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

[Limpinhitter]

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.

It's not my only criteria. Getting in to my top 10 requires a great record ab initio. But, I list who I think are the 10 best players on an absolute basis, adjusting for equipment. Level of play has to count for something. Borg's record as a whole doesn't measure up to Rosewall's record in most statistics. But, I think Borg was a genuine 1st tier all time great. I don't think Rosewall was. Agassi is a closer call. But, again, I don't see Rosewall having a winning record against Agassi on any surface except the old soft, fast, grass at the USO, and maybe the old Wimbledon grass, maybe not. On hard courts or clay, I think Agassi's return and ground game and passing shots overpower Rosewall with the exception being a day that Rosewall is at his best and Agassi is not.

As for V. Williams and Graf, I think I said that V. Williams best was a higher level of play than Graf's best. That doesn't mean that V. Williams would have a winning record over Graf. Graf was a more versatile, more consistent competitor, probably because of better health throughout her career. If I include an equal number of matches on 3 surfaces, I might have to give the edge to Graf.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by 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).

Right. Additionally Rosewall was maybe a Co. No 1 in 1959 (8:4 against Gonzalez), 1960 (winning the top tournaments), 1970 (US Open win and Wimbledon final) and 1971 (winning the arguable No. 2 and 3 tournaments).

Muscles was among the top three for 16 years!

[Limpinhitter]

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?

Hoad was an erratic player who could play at a the highest level in the world one day, and something significantly less the next day. Part of that was his style of play. He was a big hitter who tried to blow his opponents off the court. Part was his health. He was known to have a bad back and a drinking problem. Djokovic is a much more consistent performer. But, I can't say that his best level of play was as great as Hoad's. Maybe Laver or Rosewall could offer a credible opinion about that.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Vines better than Emmo? Riggs better than Emerson? LOL.Maybe in betting, although he did a very bad bet when he got ridiculised by Billie jean King at the Astrodome...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Do you want to start a discussion like my long quarrels with Lobb and Limpinhitter?

I guess I will not learn in the rest of my life that you accept that Vines won more majors than Jan Kodes and that he won on two surfaces just like Kodes did.

I'm a rather old "kind" with my 63 years.... But you make me feel a bit younger! Thanks.

You welcome.When yopu don´t get so keyed up on Rosewall ( who is one of the very best players I have seen), you are a nice poster with good sense of humour.I don´t think Lobb has that sense of humour, which is rare since Hoad was a really nice, well spirited guy.

One day we should open a thread with the best players with the greatest sense of humour.There are a few others than Nastase.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I learnt history already and agree with you in both points.

I could never feel more honoured in my life.Now, I can die.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=kiki;6937783]Vines better than Emmo? Riggs better than Emerson? LOL.Maybe in betting, although he did a very bad bet when he got ridiculised by Billie jean King at the Astrodome...[/QUOTE

Vines and Riggs were world champions while Emerson was n't. So easy is the case...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I again agree but perhaps the depth of the tennis fields was a bit weaker than from Tilden times onwards.

Definitely.Tilden had 5 or 6 great players to compete against, while the Renshaw, Doherty and Wilding&Brookes had just 1 or 2 potential rivals.But they pionereed the game and should be highly regarded, just by that.

Washington was voted by no more than a few hundred thousand or, at maximum, a very few milllion electors, but that doesn´t make him a worse President than, say, George W Bush

[kiki]

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.

Laver won pro majors against fellas such as Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Segura,Gimeno,Olmedo and a few more greats.Vines had his share of pro majors, but Tilden was really old, although I have no problem accepting that Perry was a helluva player and competitor.But you can´t ever put Vines in Laver´s league.Similar to comparing Emerson, a great player to Gonzales, an absolute all time beast

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

You welcome.When yopu don´t get so keyed up on Rosewall ( who is one of the very best players I have seen), you are a nice poster with good sense of humour.I don´t think Lobb has that sense of humour, which is rare since Hoad was a really nice, well spirited guy.

One day we should open a thread with the best players with the greatest sense of humour.There are a few others than Nastase.

kiki, thanks for your friendly words. I do know that you also have good sense of humour.

To defend myself a bit: I only long ago pushed Rosewall (but always backed up by facts). In recent weeks I only praised Muscles in defense of unfair attacks by a certain poster (guess you know who I mean)...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I could never feel more honoured in my life.Now, I can die.

Please don't do this because tt would lose one of its most interesting posters (and I would lose one of those who praise K.R.R.)....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, thanks for your friendly words. I do know that you also have good sense of humour.

To defend myself a bit: I only long ago pushed Rosewall (but always backed up by facts). In recent weeks I only praised Muscles in defense of unfair attacks by a certain poster (guess you know who I mean)...

I know that.Rosewall is one of the guys I´d pay a higher ammount of monye to watch and, as I posted many times, that is just exactly my system to rate the players I have seen or I would like to have seen.

But, do yourself a favour, do not take it badly that Rosewall was also known as Pockets.Nobody is perfect, except Rosewall´s backhand.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver won pro majors against fellas such as Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Segura,Gimeno,Olmedo and a few more greats.Vines had his share of pro majors, but Tilden was really old, although I have no problem accepting that Perry was a helluva player and competitor.But you can´t ever put Vines in Laver´s league.Similar to comparing Emerson, a great player to Gonzales, an absolute all time beast

Emerson was an amateur when winning majors while Vines was an amateur and a pro when winning majors.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Please don't do this because tt would lose one of its most interesting posters (and I would lose one of those who praise K.R.R.)....

I won´t even if I wouldn´t mind if I have to carry on watching the so much booooring tennis of the last 10 years.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I know that.Rosewall is one of the guys I´d pay a higher ammount of monye to watch and, as I posted many times, that is just exactly my system to rate the players I have seen or I would like to have seen.

But, do yourself a favour, do not take it badly that Rosewall was also known as Pockets.Nobody is perfect, except Rosewall´s backhand.

...but even the latter is worse than Agassi's, if we can trust a certain poster...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Emerson was an amateur when winning majors while Vines was an amateur and a pro when winning majors.

You have a point there.I just meant that, while Vines is an excellent player and a really great talent, he is not in the trluy greats list.I would never dare to include Kodes in that definition, either.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I won´t even if I wouldn´t mind if I have to carry on watching the so much booooring tennis of the last 10 years.

Yes, the current tennis is not as interesting as tennis was in older decades. But I watch Djokovic and Murray with interest and pleasure.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

You welcome.When yopu don´t get so keyed up on Rosewall ( who is one of the very best players I have seen), you are a nice poster with good sense of humour.I don´t think Lobb has that sense of humour, which is rare since Hoad was a really nice, well spirited guy.

One day we should open a thread with the best players with the greatest sense of humour.There are a few others than Nastase.

Vitas Gerulaitis, he destroys almost everyone in tennis for sense of humor.

A potential GSOHOAT.

Maybe the Great Vince Spadea.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

...but even the latter is worse than Agassi's, if we can trust a certain poster...

Agassi´s second only to Connors for two handed backhands.Borg,Mc Millan,Browmich,Bruguera,Djokovic are also excellent tough not as good as Connors and agassi strokes IMO.

Rosewall´s one handed was considered not only the best ever for long time, but one of those historical shots like Gonzales serve and Tilden forehand.

However,Laver,Edberg,Budge could have been as good if not better in terms of raw power.Ashe,Kodes,Orantes,Vilas,Kuerten,Korda, Lutz/Stolle/Becker on the return of serve,Pietrangeli and a few others were also excellent stuff.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Vitas Gerulaitis, he destroys almost everyone in tennis for sense of humor.

A potential GSOHOAT.

Maybe the Great Vince Spadea.

Vitas had great sense of humour, what would you expect of him? I still laugh at " learn it be a lesson t....nobody beats VG 18 times in a row"

When Connors was not irked or doing his normal gamesmanship he could also be excellent.His quote day after Evert criticised Mac´s tantrums is memorable.

Aussies had great sense of humour, but it is acid and sarcastic, but when you get familiar with it, you can keep on laughing for a whole week...