Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

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.

ARFED, Interesting thoughts.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

To be honest I see Borg as about Nadal level (I actually rate Nadal slightly ahead) so if Nadal isnt tier 1, and I dont think he is yet despite being a fan, I dont think Borg is either. JMO. They are the best of my tier 2 for sure though, even though I listed them in alphabetical order to avoid further debates beyond the tiers.

Thanks for reminding me of Betz. I knew I was forgetting someone as my womens lists were too small . Is there anyone else I am forgetting. I think I would put her 4th tier more likely than 3rd though, although I could see a case for her being 3rd as she was the best player in the World most of the post World War 11 years.

I felt Emerson had to be put in some category due to his 12 majors, even though that is obviously no way a reflection of his true abilities. Then again he probably would be nowhere near 5 or 6 majors, so really I shouldnt include him in any of the all time tiers probably.

Hoad had an insane peak level of play, maybe the best ever, but due to terrible injuries never fulfilled his potential and was at his best for quite a short period. I rank by what was, not what if, otherwise I would rank Seles and Connolly in tier 1.

[Dan Lobb]

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).

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Kramer
Sedgman (when engaging his "extra gear")
9) Vines
10) Sampras
11) Borg
12) Tilden

Tough to judge Richard Williams in 1914 to 1916, or even Lacoste and Cochet.
Below this, you could give honourable mention to Emerson, Newcombe, Trabert, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, Perry, Crawford, etc.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

To be honest I see Borg as about Nadal level (I actually rate Nadal slightly ahead) so if Nadal isnt tier 1, and I dont think he is yet despite being a fan, I dont think Borg is either. JMO. They are the best of my tier 2 for sure though, even though I listed them in alphabetical order to avoid further debates beyond the tiers.

Thanks for reminding me of Betz. I knew I was forgetting someone as my womens lists were too small . Is there anyone else I am forgetting. I think I would put her 4th tier more likely than 3rd though, although I could see a case for her being 3rd as she was the best player in the World most of the post World War 11 years.

I felt Emerson had to be put in some category due to his 12 majors, even though that is obviously no way a reflection of his true abilities. Then again he probably would be nowhere near 5 or 6 majors, so really I shouldnt include him in any of the all time tiers probably.

Hoad had an insane peak level of play, maybe the best ever, but due to terrible injuries never fulfilled his potential and was at his best for quite a short period. I rank by what was, not what if, otherwise I would rank Seles and Connolly in tier 1.

NadalAgassi, Thanks for considering Betz who turned pro and kept her high level till around 1960.

Emerson won six Australian Championships where mostly the field was rather weak.

I believe it was pc1 who showed that Borg had the best lifetime percentage of all players and won 11 GS tournaments out of only 27 if I remember well. He dominated in a few years as probably no other player did (with the exception of Laver in 1967 and 1969).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Kramer
Sedgman (when engaging his "extra gear")
9) Vines
10) Sampras
11) Borg
12) Tilden

Tough to judge Richard Williams in 1914 to 1916, or even Lacoste and Cochet.
Below this, you could give honourable mention to Emerson, Newcombe, Trabert, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, Perry, Crawford, etc.

Dan, I feared your "revenge" on NadalAgassi.

Being sarcastic I could agree that Hoad does not belong to a tier or would emerge in tier 0 (zero) as his record is rather "humble"

Putting Tilden at place 12 is as bizarre as Hoad's first place.

I wonder how many years must come till you begin to realize that those players who rank Hoad at first place have done it with regard to Lew's peak play and NOT regarding his achievements that are not worth of a top tier!!!

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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).

Doris Hart (18 majors finals, won 6) should be somewhere in there
As should Lottie Dodd and maybe Blanche Bingley

Tier 1: Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills, Lenglen
Tier 2: Serena, Connolly, King
Tier 3: Seles, Bueno, Marble, Hart, Henin
Tier 4: Venus, Chambers, Goolagong, DuPont, Brough, Mallory
Tier 5 : Hingis, Gibson, Dodd, Bingley, Sharapova

Honorable mentions to Mandlikova, Davenport, Vicario, Fry, Wade, Helen Hull Jacobs

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Doris Hart (18 majors finals, won 6) should be somewhere in there
As should Lottie Dodd and maybe Blanche Bingley

Tier 1: Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills, Lenglen
Tier 2: Serena, Connolly, King
Tier 3: Seles, Bueno, Marble, Hart, Henin
Tier 4: Venus, Chambers, Goolagong, DuPont, Brough, Mallory
Tier 5 : Hingis, Gibson, Dodd, Bingley, Sharapova

Honorable mentions to Mandlikova, Davenport, Vicario, Fry, Wade, Helen Hull Jacobs

Sorry I knew there was someone else I was forgetting. Yes I would definitely bput Hart in the same tier as DuPont and Brough, however I dont think I would put her in a higher tier than them. In fact most of her career DuPont and Brough were considered superior to her, so even if she is better than them, it isnt by much.

I also think Tier 5 is bit too low for Gibson. What she had to overcome to reach the top was incredible, and she was truly a trailblazer for future black women in the game.

Serena probably is tier 2 now but is already the best of tier 2 and will have to be included in tier 1 very soon I predict.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

5) Rosewall
6) Budge
7) Kramer
Sedgman (when engaging his "extra gear")
9) Vines
10) Sampras
11) Borg
12) Tilden

Tough to judge Richard Williams in 1914 to 1916, or even Lacoste and Cochet.
Below this, you could give honourable mention to Emerson, Newcombe, Trabert, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, Perry, Crawford, etc.

Hmm you consider Kramer, Sedgman, and Vines all superior to Sampras, Borg,a and Tilden? Interesting. Just curious as to why you feel that way.

Regarding Hoad did he have a year he was regarded the number 1 player in the World?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Doris Hart (18 majors finals, won 6) should be somewhere in there
As should Lottie Dodd and maybe Blanche Bingley

Tier 1: Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court, Wills, Lenglen
Tier 2: Serena, Connolly, King
Tier 3: Seles, Bueno, Marble, Hart, Henin
Tier 4: Venus, Chambers, Goolagong, DuPont, Brough, Mallory
Tier 5 : Hingis, Gibson, Dodd, Bingley, Sharapova

Honorable mentions to Mandlikova, Davenport, Vicario, Fry, Wade, Helen Hull Jacobs

boredone3456,

I appreciate your list, especially at tier 1.

It's great that you include Bingley-Hillyard who has been awesome at Wimbledon over decades.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I feared your "revenge" on NadalAgassi.

Being sarcastic I could agree that Hoad does not belong to a tier or would emerge in tier 0 (zero) as his record is rather "humble"

Putting Tilden at place 12 is as bizarre as Hoad's first place.

I wonder how many years must come till you begin to realize that those players who rank Hoad at first place have done it with regard to Lew's peak play and NOT regarding his achievements that are not worth of a top tier!!!

Frankly, I am less interested in compiling questionable achievements than with comparing the level of play. Achieving the highest level of play ever and maintaining it for a five-year stretch is itself a fantastic achievement.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hmm you consider Kramer, Sedgman, and Vines all superior to Sampras, Borg,a and Tilden? Interesting. Just curious as to why you feel that way.

Regarding Hoad did he have a year he was regarded the number 1 player in the World?

NadalAgassi, let me answer at Dan's place: Hoad was never the undisputed No.1. I rank him a tied No.1 with Gonzalez for 1959.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Frankly, I am less interested in compiling questionable achievements than with comparing the level of play. Achieving the highest level of play ever and maintaining it for a five-year stretch is itself a fantastic achievement.

Dan, ranking along achievements, while still not easy, is more reasonable than ranking along peak play.

But in Hoad's case it's yet rather easy to rank him regarding achievements because his record is not worthy of a top ten player!

I regret to always tell you how poor Lew's record is but you should accept tennis history and be brave therein...

It's again exposing: You belittle the category "achievements" in order to push Hoad since he cannot compete with other players' achievements.

You show your old strange game: Firstly you claim Hoad is the best regarding achievements. Then, secondly, after people have disproved your claim, you claim that achievements are questionable. It's the next rabbit off your hat! Please come out with a new game of honesty!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hmm you consider Kramer, Sedgman, and Vines all superior to Sampras, Borg,a and Tilden? Interesting. Just curious as to why you feel that way.

Regarding Hoad did he have a year he was regarded the number 1 player in the World?

Happy to answer that.
It is difficult to judge players from different eras, but I think Vines showed his level to be consistently close to Budge, and I would like Kramer's chances in a best-of-one-hundred series against anyone, certainly against Sampras. A hot Sedgman could beat anyone.
Difficult to judge Tilden, as the field in the twenties was short on big names. He beat Johnston by about the same margin as Williams did, so perhaps they were about the same stature.

Hoad was probably regarded number one amateur at the end of 1953, when he was the only amateur to be offered a pro contract by Kramer, and was 2 and 0 against Trabert, 5 and 0 against Rosewall, the other two contenders.
He was regarded as number one amateur for 1956, although his back problems prevented him from winning the grand slam.
Hoad was regarded by Sports Illustrated as number one for 1959, and also by Kramer's organization for the same year in the year-end summary, cited by Anderson in his article for World Tennis.

[Dan Lobb]

[quote=BobbyOne;7068229]NadalAgassi, let me answer at Dan's place: Hoad was never the undisputed No.1. I rank him a tied No.1 with Gonzalez for 1959.[/QUOTE

Few players are ever the "undisputed" number one, unless the field is rather weak.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, ranking along achievements, while still not easy, is more reasonable than ranking along peak play.

But in Hoad's case it's yet rather easy to rank him regarding achievements because his record is not worthy of a top ten player!

I regret to always tell you how poor Lew's record is but you should accept tennis history and be brave therein...

It's again exposing: You belittle the category "achievements" in order to push Hoad since he cannot compete with other players' achievements.

You show your old strange game: Firstly you claim Hoad is the best regarding achievements. Then, secondly, after people have disproved your claim, you claim that achievements are questionable: Please come out with a new game of honesty!

I challenge only "questionable" achievements, for example, Emerson's long domination of the amateur game. Or Kramer's inflated victories over an injured Gonzales or an injured Sedgman.
It is important to put achievements INTO CONTEXT, and not simply regurgitate numbers as if all major wins are somehow identical, regardless of the strength of the field.
That is why I rate Hoad's achievements so high, the quality of his opposition was the highest ever.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Happy to answer that.
It is difficult to judge players from different eras, but I think Vines showed his level to be consistently close to Budge, and I would like Kramer's chances in a best-of-one-hundred series against anyone, certainly against Sampras. A hot Sedgman could beat anyone.
Difficult to judge Tilden, as the field in the twenties was short on big names. He beat Johnston by about the same margin as Williams did, so perhaps they were about the same stature.

Hoad was probably regarded number one amateur at the end of 1953, when he was the only amateur to be offered a pro contract by Kramer, and was 2 and 0 against Trabert, 5 and 0 against Rosewall, the other two contenders.
He was regarded as number one amateur for 1956, although his back problems prevented him from winning the grand slam.
Hoad was regarded by Sports Illustrated as number one for 1959, and also by Kramer's organization for the same year in the year-end summary, cited by Anderson in his article for World Tennis.

Dan, wrong: Kramer ranked Hoad No.4 for 1959 behind Gonzalez, Sedgman and Rosewall...

A No.1 contender for 1953 was also Seixas ranked by some as No.1. Hoad was never ranked No.1 for that year!

[BobbyOne]

[quote=Dan Lobb;7068247]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NadalAgassi, let me answer at Dan's place: Hoad was never the undisputed No.1. I rank him a tied No.1 with Gonzalez for 1959.[/QUOTE

Few players are ever the "undisputed" number one, unless the field is rather weak.

Again wrong: Often a certain player can be ranked as undisputed No.1 when the field is yet strong, for instance Laver in several years, Borg in 1978 and 1979 and so on.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, wrong: Kramer ranked Hoad No.4 for 1959 behind Gonzalez, Sedgman and Rosewall...

A No.1 contender for 1953 was also Seixas ranked by some as No.1. Hoad was never ranked No.1 for that year!

Kramer's ORGANIZATION ranked Hoad as number one for 1959, using a points system.
Hoad was ranked number one by some observers for 1953, considering Davis Cup play. Was Jack Kramer an "observer"?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I challenge only "questionable" achievements, for example, Emerson's long domination of the amateur game. Or Kramer's inflated victories over an injured Gonzales or an injured Sedgman.
It is important to put achievements INTO CONTEXT, and not simply regurgitate numbers as if all major wins are somehow identical, regardless of the strength of the field.
That is why I rate Hoad's achievements so high, the quality of his opposition was the highest ever.

Dan, following your statements, it seems as though most players were injured when losing to others. Of course Hoad on first place to mention.

Please accept that players can lose to others even when healthy, f.i. Gonzalez and Sedgman to Kramer.

But I agree that Hoad's opposition was probably the all-time strongest.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Kramer's ORGANIZATION ranked Hoad as number one for 1959, using a points system.
Hoad was ranked number one by some observers for 1953, considering Davis Cup play. Was Jack Kramer an "observer"?

Dan, Hoad was "ranked" No.1 only for his win of the tournament tour. It virtually was not a ranking but it was counting the points he has made in that tour which was NOT identic with the year's summary. As usual yo forget the 4 man world tour...

Please tell me which expert ranked Hoad No.1 for 1953. As you should know his record, apart from Davis Cup play, was rather weak that year. As told Tingay (and that way Collins) ranked Lew No.5 only.