Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, You have only four years for Vines.

Right.
For Vines, about 1935 to 1939.
Too bad leaving out 1931-32 for Vines.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by abmk

eh, what ? sampras best 5 years were 93-97 , not 96 to 2000 ...

I think that you may be right, although he was whipped at Wimbledon in 1996 by Krajcek, and was clobbered in 2000 by Safin at the US Open. Between these two dates, he was tough.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think that you may be right, although he was whipped at Wimbledon in 1996 by Krajcek, and was clobbered in 2000 by Safin at the US Open. Between these two dates, he was tough.

Pete's best year I believe was 1994 in which he was 77-12, won the Australian and Wimbledon. Incidentally I'm glad you put Vines in there. Vines is nowadays often forgotten.

Incidentally this is one of the problems I have with Sampras. Even in his best year he was never dominant. Players like Lendl, Connors, Borg, Federer, McEnroe averaged or close to averaged over a 90% winning percentage during their best five years. Sampras in his best year wasn't at 90%. Yes you could argue that he was "up" for majors but shouldn't other tournaments factor into his record also.

Players prior to the Open Era had more dominant records than Sampras also. That is a big deal to me. It's not exactly that Sampras won every major he entered. He entered 52 majors and won 14. And I like Sampras' general style of play even though he could get kind of boring at Wimbledon when his serve was so dominant.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by NatF

I think Borg could beat Sampras at the US Open. I have a huge amount of respect for Borg.

Very unlikely that Borg could beat Sampras at the US. His record at that tournament showed he was pscyhologically inhibited by the venue/atmosphere/facing US opponents....and I am not just talking about the greats like Connors and Mac, but lesser players like Stockton and Tanner.

This is Borg's record at the US from 1975 on - loses to a US opponent every time...

1975 - SF vs. Connors (on clay)
1976 - F vs. Connors (on clay)
1977 - R16 vs. Stockton (on clay)
1978 - F vs. Connors
1979 - QF vs. Tanner (interesting how in the cathedral-like atmosphere of Wimbledon a few months earlier, Borg held his nerve against Tanner, but could not do so in front of a raucous NY crowd)
1980 - F vs. McEnroe
1981 - F vs. McEnroe

Given this, and Sampras' awesome record in the big/night matches at his home slam, I rate Borg's chances at very low.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Yes you could argue that he was "up" for majors but shouldn't other tournaments factor into his record also.

Players prior to the Open Era had more dominant records than Sampras also. That is a big deal to me. It's not exactly that Sampras won every major he entered. He entered 52 majors and won 14.

Again you and I differ here. No, other tournaments should not matter particularly when ranking all-time tennis greats, just like random athletics meets shouldn't rank alongside the Olympics, or friendlies/qualifiers up there with World Cup finals in football (soccer), or minor tournaments in comparison to golf Majors, etc.

Also who cares about percentage of majors won. People use that about Borg all the time, while failing to recognise (or purposefully ignoring) the fact that he had completely maxed out, psychologically and physically, by the age of 25. If he had played 20 more majors after that point, who's to say he would ever have won another one? Luckily for him he chose to retire early to maintain very high percentages and have some fawn over him.

Personally I have more admiration for Sampras who played on until well past his best to win another major at the US Open 2002.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Again you and I differ here. No, other tournaments should not matter particularly when ranking all-time tennis greats, just like random athletics meets shouldn't rank alongside the Olympics, or friendlies/qualifiers up there with World Cup finals in football (soccer), or minor tournaments in comparison to golf Majors, etc.

Also who cares about percentage of majors won. People use that about Borg all the time, while failing to recognise (or purposefully ignoring) the fact that he had completely maxed out, psychologically and physically, by the age of 25. If he had played 20 more majors after that point, who's to say he would ever have won another one? Luckily for him he chose to retire early to maintain very high percentages and have some fawn over him.

Personally I have more admiration for Sampras who played on until well past his best to win another major at the US Open 2002.

Percentage of majors won is of course very important. This is a statistic that gives you a better insight on the player's performance in majors. Do you not include percentage in all sports? Isn't on base percentage in baseball important? Is slugging percentage in baseball important? Otherwise a singles hitter would be the same as a home run hitter. Isn't completion percentage important in NFL football? Many players couldn't enter that many majors so do you go by a fixed number of majors or also look at the percentages of majors entered? You have to look at peak years and career for percentage of majors won? Sampras in his best years wasn't that great unfortunately and we have to recognize that. Guys like Rosewall, Laver, Tilden, Borg, Vines, Federer had excellent record during their best five years. Sampras in his best five years won 40% of his majors. Federer won 60%. What is better? Tilden only played 7 majors in his best five years, 8 if you include the World Hardcourt. Tilden won 8 out of 8. Sampras won 8 out of 20. They both won 8 majors. Who looks better? I think it's a good bet that if Tilden played 12 more majors in that period he probably would have won a lot more majors than 8.

Bill James once wrote something to like this, those who say important statistics don't mean anything don't understand statistics. I don't have the exact words but the meaning is there. I'm not writing you don't understand stats but I'm writing that you should realize that this stat is important.

Incidentally you should read up on the politics going on in Borg's time. It'll give more insight on Borg's retirement.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Very unlikely that Borg could beat Sampras at the US. His record at that tournament showed he was pscyhologically inhibited by the venue/atmosphere/facing US opponents....and I am not just talking about the greats like Connors and Mac, but lesser players like Stockton and Tanner.

This is Borg's record at the US from 1975 on - loses to a US opponent every time...

1975 - SF vs. Connors (on clay)
1976 - F vs. Connors (on clay)
1977 - R16 vs. Stockton (on clay)
1978 - F vs. Connors
1979 - QF vs. Tanner (interesting how in the cathedral-like atmosphere of Wimbledon a few months earlier, Borg held his nerve against Tanner, but could not do so in front of a raucous NY crowd)
1980 - F vs. McEnroe
1981 - F vs. McEnroe

Given this, and Sampras' awesome record in the big/night matches at his home slam, I rate Borg's chances at very low.

1975-Connors was better
1976-Connors was slightly better on har tru.
1977-Bad shoulder injury. Couldn't serve or hit overheads.
1978-Horrible blister. Probably would have crushed Connors imo.
1979-Just plain lost to Tanner
1980-Lost to McEnroe
1981-Lost to McEnroe but had death threats.

Several points here. If the US Open remained on har tru, Borg would have probably won many US Opens. From 1977 on he was the best player on har tru. In 1978 it was just a major injury. In my opinion and I know some disagree with me but Borg was superior to Connors on any surface.

I was at a number of those matches or saw them on television.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

1979-Just plain lost to Tanner

Wasn't this the match, before which Bergelin pleaded with the officials not to schedule it at night.

Apparently Borg had a hard time seeing the ball with the poor USO lighting back then (particularly on Tanner's big serve).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix, Reasonable new list. My respect for your readiness to change your opinion!

Of course you're happy because Phoenix1983 bump Rosewall from #6 up to #3. But don't expect him to bump Rosewall any higher if you keep on gloating Rosewall. For Rosewall being #3 is generous was much as Serena being #3.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Wasn't this the match, before which Bergelin pleaded with the officials not to schedule it at night.

Apparently Borg had a hard time seeing the ball with the poor USO lighting back then (particularly on Tanner's big serve).

Apparently if I remember correctly Bergelin discussed this with the US Open officials and they agreed to not play it at night. I could be wrong.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Very unlikely that Borg could beat Sampras at the US. His record at that tournament showed he was pscyhologically inhibited by the venue/atmosphere/facing US opponents....and I am not just talking about the greats like Connors and Mac, but lesser players like Stockton and Tanner.

This is Borg's record at the US from 1975 on - loses to a US opponent every time...

1975 - SF vs. Connors (on clay)
1976 - F vs. Connors (on clay)
1977 - R16 vs. Stockton (on clay)
1978 - F vs. Connors
1979 - QF vs. Tanner (interesting how in the cathedral-like atmosphere of Wimbledon a few months earlier, Borg held his nerve against Tanner, but could not do so in front of a raucous NY crowd)
1980 - F vs. McEnroe
1981 - F vs. McEnroe

Given this, and Sampras' awesome record in the big/night matches at his home slam, I rate Borg's chances at very low.

Injuried against Stockey
So no bad loss at all
You never watched in rage, humming, hiperconcentrated Roscoe did ya?

[kiki]

Nastase and Kodes: 1970-1974

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Nastase and Kodes: 1970-1974

I'm not sure of the purpose of this post Kiki?? I know despite your admiration for Kodes that you don't think he's top ten.

Thought just occurred to me. Nastase is a player who should have been top ten, maybe top five all time on the basis of pure talent. Maybe we should have a thread of players who were uniquely talented but wasted it to a certain degree.

An example would be Arthur Ashe, very gifted but he had other things on his mind besides tennis and you can't blame him for that. Mecir had injuries. Leconte was too wild a player.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Percentage of majors won is of course very important. This is a statistic that gives you a better insight on the player's performance in majors. Do you not include percentage in all sports? Isn't on base percentage in baseball important? Is slugging percentage in baseball important? Otherwise a singles hitter would be the same as a home run hitter. Isn't completion percentage important in NFL football?

I'm British, I don't follow US sports, so I can't answer the above examples.

But no, I don't think it's especially important in terms of tennis majors, sorry.

Originally Posted by pc1

Many players couldn't enter that many majors so do you go by a fixed number of majors or also look at the percentages of majors entered?

Are you talking about the likes of Rosewall/Gonzales etc. because if so, I account for their pro achievements in my ranking. But that would be titles, not percentages.

Originally Posted by pc1

You have to look at peak years and career for percentage of majors won? Sampras in his best years wasn't that great unfortunately and we have to recognize that.

What nonsense. In his best 5 year spell (1993-97), he won 9 slams. This is more than the entire careers of Connors and Lendl.

Originally Posted by pc1

Guys like Rosewall, Laver, Tilden, Borg, Vines, Federer had excellent record during their best five years. Sampras in his best five years won 40% of his majors. Federer won 60%. What is better?

I never denied Fed > Sampras.

Originally Posted by pc1

Tilden only played 7 majors in his best five years, 8 if you include the World Hardcourt. Tilden won 8 out of 8. Sampras won 8 out of 20. They both won 8 majors. Who looks better? I think it's a good bet that if Tilden played 12 more majors in that period he probably would have won a lot more majors than 8.

Sampras, because he played in a much tougher era.

And also, please stop using hypotheticals ("he probably would have done this") as a way to boost someone's status. What happened, happened and we cannot award people phantom majors.

It's the same thing with Borg: let's say he had chosen never to play the US Open. People here would be writing that he undoubtedly would have won a few of them (or more), but we all know he didn't. Also, if he had chosen to play the Australian, he may have been physically burnt out by the middle of the season and thus may have lost some of those epically close matches at Wimbledon which he was renowned for winning. We simply don't know.

Originally Posted by pc1

Bill James once wrote something to like this, those who say important statistics don't mean anything don't understand statistics. I don't have the exact words but the meaning is there. I'm not writing you don't understand stats but I'm writing that you should realize that this stat is important.

No, it's not.

You're basically saying it's better to dominate for a few years and burn out, rather than pace your career better, win over a longer period of time against many different generations and end up with better numbers.

Originally Posted by pc1

Incidentally you should read up on the politics going on in Borg's time. It'll give more insight on Borg's retirement.

Fact is, he demanded to play fewer tournaments because he couldn't hack playing a full season any longer. Whether the authorities were right or wrong not to accede to his demand is a matter for debate. However, it's fair to say he was no longer in top shape to dominate majors, certainly psychologically.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

1975-Connors was better
1976-Connors was slightly better on har tru.
1977-Bad shoulder injury. Couldn't serve or hit overheads.
1978-Horrible blister. Probably would have crushed Connors imo.
1979-Just plain lost to Tanner
1980-Lost to McEnroe
1981-Lost to McEnroe but had death threats.

Several points here. If the US Open remained on har tru, Borg would have probably won many US Opens.

Look, the dude had opportunities to win the US Open on three surfaces and couldn't. Stop with this "he would probably have won many". There's no reason to believe that whatsoever.

Originally Posted by pc1

From 1977 on he was the best player on har tru. In 1978 it was just a major injury. In my opinion and I know some disagree with me but Borg was superior to Connors on any surface.

From what I know of the two players, I agree. And Borg proved it in Wimbledon finals. But couldn't handle the atmosphere of winning the US Open against a home favourite, thus lost. This is a psychological flaw in his makeup which I feel you are ignoring.

Originally Posted by pc1

I was at a number of those matches or saw them on television.

That must have been an exciting time to watch live tennis.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Look, the dude had opportunities to win the US Open on three surfaces and couldn't. Stop with this "he would probably have won many". There's no reason to believe that whatsoever.



From what I know of the two players, I agree. And Borg proved it in Wimbledon finals. But couldn't handle the atmosphere of winning the US Open against a home favourite, thus lost. This is a psychological flaw in his makeup which I feel you are ignoring.



That must have been an exciting time to watch live tennis.

Not really. Borg won in New York in the Masters and he was generally well liked in NY.

I used to often root against Borg because he was so good. Not that I disliked him but I wanted others to win. My point here is that I have no reason to write this because I'm not a fan of his but I do admire greatness in any player. I was there for many of his matches and imo that's not true.

If you want to see how Borg reacted to crowds, check out the 1978 Italian Open against Panatta.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...-players-games

It was a lot worst than what they described. The lines judges were exceptionally bad in making calls in favor of Panatta. I spoke to a good friend who was there for that match and the commentators hinted at it on television if I recall correctly.
http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/164.html

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Wasn't this the match, before which Bergelin pleaded with the officials not to schedule it at night.

Apparently Borg had a hard time seeing the ball with the poor USO lighting back then (particularly on Tanner's big serve).

Yes. Tanner wasn't fussed about playing at night, either, but he didn't mention that when he heard that Bergelin was complaining on behalf of Borg. This is also the match where Tanner's serve caused the net to collapse when he was serving for the match at 5-3 deuce in the fourth set. Borg broke back once they restarted, but Tanner won 6-2, 4-6, 6-2, 7-6.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

What nonsense. In his best 5 year spell (1993-97), he won 9 slams. This is more than the entire careers of Connors and Lendl.

It's not that simple. Connors only played at the Australian Open in 1974 and 1975. He also missed the French Open in his prime years from 1974-1978 (being banned against his will in 1974).

From 1974 to 1978 (5 year period), Connors entered a total of 12 majors, won 5 of them, was runner-up in 6, and a quarter final loser in the other. Connors also won the 1977 WCT Dallas title, and the January 1978 Masters title.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

That is his one weakness.

However he set or tied Open Era records in all other areas (14 slams, 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 6 straight YE 1's, 285+ weeks as No 1, 5 YECs) and clearly dominated all rivals in his era.

Borg on the other hand was probably only No 1 for 3 years before he began being dominated by McEnroe, and left the game due to psychological burn-out (i.e. demanding that he play fewer tournaments, which the authorities objected to).

Sampras meanwhile kept going even when he was past his best and pulled out a fine career-capping victory at the USO in 2002. (This by the way is an example of a GOAT contender winning when not at prime, BobbyOne - in contrast to Rosewall at Wimbledon...)

Although it pains many in the Former Pro section to admit this, the closest match to Borg is Nadal. Wherever you rank Borg on the GOAT list, Nadal has to be very close to him.

Phoenix, You overlook: Sampras was 31 when winning the US Open, Rosewall at 31 was not allowed to play a major...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

No serious expert would rank the greats on their "peak play". If we did that, the likes of Safin and Nalbandian would rank very highly in the last 10 years' list, for instance. We also should certainly not rank on "length of greatness" as such - doing so would potentially enable the likes of Connors or Agassi to rank ahead of Borg in an Open Era list. Although I believe longevity does play some role in determining who is GOAT - i.e. ability to win against different generations.

I guess your "consistency" metric is the one closest to how my list is done. I rank the greats based on,

a). their dominance of their era
b). their ability to win on the biggest stages on all surfaces

with some subjective tweaks for the strength of their era.

This discounts all bar Federer and Laver for GOAT for me;

Rosewall - never won Wimbledon despite being in 5 finals, was arguably not as dominant as some other champions
Sampras - never won the French
Gonzales - never won a clay court major
Borg - never won the US Open despite it being on 3 surfaces during his time, not dominant for very long
Nadal - has not dominated his era, no YEC
Tilden - weak era, never won the French
Budge - career too short to be called GOAT

and we could go on down through the 'lesser' tiers of greats, but you get my point.

Phoenix,

Longevity is yet a significant measure of greatness.

Rosewall dominated at majors for four years.

In Tilden's prime there was no French championship for foreigners. He did win the World's Hardcourt Championships on clay.