Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Only 3 Real GOATS (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=261755)

Liv3 For It 05-17-2009 04:59 PM

Only 3 Real GOATS
 
Lavar
Sampras
Federer

Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.

GameSampras 05-17-2009 05:37 PM

laver by far if you look at his resume overrall

Its more much more solid than pete's or Roger's. Maybe not by a long stretch but overrall more solid across the board

CyBorg 05-17-2009 05:47 PM

Sampras and Federer are not even top-5.

hoodjem 05-18-2009 03:15 AM

I would add Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Borg.



And am inclined to agree with CyB above about the top-5.

Q&M son 05-18-2009 12:14 PM

Lavar.................

chaognosis 05-18-2009 12:39 PM

My list has been pretty stable of late:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Budge
Gonzales/Sampras
Borg
Federer
Cochet/Perry

(Federer ties Borg with a French win.)

So, I do have Sampras in the top five -- albeit barely, and only by way of a tie with Gonzales. Still, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, and Budge are the true GOAT contenders for me, and will probably stay that way for some time.

GS 05-18-2009 12:41 PM

Over the years, I've gotten tired of reading all about who's the GOAT.
At least I know who the LAMB is (the Loser After Many Blowouts). It's Vince Spadea---he holds the record of 21 straight first-round ATP losses. (No wonder he doesn't like to sign autographs---they're of little value.)

CyBorg 05-18-2009 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 3436819)
I would add Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Borg.



And am inclined to agree with CyB above about the top-5.

I'd rate the top tier something like this:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer

I've been thinking a bit about the criteria for ranking these guys and I've made a slight modification as to the notion of longevity. I've mentioned this as a factor, but wasn't really sure how to talk about it. Now I have a bit of a clearer idea and it manifested from the issue of the 'decline of Federer'.

I think what truly matters in longevity isn't how many years you play well in relation to the other guy, because these standards vary from era to era. Rosewall played somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20-25 years competitively, but is this realizable today? Perhaps not.

What truly matters in this respect I think is two things. A truly impressive longevity is when an elite player from one generation makes adjustments and remains an elite player in the following generation. This is what Federer is struggling with right now. The top two players on my list both aced this department. Rosewall perhaps even three generations. Laver probably most impressive - the pro/amateur split years, followed by the open era years, effectively competing against new blood like Newcombe and Smith.

Borg failed in this respect. Budge kind of did too, but with a much better excuse. Gonzales excelled - Sampras to some extent too, but against much less impressive opposition (let's face it, his toughest opponent in those latter years was a guy even older than he was).

So I'm gaining a new appreciation to the longevity factor and I think it is extremely important, because what is tested is the player's ability to adjust to highly complex phenomena, having to somehow maintain a competitive spirit in light of a lot of younger, hungry opponents aiming to dethrone him. Federer has been criticized for failing the test (so far).

So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.

It's also not hard and fast. Tilden rates third because of an outside factor - he didn't play enough against Cochet and Lacoste, so it's more difficult to rate him above Rosewall. Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.

Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.

jimbo333 05-18-2009 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3438913)

Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.

Yes, you are correct:)

jimbo333 05-18-2009 03:10 PM

So with longevity now being a key criteria, does Connors move above McEnroe on your GOAT list?

Just wondered:)

egn 05-18-2009 03:20 PM

Right now Fed is outside top5 but honestly if Fed scores a french open win he shoots up and I don't think it would be fair to deny it. No case can really be made for Borg over Fed if Fed has a major on every surface, especially with his dominance. Even with the bad h2h against Nadal he would still have accomplished a lot more than most, however that is why I don't hold him GOAT. However if Fed gets that French Open in my eyes he is 4th all time. Fed still has time left to improve his ranking we will see what happens, which is why I think it is unfair for right now to give him a 2.5/4 on the longievity scale..Let us see where Fed is in 5 years. Right now it is really hard to keep him constantly ranked in one spot.

Anyway Laver is GOAT for his overall accomplishments and talent. Laver played the game amazingly and crushed the best of his era on their best surfaces.

jimbo333 05-18-2009 03:26 PM

Yes I agree, the argument about LAVER being the GOAT has been won many times:)

hoodjem 05-18-2009 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3438913)
So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.

I regard your new thinking and rating system as having tremendous validity. The only nit I was going to pick had to do with the versatility rating of Gonzales. But you sort of answered it at the end, here:
Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3438913)
Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.


grafselesfan 05-18-2009 03:40 PM

My top 10 all time in order are:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Don Budge
4. Pete Sampras
5. Bill Tilden
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Ken Rosweall
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Roger Federer
10. Jack Kramer

tennis-hero 05-18-2009 03:44 PM

IF elsworth Vines can be considered a contender for one great year then so can Muster :)

my list wouldn't include Laver because his records are overratted

Sampras would be top spot or sharing top with Federer

Borg's HC disaster stops him from matching Sampras and Fed

and Nadal is quickly rising up to join them

Muster and Lendl also on the list

as is Mac for his 84 season

jimbo333 05-18-2009 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis-hero (Post 3439393)
IF elsworth Vines can be considered a contender for one great year then so can Muster :)

my list wouldn't include Laver because his records are overratted

Sampras would be top spot or sharing top with Federer

Borg's HC disaster stops him from matching Sampras and Fed

and Nadal is quickly rising up to join them

Muster and Lendl also on the list

as is Mac for his 84 season

Which bridge do you live under exactly?

And please stay there:)

tennis-hero 05-18-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyBorg (Post 3438913)
I'd rate the top tier something like this:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer


So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

T.

i would take your criteria (make a minor adjustment to 10 for my own personal tastes) and add to it, surfaces variables

Peak play for Rosewall on clay i would rate as 9 out of 10
and Laver peak clay would be 8

somone like Sampras who could be a 10 on Grass would obviously not even be a 5 on clay

Borg who would be a 10 on clay, would not be a 7 on hard

Federer is tough to rate

talent wise you can give him 10 across the board, but you factor in his mental weakness and you have to take off at least 2 points on his weaker surfaces

Nadal would be a 10 on clay and only a 7 on grass

longevity is a nice adition but in my opinion its meaningless

peak play, matters most, and anyone who can be consistently good for an entire year is good enough in my opinion

tennis-hero 05-18-2009 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo333 (Post 3439420)
Which bridge do you live under exactly?

And please stay there:)

sorry its not trolling just because i don't subscribe to the Laver worship

one fake Grand slam when the best players were pro 62

and one when the best players were in retirment homes 69 does not a GOAT make

he's not worthy of any GOAT discussion

Thomas Muster however is

CyBorg 05-18-2009 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo333 (Post 3439206)
So with longevity now being a key criteria, does Connors move above McEnroe on your GOAT list?

Just wondered:)

McEnroe's peak is much better. They're very close, but I prefer McEnroe.

CyBorg 05-18-2009 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis-hero (Post 3439421)
i would take your criteria (make a minor adjustment to 10 for my own personal tastes) and add to it, surfaces variables

Peak play for Rosewall on clay i would rate as 9 out of 10
and Laver peak clay would be 8

somone like Sampras who could be a 10 on Grass would obviously not even be a 5 on clay

Borg who would be a 10 on clay, would not be a 7 on hard

Federer is tough to rate

talent wise you can give him 10 across the board, but you factor in his mental weakness and you have to take off at least 2 points on his weaker surfaces

Nadal would be a 10 on clay and only a 7 on grass

longevity is a nice adition but in my opinion its meaningless

peak play, matters most, and anyone who can be consistently good for an entire year is good enough in my opinion

I'm sorry, but this is unintelligible.

The point of this was not to reduce the discussion to numbers, but to clarify the thinking process through numbers. The numbers do not take place of a reasonable discussion. They are a starting point to a discussion.

I don't why Nadal is even being brought up.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse