Rome 1994) and losing early rounds of Roland Garros to nobodies most years of your prime.

    3. He just was a more dominant and overbearing player at this best. Sampras never won 3 slams in the same year in an era all 4 are fully valued.
     
  9. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    11,964
    Location:
    Anywhere I can't be found.
    Clearly the best clay court player of all time. No doubt.
     
  10. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,744
    Because both are judged under the circumstances of their eras. As far as I now, clay was simply not a common surfaces on the pro tour, which explain why Gonzalez didn't won many importants tournaments on clay. He was none the less one of the top players on clay of his time. Disqualiying Gonzalez because of lack of clay results is pretty similar to disqualify Federer for lack of carpet results.

    Sampras too is judged under the 90's circumstances, but he was outachieved on clay by many of his contemporary, many of them much lesser player than him overall.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  11. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,835
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    I think Gonzalez would have made more than a single FO SF in his career if there had been open tennis...
     
    pc1 and Flash O'Groove like this.
  12. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,744
    Correct. After all, Krajicek, Becker, Rosset, Rafter, etc. aren't of Gonzalez fabric and made one FO SF in the ultra though clay specialist packed FO draw of the 90's.
     
    NatF likes this.
  13. NatF

    NatF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21,835
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Yes but maybe Becker with his 0 clay court titles would have been a dirt giant in the 50's ;)
     
    craigster likes this.

Share This Page