Originally Posted by Mustard
There's also Pancho Gonzales, at the age of 41, beating Charlie Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, after saving 7 match points. It's a legendary match that they will know about.
My point is that Gonzales' professional achievements, i.e. his dominance during his prime years, have been minimised or ignored. I ask anyone to give me a case on Emerson being above Gonzales without going into the "12 majors to 2" excuse.
Completely agree with you on that one. Emmerson probably isn't in the first tier of Aussie greats. Would think Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and Hoad were all better players. I think rational person would have to recognize the obvious weakness of these rankings, but alsl the difficulties of comparing vastly different eras. How does somene compare a Bill Tilden, Don Budge or Rene Lacoste (none of whom most of us ever saw play) with any of the modern players?
Personally, I think the tennis channel people simply wanted to create some controversy (mostly good natured) and get people discussing the merits of various players.
Not that you asked but my top 5 (for the men)
(yes, I know I cheated) and would think the top two (plus Gonzalez-too far back in time to really properly evaluate) would certainly have claims to being the best.