Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

ARFED, I did not write about 1963. But as you raise it: In the 1963 pro scene we had, among other greats, two players who arguably are the all-time greatest...

What a concidence, in 2006 we had 2 of those as well

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Don't know much about his thoughts on Rosewall, though I'm aware he ain't Laver's biggest fan

Forza, Kramer in his book The Game wrote: "And of course I don't include Rosewall in the top group either".

About Laver: "Leaving Laver out of the first group is probably a surprise".

Kramer there top ranked: Budge, Vines (kiki!!), Tilden, Perry, Riggs, Gonzales.

We can see how strange Kramer ranked in the fact that he ranked Schroeder in the same echelon as Laver and Rosewall!!!

But there is also an interesting point regarding those who belittle Rosewall, f.i. Phoenix: Kramer in the same book gives Rosewall four Wimbledon titles if open era would have come earlier...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

What a concidence, in 2006 we had 2 of those as well

ARFED, As I'm not so familiar with recent tennis (at least some posters are saying so), can you please specify which players you mean?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

ARFED, As I'm not so familiar with recent tennis (at least some posters are saying so), can you please specify which players you mean?

I can do that for him.
This one


and this one

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I can do that for him.
This one


and this one

Forza, Thanks. Laver and Rosewall of course cannot cope with these two...

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I can do that for him.
This one


and this one

I couldn`t have put it better

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I can do that for him.
This one


and this one

You mean the mountain goat and the beaver. Hmm......

Oh, I get it.
The Swiss mountain goat, Federer. The Alps and everything, right.

And the Canadian beaver, that youg guy with the bazooka serve. Gave Federer a tough match down under.

Makes sense.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You mean the mountain goat and the beaver. Hmm......

Oh, I get it.
The Swiss mountain goat, Federer. The Alps and everything, right.

And the Canadian beaver, that youg guy with the bazooka serve. Gave Federer a tough match down under.

Makes sense.

We prefer the term Capyrafa.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You mean the mountain goat and the beaver. Hmm......

Oh, I get it.
The Swiss mountain goat, Federer. The Alps and everything, right.

And the Canadian beaver, that youg guy with the bazooka serve. Gave Federer a tough match down under.

Makes sense.

Dan, Federer may be the mountain goat but never the GOAT...

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Federer may be the mountain goat but never the GOAT...

That might be true, but at least he did not fell "short" of greatness, if you know what i mean

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

We prefer the term Capyrafa.

I don't see the connection between the Spanish Nadal and the beaver (did you know that the beaver is a Canadian symbol?).

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I don't see the connection between the Spanish Nadal and the beaver (did you know that the beaver is a Canadian symbol?).

It`s not a beaver, it`s a capibara (from south america).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by ARFED

It`s not a beaver, it`s a capibara (from south america).

Yes, I see, less fur.
But couldn't you find a Spanish animal?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

I can do that for him.
This one

That's one manly looking goat.

I was happy to see Laver and Rosewall in the crowd at the Australian Open today.

BobbyOne will be happy to know that they actually spent some camera time on Rosewall, not just Laver.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Federer may be the mountain goat but never the GOAT...

Funny, the commentators, when viewing Rosewall and Laver, said something to the effect of "these are two great champions from the past, not quite on Federer's level, but impressive nonetheless and certainly greater than Hoad."

Interesting food for thought.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by NatF

Yes Ferrer and Tipsarevic who beat Djokovic were definately great competition...

Competition is subjective anyway, the general field today isn't much greater if at all than it was in 2011. The only difference is Djokovic had to contend with Nadal and post Prime Federer. In 2006 Federer never went 2 sets to love down or even 2 sets to 1 down. I'd say they're atleast compable the two years.

you forgot nishikori !

[NatF]

Originally Posted by abmk

you forgot nishikori !

How could I forget, clearly Novak's competition was superb. In all seriousness 6 straight wins over Nadal including 2 on clay was massively impressive. But Djokovic is a perfect matchup for Nadal and he's always creamed Nadal mostly in straights on hardcourt.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the greatest player of the modern era is apparently not in the conversation for GOAT for some of these posters.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by NatF

How could I forget, clearly Novak's competition was superb. In all seriousness 6 straight wins over Nadal including 2 on clay was massively impressive. But Djokovic is a perfect matchup for Nadal and he's always creamed Nadal mostly in straights on hardcourt.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the greatest player of the modern era is apparently not in the conversation for GOAT for some of these posters.

Yes. As ridiculous it can be to call every new successful player a goat candidate (Djokovic I'm looking at you), it is just as ridiculous to have half of the top-10 players (and the upper half with that) coming from the same fiftiest era.

And the competition ***** is really the *****tiest argument ever.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Yes. As ridiculous it can be to call every new successful player a goat candidate (Djokovic I'm looking at you), it is just as ridiculous to have half of the top-10 players (and the upper half with that) coming from the same fiftiest era.

And the competition ***** is really the *****tiest argument ever.

Reeks of bias from so called objective posters. Perhaps the very best of that era should be in the discussion; I seriously doubt however that the overall field 50 years ago was so much better than it is today. Especially to the point where the man who has dominated the modern game like no other isn't even top 10 for peak play and and is in the bottom half of the top 10 for acheivements. It's down right laughable!

[forzamilan90]

Hahaha well the Hoad pArt made me lol, no ***** Djoko is better than Hoad let alone those other guys

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by NatF

Reeks of bias from so called objective posters. Perhaps the very best of that era should be in the discussion; I seriously doubt however that the overall field 50 years ago was so much better than it is today. Especially to the point where the man who has dominated the modern game like no other isn't even top 10 for peak play and and is in the bottom half of the top 10 for acheivements. It's down right laughable!

Let's make some hypothesis:

1) The overall number of tennis players was likely lower than today
2) Due to difficulties in traveling, it was less international. A lot of talented players never played on an intercontinental level in the amateur tour
3) The overall number of pro players, recruited among top amateur players, was way lower than it is today, as there wasn't really any money to pay unknown people: the advertisement industry wasn't what it is today, the public had less money to spend in leisure, a bigger proportion of the population was "poor".
4) There were really only a bunch of player at the top who were highly hyped in order to advertise for the exhibitions.
5) We know that some of these players weren't hyped because they met success in the open era as well.
6) However, this tell us nothing about the over pro players they played against which didn't played in the open era, because we know that, at this time, player could rise their level very fast: Amateur turning pro needer one year to adapt before being able to dominate. Might be that they adapted once again when the open era began.
7) The early years of the open era were not that different than the pro tour years, because the pool of player available was roughly the same. It took time to increase the number of player and the overall level of competition between them (in particular between the lower players).
It is very likely that, in the 50's, 60's, their was a huge gap between the top 10-20 player and the rest of the field, resulting in more hyping, when the overall field was in reality rather weak.

a) For magical reasons, the 50's field was awesome, and for the same magical reasons, the 2000's field was very weak.