Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

1. fed: he has the rafa issue and no strong opponents from 04-05 but career slam, longest no.1 and most slams. also probably GOAT in both W (most important slam) and USO. he also continued to win from 08-12 despite facing very strong opponents and not being the youngest guy.

2. laver: most dominant of all despite missing his prime years but I don't reward for "what if" and he did not have very strong opponents

3. pete: a lot of slams plus owned his main rivals. he also had to face a lot of good opponents. but he was just too weak on clay to be considered GOAT. no career slam

4.borg: very dominant and could have won more if not his early retirement and AO skipping. but again no what ifs so he is 4th

5. rafa: 11 slams plus owning the GOAT on clay. their h2h is skewed but even baby nadal could keep up with prime fed on every surface. however not good enough in the AO and USO to be considerd higher. career slam is nice but just one title each is a little thin. he is behind borg because borg dominated two slams vs rafas 1

6.connors: most tournaments won and very long no.1 and also missed some more slams because of AO skipping. however he did not have the best opponents (laver was old and borg not yet there), when borg took over he beat connors most of the time (especially 79-81 when connors did not win a single match)

7.from here it becomes tough. I go with lendl at 7

8.I go with macenroe since agassi was owned so much by pete

9.agassi: career slam and very long and successsfull career although he was owned by sampras

10. djokovic: not the most slams but he had to face a slightly past prime fed and prime nadal as probably the best opposition ever. murray is not bad either.

Of course it's a matter of opinion but Laver did play Rosewall in his prime, Gonzalez (still strong but pass his prime by a little), Gimeno, Newcombe (at his best), Roche, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe, Roy Emerson, Tom Okker, Santana, Ralston, Drysdale during the years he was winning majors. I do think these were extremely strong players but it is a matter of opinion so judge for yourself. Eight of these player have won majors and many of them multiple majors. In later years Laver played Kodes, Nastase, Borg, Connors, Vilas, Orantes, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Solomon, Dibbs, John Alexander.

Nice list. I like it that you rank Connors up there. I think Connors is vastly underrated especially considering he won 149 tournaments in his career, the most of the Open Era by a little over Ivan Lendl who won 146.

Djokovic is one of the best players I've seen and I can see him mentioned with any great in the coming years.

Did you consider some of the players like Tilden?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I personally have Bill Tilden as the best player in the world for 7 years, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1931, and the best professional player in 1932 and 1933. As an amateur from 1912 to 1930, Tilden won 138 out of 192 tournaments and was runner-up in 28 others. Amongst the amateur tournaments he won were 7 US Championships, 3 Wimbledons and a WHCC (precursor to the French Championships). As a professional from 1931 onwards, Tilden was the best on the big pro tours until dethroned by Ellsworth Vines in 1934, while he also won 2 US Pros and 2 French Pros, as well as coming very close in many others during the 1930s while Tilden was in his 40s.

Tilden's post-1946 career was severely affected by the scandals involving him, including jail time, but he continued to play sporadically up to 1952. A 60 year old Tilden was actually on his way to play at the 1953 US Pro tournament in Cleveland when he died of a massive stroke.

Again, simply listing titles doesn't tell us very much about actual achievement, or else you would have to rank Emerson and others way up high. Think again.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Again, simply listing titles doesn't tell us very much about actual achievement, or else you would have to rank Emerson and others way up high. Think again.

Are you being serious? When Tilden was the best amateur player, he was the best player in the world. Emerson was behind the best professional players in the 1960s.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

We also must consider Gonzalez.

pc1, Of course we must.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by fluffyyelloballz

Thanks I shall have to research Budge as I know little about him. As for Longevity and playing levels, I have never considered a top ten based on that. Interesting to see Becker and Novak in the list. I do agree that Novak's 2011 and Becker's prime was incredible.

Yes, Becker was extremely strong when "on". But nevertheless, maybe I have overrated him a bit...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

1. fed: he has the rafa issue and no strong opponents from 04-05 but career slam, longest no.1 and most slams. also probably GOAT in both W (most important slam) and USO. he also continued to win from 08-12 despite facing very strong opponents and not being the youngest guy.

2. laver: most dominant of all despite missing his prime years but I don't reward for "what if" and he did not have very strong opponents

3. pete: a lot of slams plus owned his main rivals. he also had to face a lot of good opponents. but he was just too weak on clay to be considered GOAT. no career slam

4.borg: very dominant and could have won more if not his early retirement and AO skipping. but again no what ifs so he is 4th

5. rafa: 11 slams plus owning the GOAT on clay. their h2h is skewed but even baby nadal could keep up with prime fed on every surface. however not good enough in the AO and USO to be considerd higher. career slam is nice but just one title each is a little thin. he is behind borg because borg dominated two slams vs rafas 1

6.connors: most tournaments won and very long no.1 and also missed some more slams because of AO skipping. however he did not have the best opponents (laver was old and borg not yet there), when borg took over he beat connors most of the time (especially 79-81 when connors did not win a single match)

7.from here it becomes tough. I go with lendl at 7

8.I go with macenroe since agassi was owned so much by pete

9.agassi: career slam and very long and successsfull career although he was owned by sampras

10. djokovic: not the most slams but he had to face a slightly past prime fed and prime nadal as probably the best opposition ever. murray is not bad either.

dominikk1985,

Interesting list. You seem to ignore the outcast pros and generally the older times (Tilden!). That's a mistake. It's not a case of "what if". They did have their majors and you should include them in your speculations.

Connors is not this who won the most tournaments. Laver was it by winning at least 200 events!

Laver had very strong opposition!!

A top ten list without Rosewall and Gonzalez is a bad list though.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Are you being serious? When Tilden was the best amateur player, he was the best player in the world. Emerson was behind the best professional players in the 1960s.

Did Emerson dominate a stronger field than Tilden did? Probably.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Are you being serious? When Tilden was the best amateur player, he was the best player in the world. Emerson was behind the best professional players in the 1960s.

Tilden was the best player on the amateur tour but Emerson was also the best player in the amateur. Tilden turned pro only a few years after the pro tour was established, and there's only a handful of players in the 30s. There isn't much to brag about him being #1 during the pro because there wasn't much competition(lol). Whereas Emerson would have a much tougher time had he turned pro when the field was much deeper/stronger in the 60s.

I normally don't agree with Dan but this time he's 100% correct. Listing number of titles doesn't say about the weight of individual achievement. Because in that case, (Connors, Lendl) > (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal) simply because they have more single titles. Makes no sense.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

qindarka, I'm sorry for misunderstanding the post. I had not read urban's post prior to it.

Even though I appreciate urban very much I must say that he was wrong with his arguments...

At least you're honest about urban bs in trying to denigrate Roger. It would be good if urban admitted that he doesn't believe what he wrote and was being biased on purpose.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Tilden was the best player on the amateur tour but Emerson was also the best player in the amateur. Tilden turned pro only a few years after the pro tour was established, and there's only a handful of players in the 30s. There isn't much to brag about him being #1 during the pro because there wasn't much competition(lol). Whereas Emerson would have a much tougher time had he turned pro when the field was much deeper/stronger in the 60s.

I normally don't agree with Dan but this time he's 100% correct. Listing number of titles doesn't say about the weight of individual achievement. Because in that case, (Connors, Lendl) > (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal) simply because they have more single titles. Makes no sense.

I would say the difference between Tilden and Emerson is that Tilden was the best in the world (all categories) because all the top players were amateurs while Emerson dominated only the amateurs.

Furthermore Tilden dominated clearly for 6 years while Emmo dominated only in 1964 and 1965.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Tilden was the best player on the amateur tour but Emerson was also the best player in the amateur. Tilden turned pro only a few years after the pro tour was established, and there's only a handful of players in the 30s. There isn't much to brag about him being #1 during the pro because there wasn't much competition(lol). Whereas Emerson would have a much tougher time had he turned pro when the field was much deeper/stronger in the 60s.

I normally don't agree with Dan but this time he's 100% correct. Listing number of titles doesn't say about the weight of individual achievement. Because in that case, (Connors, Lendl) > (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Nadal) simply because they have more single titles. Makes no sense.

The amateur tour had all the top players in those days so it was essentially Open Tennis. Tilden dominated in those days like no one has since and that's very important.

Number of titles is an indicator but not the end all however it is important. If you eliminate the number of titles you make only the majors count for everything and the tour is mostly not about the majors. Lendl won WCT championships and Year End Masters for example.

Tilden played tours against Nusslein, Perry, Vines and Budge and while he did not win most of them, it is an indicator of his great strength, even at a late age. He did very well against VInes for example and defeated Nusslein. He was close to fifty when he played Budge and had a relatively respectable showing of seven wins, forty-six losses and 1 tie considering his age. Many of the matches were pretty close according to accounts.

Even in the early years the Pro Tour had Cochet, Vines, Tilden, Nusslein among others playing and that's excellent.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I would say the difference between Tilden and Emerson is that Tilden was the best in the world (all categories) because all the top players were amateurs while Emerson dominated only the amateurs.

Furthermore Tilden dominated clearly for 6 years while Emmo dominated only in 1964 and 1965.

Emmo dominated a much stronger amateur field than Tilden did.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

The amateur tour had all the top players in those days so it was essentially Open Tennis. Tilden dominated in those days like no one has since and that's very important.

Number of titles is an indicator but not the end all however it is important. If you eliminate the number of titles you make only the majors count for everything and the tour is mostly not about the majors. Lendl won WCT championships and Year End Masters for example.

Tilden played tours against Nusslein, Perry, Vines and Budge and while he did not win most of them, it is an indicator of his great strength, even at a late age. He did very well against VInes for example and defeated Nusslein. He was close to fifty when he played Budge and had a relatively respectable showing of seven wins, forty-six losses and 1 tie considering his age. Many of the matches were pretty close according to accounts.

Even in the early years the Pro Tour had Cochet, Vines, Tilden, Nusslein among others playing and that's excellent.

A loss is a loss is a loss.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

A loss is a loss is a loss.

Dan,

My point was to show the strength of Tilden even in his later years. He did defeat Budge, Vines, Nusslein in tournaments when he was over forty.

Hoad for example often even in losses to Gonzalez showed how strong he was. The Hoad that lost to Gonzalez on tour 36 to 51 showed great strength. Hoad probably would have defeated just about anyone on a head to head tour playing at that level.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Emmo dominated a much stronger amateur field than Tilden did.

Hard to evaluate. Possibly but maybe not.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Dan,

My point was to show the strength of Tilden even in his later years. He did defeat Budge, Vines, Nusslein in tournaments when he was over forty.

Hoad for example often even in losses to Gonzalez showed how strong he was. The Hoad that lost to Gonzalez on tour 36 to 51 showed great strength. Hoad probably would have defeated just about anyone on a head to head tour playing at that level.



Hard to evaluate. Possibly but maybe not.

Actually, I think that in 1958 Hoad would have lost a hth tour with just about any of the top six pros, as his back gave out when leading Gonzales 18 to 8, in a best-of-one-hundred series. He could not play more than about thirty matches straight without problems.
On the other hand, he won the world tournament championship in both 1958 and 1959, where he could pick his spots more and pace his back.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Not to be contradictory, but just whom did Federer beat in all these slams? The best players money could buy?
Rosewall and Hoad had to beat giants from round 1, no easy matches like in the early rounds of a modern slam.

Great point.No Bagdhatis,Gonzalez or Tsonga there.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

you follow tennis these days, right ?

anyone who follows tennis these days would/should have some idea about the records of the top 2 players of the generation on all surfaces ... I am not saying they should know all the details, just that they should have some idea .....

federer has been winning YEC after YEC and nadal has made only one final there ...

as you have now seen - and as those who've watched closely know, federer has won plenty more titles indoors - 20 to nadal's 1

federer's winning % is wayyy better - 80% to nadal's 64% ...its not in the same stratosphere .....

leaving aside the stats for a moment, isn't it wayyyy too obvious from their styles of play that federer's style of play translates far better onto indoor surfaces than nadal's ?

If you were someone whom I wasn't sure watched tennis these days or not, I would have given the stats .....but that isn't the case here ...

Federer is better than Nadal by much on an indoor carpet match.Thing is, like grass , the very few tournaments played indoors nowadays have slow courts.Even in a slow indoor court, Nadal is unable to beat Federer.

Again, XXI century tennis has nothing to do with the XX century tennis.Not grass, not indoors, not wood.Maybe clay and maybe hard courts.So we cannot compare current with past since courts are so much different.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you count WCT, then let's count Master Shields.

Yes, lets count Pro events and lets count WCT regular tour events.They are just the same.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I agree. Thanks that you consider Rosewall's greatness in a serious way.

By the way, I guess that many posters are not aware that Rosewall has won more grass majors than Sampras or Federer. I concede in his time there were much more grass court events.

Laver leads with 12 grass majors.
Tilden is second with 11 (included one pro major at FH)
Rosewall is third with 8 grass majors.

The only guy I think Kodes could not beat was Laver ( although he beat him once), but he defeated the whole rest of great players of the early 70´s.

Kodes was superb on clay but was just as superb on grass, as he won a Wimbledon title and reached another semifinal there, and reached two USO finals.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

The only guy I think Kodes could not beat was Laver ( although he beat him once), but he defeated the whole rest of great players of the early 70´s.

Kodes was superb on clay but was just as superb on grass, as he won a Wimbledon title and reached another semifinal there, and reached two USO finals.

kiki, I agree that Kodes was superb in the early 1970s.

By the way, Rosewall beat Kodes 4:1. Jan's only win happened in 1973 in a WCT event. Shortly afterwards Rosewall got a huge 6-2,6-2 revenge at Houston.