Originally Posted by TMF
That's true when Laver or Sampras was considered the greatest during their time. But if someone comes along and surpass that player(eg Fed surpasses Pete) then he deserve to be place ahead.
I don't think it's superficial. If you carefully go through the list from top to bottom, it include players from all different decades, different countries. Of course, countries like USA and AUS has many players on the list because they produces many great players.
I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.
You will never concede that the Tennis Channel list is ****, pardon crap.
In that list ALL places are wrongly given!