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

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I'm astonished that you even lack a sense for humour...

You wouldn't know a sense of humor if it crawled up your leg and bit you on the badoingas. Case in point, my prior post was quite funny, at your expense, but, funny nonetheless.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree mostly although, if we talk about underrated players, all those you mention are better rated in TT than guys like Kodes, or Trabert, or Seixas, or Drobny, or Borotra to name a few off my hat.At least, this is my impression.

Trabert is well-acknowledged by the experts but Kovacs f.i, is not.

Seixas, Drobny and Borotra are not often mentioned because most posters prefer to write about pros as they were the better pkayers.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes, I sometimes posted that, in my humble opinion, 4 slots of time stand up.

The middle to late 50´s ( and I will mix up pros and maateurs because we talk about the global situation of the sport) were great: Laver reached major finals in 1959, Olmedo was superb, Emerson and Fraser, as well as Cooper and Anderson started to stablish themselves as top stuff and, of course, kramer,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales and Sedgman is probably the best group of six players assembled at the same time.

early 70´s were just as great, I consider the first great open era starting in 1968 and ending around 1974, when the game changed a lot.During those 5-6 years, Laver,Rosewall,Nastase,Ashe,Newk,Gimeno,Kodes,Roch e,Smith and Okker ( with still competitive Emmo,Stolle,Drysdale,ralston,Lutz,Richey,Gorman,Pi lic,franulovic,Metrevali,taylor,Gorman right behind) will make what is, in my opinion, the greatest ever top ten.Better than late 50´s because the deepth was a bit better at the top 10 or top 15 ( which is what defines true competitive eras)

Of course, the whole 80´s were a feast with Borg,Connors,Lendl,Mac and later Wilander,Becker,edberg ( and Kriek,Cash,Noah,Gomez,Mecir and for a while Vilas;Gerulaitis,Tanner,Pecci,Mayer and Clerc) going at each other.if Borg had played until 29 or 30, I just can imagine a 1985 year with Bjorn,Jimmy,John,Ivan,Matts,Boris and Stefan that would have been unbelievable and with a far stronger media and financial support than the group of the late 50´s and even early 70´s.

Finally, the first 5-6 years of the 90´s were also huge, with Sampras,Agassi,becker,Edberg,Ivanisevic,Bruguera,R after,Courier,Chang,Stich and Richard Krajicek well supported by guys like Kafelnikov,young Moya and young Rios,Korda,Rusedski,Muster,Forget,Medvedev,Todd Martin and wayne Ferreira among some others.This group compares to any other formed.

So, the top 6 is late 50´s, the top 7 is the 80´s, the top 10 is early 70´s and early 90´s.Sorry for the long explanation, but it is the way I always will look at this sport unless things will change in the next decades.

Fine analysis and I think most people would agree with it

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

You wouldn't know a sense of humor if it crawled up your leg and bit you on the badoingas. Case in point, my prior post was quite funny, at your expense, but, funny nonetheless.

Sorry, my English is not good enough to understand your insults.

My sense of humour: Ask kiki...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Trabert is well-acknowledged by the experts but Kovacs f.i, is not.

Seixas, Drobny and Borotra are not often mentioned because most posters prefer to write about pros as they were the better pkayers.

Borotra was just almost as good as Lacoste and Cochet but seems to get third fiddle when people talks about the Mousketeers.Seixas was at Trabert´s level when both were amateurs, and Drobny was considered a potential nº 1 for a few years.What underrating guys like those ( I just used them as examples) shows is just very little knowledge of the game.Nothing else.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

Thanks, we all agree on disagreeing from time to time tough most of us share the same vision and pretty similar background.

I honestly think that, in terms of talent, Vines was a better player than Kodes.But look at it the other way; Kodes achieved a lot being less talented than the all time greats and that deserves IMO, great respect and admiration.

Only Laver and Rosewall had a better return, specially off the BH side until Connors arrived.Kodes return could even weak down a gunner like Newcombe or Smith, both terrific servers.probably, only Laver and Rosewall could be, either flashier or steadier, but he got to their level, almost.

Emerson, Ashe, Roche and Nastase all had a better backhand returns that Kodes, and were better than Kodes in every other aspect of the game as well.

PS: Cliff Drysdale had a better backhand return that Kodes, too.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Borotra was just almost as good as Lacoste and Cochet but seems to get third fiddle when people talks about the Mousketeers.Seixas was at Trabert´s level when both were amateurs, and Drobny was considered a potential nº 1 for a few years.What underrating guys like those ( I just used them as examples) shows is just very little knowledge of the game.Nothing else.

Here let me contradict a bit. Borotra never was No.1 while Lacoste and Cochet have been.

Drobny ( a genius player) was never considered clearly a No.1.

But I agree that these players are almost forgotten now, alas.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Borotra was just almost as good as Lacoste and Cochet but seems to get third fiddle when people talks about the Mousketeers.Seixas was at Trabert´s level when both were amateurs, and Drobny was considered a potential nº 1 for a few years.What underrating guys like those ( I just used them as examples) shows is just very little knowledge of the game.Nothing else.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Here let me contradict a bit. Borotra never was No.1 while Lacoste and Cochet have been.

Drobny ( a genius player) was never considered clearly a No.1.

But I agree that these players are almost forgotten now, alas.

I think Drobny was the first player that Rod Laver played at Wimbledon. Drobny is one of the few that beat the Rocket at Wimbledon.

I think Vic Seixas was below Trabert even in the amateurs. In 1955 Trabert was almost invincible. He won the last three majors of the year and there was a ridiculous number of consecutive tournaments that he won. And as great as Trabert was he was destroyed by Pancho Gonzalez 74 to 27 in a long tour.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Drobny was the first player that Rod Laver played at Wimbledon. Drobny is one of the few that beat the Rocket at Wimbledon.

I think Vic Seixas was always below Trabert even in the amateurs. In 1955 Trabert was almost invincible. He won the last three majors of the year and there was a ridiculous number of consecutive tournaments that he won. And as great as Trabert was he was destroyed by Pancho Gonzalez 74 to 27 in a long tour.

Laver didn't like playing lefties. I also think that Trabert beat defending champion, Drobney, to win his first Wimbledon.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Laver didn't like playing lefties. I also think that Trabert beat defending champion, Drobney, to win his first Wimbledon.

That's one of the reasons Laver had some problems with Tony Roche. Of course the main reason is that Roche was just a super gifted player.

Not that this means anything but one of my fantasy match ups is the two great lefties, John McEnroe versus Rod Laver at Wimbledon. Just an FYI, I believe Rod Laver's last Wimbledon was John McEnroe's first Wimbledon. In some ways a passing of the guard from one great lefty genius to another.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

I've him in the top 10. He's got the career slam, something other players besides Fed, Laver, Nadal can't touch !

Latter top-20.

A career slam (a Carilloism) and $3 might buy one a cup of coffee.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Emerson, Ashe, Roche and Nastase all had a better backhand returns that Kodes, and were better than Kodes in every other aspect of the game as well.

PS: Cliff Drysdale had a better backhand return that Kodes, too.

I wonder what single thing did Kodes do well to have a much better record than Roche at majors, a better one than Nastase and equal than Ashe.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Drobny was the first player that Rod Laver played at Wimbledon. Drobny is one of the few that beat the Rocket at Wimbledon.

I think Vic Seixas was below Trabert even in the amateurs. In 1955 Trabert was almost invincible. He won the last three majors of the year and there was a ridiculous number of consecutive tournaments that he won. And as great as Trabert was he was destroyed by Pancho Gonzalez 74 to 27 in a long tour.

Drobny was the first great champion ( bar Kozeluh) from current Czech republic.he was famous for his legendary drop shots that some journalist rate still unique.He was the first guy to beat Rosewall at the Wimbledon final.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Laver didn't like playing lefties. I also think that Trabert beat defending champion, Drobney, to win his first Wimbledon.

true, he hated playing Fraser, who beat him at the Wimbledon final and, to a lesser extent, Tony Roche, whom he always dominated when it counted.I can´t recall of other lefties that peaked along Laver, was there any other?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's one of the reasons Laver had some problems with Tony Roche. Of course the main reason is that Roche was just a super gifted player.

Not that this means anything but one of my fantasy match ups is the two great lefties, John McEnroe versus Rod Laver at Wimbledon. Just an FYI, I believe Rod Laver's last Wimbledon was John McEnroe's first Wimbledon. In some ways a passing of the guard from one great lefty genius to another.

great point on Laver passing the torch to Mac.Since Laver was the worldwide standart of measure back then and also a lefty, when Mac showed up he became inmediately compared to Laver.I think it was Tingay who said that Mc Enroe was the best player from Laver.In many ways, I also think so.In others, not.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

I wonder what single thing did Kodes do well to have a much better record than Roche at majors, a better one than Nastase and equal than Ashe.

Better health than Roche, a player boycott, and he was really one of the first clay court specialists. Bottom line is that he won a total of 8 singles titles in his career, 2 of which were FO's and one W in a boycott year.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

true, he hated playing Fraser, who beat him at the Wimbledon final and, to a lesser extent, Tony Roche, whom he always dominated when it counted.I can´t recall of other lefties that peaked along Laver, was there any other?

Niki Pilic.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

I wonder what single thing did Kodes do well to have a much better record than Roche at majors, a better one than Nastase and equal than Ashe.

Luck of boycott?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Niki Pilic.

Right.And Roger Taylor.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Better health than Roche, a player boycott, and he was really one of the first clay court specialists. Bottom line is that he won a total of 8 singles titles in his career, 2 of which were FO's and one W in a boycott year.

Roche was healthy enough to lose a lot of major semis and finals.

1973 Wimbledon had 3 of the best all time players, although certainly a few 2 or 3 like Newcombe,Smith and Rosewall would be favoured over Kodes to win it, but story happens once at each time.