Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by ARFED

No, you are right, it`s not their fault, but it is an apples to oranges comparison nonetheless. Because you know very well that for a number of reasons it is nearly impossible to win as many as 150 titles in modern tennis, you would need to win 10 titles per year in a 15 year span, and that number sounds ridiculuos. So, sure it is an amazing feat for Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, Connors, etc to have that amount of titles, but you can`t use it when comparing them to modern players. The same can be said about the slam count, it is not fair to Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc, when comparing them to Federer or Sampras.

I think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments in one year but as BobbyOne mentioned in the post above me, players like Federer tend to focus on the majors nowadays. Look what Federer recently said, he basically said that he wanted to limit his schedule to get ready for the next Olympics in what I assume he hopes to win the Gold Medal.

The players in the past, even the recent past like the Borg era focused not on the classic majors, which were important but not the end all that it is now. Borg for example won 21 tournaments in 1979 and he obviously entered a decent amount of tournaments that year. I think Laver entered about 37 tournaments one year and remember they also played doubles in those days! Federer for example from 2004 to 2012 never entered more than 19 tournaments in a year and he played as few as 15 in 2005 and 2009. A player is far more rested and less prone to injury. It's a smart thing to do. The players today don't have to worry about the monetary aspect because they are set for life. Players in the past had to be more concerned about money.

Yes I do think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments but they don't have to and why should they?

[urban]

Now Federer has done quite well in the so called Mickey Mouse tournaments. His string last year in winning Basle, Bercy and London was extremely impressive. His record in Masters is also very good. Of the current crop of players he seems to be the most resilient and consistent player over the course of a year. Nadal for example has more highs and lows in his form, his physical shape and motivation.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Now Federer has done quite well in the so called Mickey Mouse tournaments. His string last year in winning Basle, Bercy and London was extremely impressive. His record in Masters is also very good. Of the current crop of players he seems to be the most resilient and consistent player over the course of a year. Nadal for example has more highs and lows in his form, his physical shape and motivation.

The way some put it the players should only play the four majors a year because no other tournaments count.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments in one year but as BobbyOne mentioned in the post above me, players like Federer tend to focus on the majors nowadays. Look what Federer recently said, he basically said that he wanted to limit his schedule to get ready for the next Olympics in what I assume he hopes to win the Gold Medal.

The players in the past, even the recent past like the Borg era focused not on the classic majors, which were important but not the end all that it is now. Borg for example won 21 tournaments in 1979 and he obviously entered a decent amount of tournaments that year. I think Laver entered about 37 tournaments one year and remember they also played doubles in those days! Federer for example from 2004 to 2012 never entered more than 19 tournaments in a year and he played as few as 15 in 2005 and 2009. A player is far more rested and less prone to injury. It's a smart thing to do. The players today don't have to worry about the monetary aspect because they are set for life. Players in the past had to be more concerned about money.

Yes I do think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments but they don't have to and why should they?

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

ARFED, The likes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez were exceptions even in their time because they were awesome players much ahead of their colleagues. And I claim that the three were better players than Federer. Thus their success.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

ARFED, The likes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez were exceptions even in their time because they were awesome players much ahead of their colleagues. And I claim that the three were better players than Federer. Thus their success.

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

[pc1]

Originally Posted by ARFED

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

Laver's two hundred was at a time where the top players weren't winning a huge amount of tournaments except for some like Laver or Borg so I wouldn't put down Laver's two hundred. It's a fabulous achievement much like Hank Aaron's 755 home run were in MLB.

I'm not 100% convinced of this physicality superiority that everyone claims is tougher today. It's possibly true but again it's one of those statements that is repeated so often this it's assumed to be true. Do they mean that they are better athletes? I would agree with that but if they say it's tougher now, well I'm not sure. Reason is I do think it's extremely tough to swing an old wood racquet for tens of thousands of swings considering it's heavier and has less spin and power.

Check these articles out first before I continue writing.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...uet-tech_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-sidebar_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-sidebar_N.htm

You look at Maria Sharapova. How great is her physicality? She is not exactly the greatest athlete I've seen in women's tennis and yet she continues to be one of the top players in the world. In fact I think she's a awful athlete but an excellent ball striker. Ferrer is one of the top players but I would exactly say he's like a Greek God. Nadal is a great athlete but he gets hurt all the time without playing a huge amount of tournaments. Some player's styles allow them to play more without injury.

But overall I would say that the player's today are better athletes but I am not sure if the game is tougher to play.

The players today live in great hotels, have their own person team to take care of them, fly in the best airplanes.

The players in the past played doubles and singles. They played matches all the time to earn a living. I would say that's pretty physical also.

We can debate this from kingdom come but I do think it's easier to swing the current racquets than the old wood racquets. My opinion.

Here's a quote from Djokovic on wood racquets from the first article above.

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

Hoad and Gonzales were superior physical specimens to Fed or Borg or Nadal (is his "training" intake really healthy?).
Hoad not only did five-mile jogs, and intense weight-training, but trained seriously as a boxer.
His boxing experience was vital in determining his tennis tactics, which were extremely aggressive, regardless of the surface.
I suggest that if you take all these players into a dark room and wait for the winner to emerge, it would not be Fed or Borg or Nadal who walked out of the room.
The London Times reporter (Bellamy?) in 1962 stated that watching Hoad play tennis took one back into prehistory to when a man had to kill his dinner before he could eat it.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

You point exactly what I meant in my previous post regarding special caracteristics of each eras. Like you, I think it strange that the long carreer all happened back then.

In the same manner, the actual top 4 hasn't changed for five years. Nearly all the important titles have been won by a top 4 member. A lot of people would think that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are exceptionnal players ahead of their colleagues. But I pointed out that the seeding system, the lack of surfaces diversity help them dominate with such consistency. I believe that there is similar explanation for the longevity of Laver, Rosewall, or Gonzales. I cannot enunciate an hypothesis because I don't know them, so I leave that to you (who did follow tennis back then, or follow it later)

I don't know who is better between Federer and Laver (playing condition changed to much to compare). But I'm certain that it is possible to explain how it is possible for Federer to exist in this era, and possible for Laver to exist in his.

[Flash O'Groove]

Those surprising tennis fact from Mcenroeartist are interesting:

"From 1996-2004 (9 years), only once did a player reach all four grand slam quarterfinals in the same year. From 2005-2012 (8 years), it has been done 17 times.

From 1970-2004 (35 years), only once did a player reach all four grand slam semifinals in the same year. From 2005-2012 (8 years), it has been done 9 times."

Are the actual top 4 the best ever, or is there some special st of conditions in today's tennis that allow such feat?

[Mustard]

We have to remember how many top players missed some majors in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, Borg only played once at the Australian Open, Connors only played twice at the Australian Open and missed many French Opens.

I think dividing into tiers makes more sense. These would be reasonable tiers for men and women, put in alphabetical order to avoid any further excess debate amongst my tiers:

Men:

Tier 1- Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden
Tier 2- Borg, Budge, Nadal, Vines
Tier 3- Connors, Doherty, Kramer, Lendl, Perry
Tier 4- Agassi, Cochet, Hoad, LaCoste, McEnroe, Newcombe
Tier 5- Becker, Crawford, Djokovic, Edberg, Emerson, Sedgeman, Trabert, Wilander

Anyone below this is not an all time great IMO, just a great of their own era.


Women:

Tier 1- Court, Evert, Graf, Navratilova
Tier 2- Connolly, Serena Williams, Lenglen, Wills Moody
Tier 3- King, Seles, Venus Williams
Tier 4- Bueno, Chambers, Gibson, Henin, Marble
Tier 5- Brough, Fry, Goolagong, Hingis, Sharapova, Mallorey, Osborne Du Pont

Likewise with the men anyone not yet listed is not an all time great, just a great of their own era (at best).

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

ARFED, Yes, it's nearly impossible to current players to win 150 tournaments. But why? Because Federer and Co. are not Laver and Rosewall. And they refuse to play many tournaments in order to concentrate to the majors. I doubt that Federer would have won 17 majors if he had a schedule like the greats of older times...

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

At the same time you have to counterbalance it by understand that the present players also play a lot more majors and obviously if you have more chances to win majors the odds are in your favor to win more. Sampras won 14 majors but he did it in 52 tries. Borg won 11 majors but he did it in 27 tries. Players in the past didn't play many classic majors because of various reasons. Some of them were that they couldn't play the majors, some were being they weren't allowed because of WTT and some were because of boycotts.

In Borg's case he chose to basically retire at 26, which had nothing to do with the status of slams, so he isnt a good comparision. A better one would be Sampras vs Connors or McEnroe.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by pc1

Laver's two hundred was at a time where the top players weren't winning a huge amount of tournaments except for some like Laver or Borg so I wouldn't put down Laver's two hundred. It's a fabulous achievement much like Hank Aaron's 755 home run were in MLB.

I'm not 100% convinced of this physicality superiority that everyone claims is tougher today. It's possibly true but again it's one of those statements that is repeated so often this it's assumed to be true. Do they mean that they are better athletes? I would agree with that but if they say it's tougher now, well I'm not sure. Reason is I do think it's extremely tough to swing an old wood racquet for tens of thousands of swings considering it's heavier and has less spin and power.

Check these articles out first before I continue writing.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...uet-tech_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-sidebar_N.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...-sidebar_N.htm

You look at Maria Sharapova. How great is her physicality? She is not exactly the greatest athlete I've seen in women's tennis and yet she continues to be one of the top players in the world. In fact I think she's a awful athlete but an excellent ball striker. Ferrer is one of the top players but I would exactly say he's like a Greek God. Nadal is a great athlete but he gets hurt all the time without playing a huge amount of tournaments. Some player's styles allow them to play more without injury.

But overall I would say that the player's today are better athletes but I am not sure if the game is tougher to play.

The players today live in great hotels, have their own person team to take care of them, fly in the best airplanes.

The players in the past played doubles and singles. They played matches all the time to earn a living. I would say that's pretty physical also.

We can debate this from kingdom come but I do think it's easier to swing the current racquets than the old wood racquets. My opinion.

Here's a quote from Djokovic on wood racquets from the first article above.

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."

Really interesting points and nice articles by the way, but you are forgetting something here, is the environment that is forcing the players to a more phisycal game. They are better athletes not because they want to, but because they need to in order to success in the current tennis world.
Racquet technology among other things, has made points longer and longer, (surfaces slowing down is also a factor), i know that a rally between Vilas and Borg on clay could last ages but with modern racquets and the immense amount of spin they generate the retriving skills of players are increasing exponentially. You can`t come to net anymore unless your approach shot is almost perfect or you will get passed like a club player. Grinding is the new style, and the better athlete will come out on top (provided he has a good skill set). The greatest proof IMO of the physicality of the modern tennis is the Us Open final last year. That third set was a massacre of epic proportions never seen on a tennis court before and i am very doubtful that the average player of the 50`s or 60`s would have handled it better than modern players. In this year Us Open Del Po blasted some balls that it is hard to believe that someone could even touch them, but Djokovic returned them with interest, it was beyond crazy and i think if you watched the match you must agree on this, yes the racquet is a big factor but the physical condition has to be excellent to say the least. For example Federer had to increase his upper body strength because Nadal`s topspin was killing him, i have heard that he needed ice packs on his right shoulder and chest after 2006 rome final.
However, i do believe that the great players do what it is necessary to do in order to win, so the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, etc would adapt their bodys and games to be succesfull in the modern era. But they would be totally diferent players, that is for sure, probably with a two handed backhand, a much more baseline orientated game, they for sure would volley much worse, etc. Would they be as succesfull as they were?? i honestly don`t know.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad and Gonzales were superior physical specimens to Fed or Borg or Nadal (is his "training" intake really healthy?).
Hoad not only did five-mile jogs, and intense weight-training, but trained seriously as a boxer.
His boxing experience was vital in determining his tennis tactics, which were extremely aggressive, regardless of the surface.
I suggest that if you take all these players into a dark room and wait for the winner to emerge, it would not be Fed or Borg or Nadal who walked out of the room.
The London Times reporter (Bellamy?) in 1962 stated that watching Hoad play tennis took one back into prehistory to when a man had to kill his dinner before he could eat it.

Dan, I agree with you!!!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I think dividing into tiers makes more sense. These would be reasonable tiers for men and women, put in alphabetical order to avoid any further excess debate amongst my tiers:

Men:

Tier 1- Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden
Tier 2- Borg, Budge, Nadal, Vines
Tier 3- Connors, Doherty, Kramer, Lendl, Perry
Tier 4- Agassi, Cochet, Hoad, LaCoste, McEnroe, Newcombe
Tier 5- Becker, Crawford, Djokovic, Edberg, Emerson, Sedgeman, Trabert, Wilander

Anyone below this is not an all time great IMO, just a great of their own era.


Women:

Tier 1- Court, Evert, Graf, Navratilova
Tier 2- Connolly, Serena Williams, Lenglen, Wills Moody
Tier 3- King, Seles, Venus Williams
Tier 4- Bueno, Chambers, Gibson, Henin, Marble
Tier 5- Brough, Fry, Goolagong, Hingis, Sharapova, Mallorey, Osborne Du Pont

Likewise with the men anyone not yet listed is not an all time great, just a great of their own era (at best).

NadalAgassi, I find your lists of tiers very reasonable.

Let me please yet have a few remarks.

At the women I would include Pauline Betz, possibly in third tier.

At the men I would put Borg in first tier. Thus we would have the same top 7, by the way.

Hoad only fourth tier??? Don't you fear Dan's revenge?

I would not rank Newcombe ahead of Sedgman.

And I would omit Emerson. He was never of the Sedgman or Edberg class...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

Dominik, This sounds convincing.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

At the same time you have to counterbalance it by understand that the present players also play a lot more majors and obviously if you have more chances to win majors the odds are in your favor to win more. Sampras won 14 majors but he did it in 52 tries. Borg won 11 majors but he did it in 27 tries. Players in the past didn't play many classic majors because of various reasons. Some of them were that they couldn't play the majors, some were being they weren't allowed because of WTT and some were because of boycotts.

pc1, this sounds even more convincing....