Originally Posted by urban
Pc1 makes a valuable point, when he calls Hoad one of the best or maybe the best player for one match. Its hard to prove positively or negatively, because me and most people here haven't seen him play in his prime (except for short clips). Me and some here have seen performances of Laver, Borg, mostly on clay, Mac 1984, Sampras at Wim 1999, Federer USO 2004, Nadal RG 2008, which came close to perfection.
What we have about Hoad are sources by fellow players, like that of Gordon Forbes, who argues in similar lines as pc 1. Nevertheless we all here believe this statement. Over a year, there were clearly better years than that of Hoad in 1959, although it is given, that the competition was a high as possible. That Hoad never won Wembley, the most prestigious title of the pro tour, is a blemish on his record, more than his failure to win the classic Forest Hills major (he shares this with Borg). He had many tries at London, but never could overcome Rosewall there.
It is interesting, what may be the best way to constitute the best player, one match, one tournament, one series of hth matches or a tournment series? I would advocate the latter option, for the match i would probably nominate Hoad (or some others), for the hth series Gonzalez, for one tournament, it would depend on surfaces, clay Borg, Rosewall or Nadal, hard Federer or Laver, grass Sampras or Laver, for a tournament series across all surfaces probably Laver.