Best all-courter(s) by decade
 

60's: Rod Laver

70's: Bjorn Borg

80's: Boris Becker

90's: Pete Sampras

00's: Roger Federer (potential).

70s: Borg/Connors
80s: Connors/Wilander/Becker (3 yrs a piece, I'd say)
90s: Sampras
00s: Fed/Nadal

80s: becker
90s:sampras
2000s: federer

nadal - an all-courter ????? he is a baseliner. Period.

Maybe Agassi should be there for the 90's

all-courter != all-surface player !

both agassi and nadal are baseliners. Not all-courters

By your definition then both Agassi and Nadal are 'all-surface players' in that they were/are very capable of winning big titles on all the different kinds of surfaces.

There always tends to be some confusion with the term all-courter and I'm never quite entirely sure how people want to talk about it.

yeah, there is some confusion at times.

But IMO, its quite simple, an all-courter is someone who is competent from all parts of the court and plays a decent amount from all parts. Of course it is tough to divide it equally. Usually a player is biased either towards net play or baseline play ....

All-surface player, well as is obvious , means a player who can play on all surfaces

yeah, agassi and nadal are all-surface players, agassi more so than nadal ( I'd like to see him beat someone of calibre at the USO )

I think Agassi was an underrated grass courter, in large part since he too rarely brought his A-game to Wimbledon, but was a vastly overrated clay courter. His making 3 French Open finals was really an overachievement for him, it shouldnt have really happened. He got dream draws at each of the 1990, 1991, and 1999 French Opens. His only good wins were Chang in 1990 when Chang wasnt near his prime (his out of the blue 89 FO title notwithstanding) and Moya in 99. He didnt win his first Masters on clay until he was in his 30s. Also doesnt he have an equal head to head with Sampras on clay.

I think Nadal is probably better on fast hard courts than Agassi on clay but unfortunately he hasnt proven it at the U.S Open yet.

I agree with your definition. I suppose, when you think about it that it is better to be an all surface player than an all court player.

70's: One man: Bjorn Borg.
He may have had a volley weakness, but on grass, the guy would just keep on coming. And of course on grass, his volley became deadly...

Then on clay, he would do the exact opposite and NEVER attack.

Never ever seen a more distinct player.

Now that's profound.

1960's: Rod Laver



1970's: Bjorn Borg



1980's: Boris Becker

1990's: Pete Sampras




2000's: Roger Federer

That's a great pic.
Post more :evil:

heh..thanks Borg number one.

Wilander: Great Call!!

everyone tends to overlook Mats...he could do it all, on every surface....

If we're talking about being able to construct a point from anywhere on a court, it's hard to leave out Connors from either the 70's or early 80's.

You're welcome. Thank you. Borg knew his way around clay, as you can see Mandy01.

"All-courter" used to mean that one used all of the court (and was good in all areas of the court).

Now, it seems to mean that one can win on different surfaces ("all-surfacer"?).

Using the old meaning:
60's: Rod Laver
70's: Jimmy Connors
80's: Boris Becker
90's: Pete Sampras
00's: no one

Using the new meaning:
60's: Rod Laver
70's: Bjorn Borg
80's: Ivan Lendl
90's: Andre Agassi
00's: Roger Federer

I still think it means all court player in the sense of being able to play well from all parts of the court.