Where do you put Agassi on your GOAT list (if you have one)?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I really don't get it. He has no problem trumping up Laver's career based on pro majors, yet totally dismisses them when it comes to Vines, who beat great players like Nüsslein, Tilden, and Perry to win them.

You are right.

It's nice that you call Nüsslein a great player and that you spell his name correctly. Maybe you are German speaking. I do know that American computers often don't know the German "ü".

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

I'd hardly take offensive to a Lavertard listing Federer as second, but you don't have Rosewall in the top ten?

In any case, my list is hardly fixed, but my top ten (with Agassi outside) shapes like this:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Borg
6. Nadal
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. McEnroe
11. Agassi

I can only see putting Rosewall in the top 10 based on his consistency and longevity. However, IMO, Rosewall's best was not as high as the other players on your list. I just don't see Rosewall having a winning record against any of these other players. And, I've seen all of them play, live and up close, with the exception of Gonzales. And, notwithstanding level of play, both Lendl and Connors had more career titles, in a shorter amount of time, against deeper fields, than Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

See my above list - above Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, and Agassi.

Carsomyr,

Don't let Limpinhitter make you uncertain regarding your all-time list and Rosewall's place in it.

Rosewall was strong enough to lead 10:7 against Laver in big events.

He played many tours instead of tournaments unlike to Connors and Lendl who always played tourneys. Thus he won less tournaments but still at least 137!

Rosewall cannot have a winning head to head against many of your top ten because he did not play against 6 of them and has a negative balance only against players above him in your top ten. He only played Borg when being almost 39...

Rosewall, as pc1 once wrote in this forum, played against the strongest fields ever with Gonzalez, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Connors , Borg, Vilas (he stands 2:0 against Guillermo).

As you might have seen in the Limpinhitter/BobbyOne discussion, Limpinhitter tries all tricks to put down Rosewall's greatness...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Carsomyr,

Don't let Limpinhitter make you uncertain regarding your all-time list and Rosewall's place in it

Rosewall was strong enough to lead 10:7 against Laver in big events.

He played many tours instead of tournaments unlike to Connors and Lendl who always played tourneys. Thus he won less tournaments but still at least 137!

Rosewall cannot have a winning head to head against many of your top ten because he did not play against 6 of them and has a negative balance only against players above him in your top ten. He only played Borg when being almost 39...

Rosewall, as pc1 once wrote in this forum, played against the strongest fields ever with Gonzalez, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Connors , Borg, Vilas (he stands 2:0 against Guillermo).

As you might have seen in the Limpinhitter/BobbyOne discussion, Limpinhitter tries all tricks to put down Rosewall's greatness...

Didn't Rosewall defeat Vilas in 1976 on grass in a tournament I believe was called something like the Tournament of the Americas? I think Rosewall crushed Vilas losing only a few games in three sets. Rosewall was around 42.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I can only see putting Rosewall in the top 10 based on his consistency and longevity.

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Didn't Rosewall defeat Vilas in 1976 on grass in a tournament I believe was called something like the Tournament of the Americas? I think Rosewall crushed Vilas losing only a few games in three sets. Rosewall was around 42.

pc1, Yes, Rosewall at 42 beat Vilas 6-2,6-2,6-0 in the International Challenge Australia vs. the Americas. About two weeks later Vilas reached final of the AO...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

Thanks, NadalAgassi for your arguments.

In my speculations regarding an always open tennis, Rosewall would have won about 25 majors, equal with Gonzalez and behind only Tilden (who probably had weaker opposition than Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall). By the way I give Laver "only" around 20 open majors because of his shorter career than Gonzalez and Rosewall had. These four are my all-time greatest players, followed by Borg.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Not the worst list but you overrate Emerson (as many do) . His 12 major titles don't mean too much. He is the only player in your list who never was No.1!

And you should include Jack Kramer.

I just can't put someone like Kramer in there and leave Emerson out. Emerson beat Laver in two of those slams finals, that's convincing enough that he's a top level player. Hoad and Kramer I find overrated, would never put them in a top 20 list.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I just can't put someone like Kramer in there and leave Emerson out. Emerson beat Laver in two of those slams finals, that's convincing enough that he's a top level player. Hoad and Kramer I find overrated, would never put them in a top 20 list.

Emerson beat Laver in the amateurs and Rod became better than Emerson while still in the amateur. Laver improved immensely in the pros when he took on Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Sedgman among others. Emerson won all his majors during the era that pros weren't allowed to enter the majors. I doubt if he would have had 12 majors won if Open tennis was around.

Kramer was in my opinion clearly ahead of Emerson. He dominated the pros for a number of years winning tours over Riggs, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura. Many of the pros who played him rank him as the best or among the best they have played. These people include Gonzalez, Segura and Sedgman. Sedgman for example I believe ranked Kramer as the best player he faced and ranked Kramer's serve and Gonzalez's serve about equal. At his best Kramer was incredible.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Consistency and longevity should both be MAJOR factors in any all time list. Also consider had it been Open tennis then Rosewall would be top 3 all time in slam wins, maybe even leading the list. He would have more slams than Federer who most people have in the top 2 or 3 today. I cant see anyway he is outside the top 10.

Nevertheless, I can't see Rosewall with a winning record against anyone in my top 10.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Agassi's ground stroke shotmaking was top 2-3 all time, IMO. He had the greatest backhand in tennis history and one of the best forehands. But, he didn't have the mobility to put that shotmaking to its best use. Agassi explains that he had a congenital lumbar spine defect that affected his mobility as he got older, which can clearly be seen. It seems to me that Agassi was hitting the ball better than ever in the late 90's, early 2000's, but, his mobility decline offset that. He compensated well by standing in close and cutting off angles. But, against players like Sampras and Federer, Agassi's lack of world class mobility was exposed.

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Gonzales
6. Nadal
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Connors
10. Agassi

PS: I would also say that Agassi's peak level of play might have been higher than Lendl, McEnroe or Connors. But, it was too sporatic, and not sufficiently sustained, to give him full credit for that. Compare Borg, whose career was short, but, it was virtually all peak with a ridiculous winning percentage, especially at the majors with 11 titles out of 27 attempts.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Nevertheless, I can't see Rosewall with a winning record against anyone in my top 10.

All hard to say. If we look at Sampras for example, Rosewall would competitive on all fast surfaces with Pete Sampras as he was against Laver. Remember Rosewall even in his mid to later thirties was able to defeat Roche in the 1970 US Open final on grass and he was able to defeat John Newcombe in the semi before that. These are two of the finest fast court players of all time. Roche was in his prime. However on clay I think Rosewall would win a very good percentage of the matches against Sampras. It's very possible Rosewall would defeat Sampras most of the time if they played equally on all surfaces.

I read about a practice set (if memory serves) Lendl played against Rosewall about 1980 or so. Rosewall was about 46 and Lendl about 20 but one of the top players in the world I believe. I understand it was a great set and Lendl won by 6-4. Now it doesn't necessarily mean anything I guess but it does show that an old Rosewall was competitive with a tournament tough Lendl. It was against a pre peak Lendl but it also was a way past prime Rosewall. I understand the rallies were fantastic from observer.

Agassi used to have a lot of problems with Miloslav Mecir. He once mentioned years ago (probably changed his opinion later) that Mecir was the one who gave him the most problems. Odd thing is that according to ATP records they only played once. A player like Mecir with great mobility and the ability to control the rally apparently bothered Agassi. Mecir didn't have the biggest serve in the world but neither did Agassi although Agassi could pop in some powerful serves. I think Rosewall in his prime could very well do the same thing as Mecir did to Agassi.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Nevertheless, I can't see Rosewall with a winning record against anyone in my top 10.

That might be true, but is that your ONLY factor for ranking greats. For instance I know you said you thought Venus Williams would beat Steffi Graf at their best once, but despite that opinion surely you dont rank Venus anywhere near the same rank in history as Graf.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I just can't put someone like Kramer in there and leave Emerson out. Emerson beat Laver in two of those slams finals, that's convincing enough that he's a top level player. Hoad and Kramer I find overrated, would never put them in a top 20 list.

Kramer was a giant in tennis being No.1 for several years while Emerson at his best was only No.5 in one year, mostly worse. I doubt that Emerson would have won any major if open era would have started earlier.

Hoad, as my "friend", Dan Lobb, rightly says, is still UNDERrated.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Kramer was a giant in tennis being No.1 for several years while Emerson at his best was only No.5 in one year, mostly worse. I doubt that Emerson would have won any major if open era would have started earlier.

Hoad, as my "friend", Dan Lobb, rightly says, is still UNDERrated.

Even Emerson admitted he was not in Hoad's class.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

That might be true, but is that your ONLY factor for ranking greats. For instance I know you said you thought Venus Williams would beat Steffi Graf at their best once, but despite that opinion surely you dont rank Venus anywhere near the same rank in history as Graf.

Rosewall has the edge against all great players he played in big events with the only exception of Connors. Rosewall was 39 plus when he met Jimbo for the first time, therefore one cannot value it as a true rivalry. He outplayed (in majors, Davis Cup and Kramer Cup) ALL greats from Gonzalez to Nastase!

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by pc1

Even Emerson admitted he was not in Hoad's class.

I see Hoad with 4 majors and 1 Tournament of champions and a whole lot of losses in important finals. Overrated to me when compared to the players with the truly ridiculous resumes.Hoad=Djokovic level as far as I am concerned and that's assuming Djokovic doesn't keep on winning (similar amount of majors, similar very dominant year, "very high potential level of play" that certainly is a similarity)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I see Hoad with 4 majors and 1 Tournament of champions and a whole lot of losses in important finals. Overrated to me when compared to the players with the truly ridiculous resumes.Hoad=Djokovic level as far as I am concerned and that's assuming Djokovic doesn't keep on winning (similar amount of majors, similar very dominant year, "very high potential level of play" that certainly is a similarity)

Remember Hoad played in the Old Pro tour where the level of play on average was far higher. Emerson played the amateur tour. It's like a good heavyweight playing in the light weight division. He may win there but if he moved back to the heavyweights it would be different.

Playing Fred Stolle, Darmon and Ken Fletcher in the finals of majors is a lot different from playing Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno in the finals. Emerson won five majors against Stolle in the finals.

From 1963 to 1967 Emerson won 10 of 20 majors played. From 1968 on Emerson did not win another major. The first Open Major had Rosewall defeating Laver in four sets in 1968. Emerson lost to a Pancho Gonzalez who would be 40 that year in five sets. Gonzalez of course was one of the pros Emerson didn't have to face in the majors.

[CyBorg]

Rosewall won a pro grand slam (1963) and was clearly the best in the game from 1961 to 1963 and then was arguably the best in 1964/65.

And then numerous years as the game's second/third best.

He is up there with the best. Agassi isn't. One could argue that he was never the best in tennis in any year (though you could give him either 1995 or 1999).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by pc1

Remember Hoad played in the Old Pro tour where the level of play on average was far higher. Emerson played the amateur tour. It's like a good heavyweight playing in the light weight division. He may win there but if he moved back to the heavyweights it would be different.

Playing Fred Stolle, Darmon and Ken Fletcher in the finals of majors is a lot different from playing Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno in the finals. Emerson won five majors against Stolle in the finals.

In regards to Hoad even with that, I still see him as Djokovic level player, nothing more than that.

As for Emerson, what is an appropriate ranking for him on the all time list then? Is he better than a Kodes lol?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

In regards to Hoad even with that, I still see him as Djokovic level player, nothing more than that.

As for Emerson, what is an appropriate ranking for him on the all time list then? Is he better than a Kodes lol?

Not to Kiki. lol.

Hard to say. Lot of players in my opinion greater than Emerson. Throwing out names off the top of my head, Laver, Tilden, Borg, Federer, Nadal, Gonzalez, Kramer, Hoad, Sedgman, Budge, Riggs, Vines, Perry, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl are among them.