Laver #2

[Chopin]

Gentlemen, it's been a great day: first I chanced chanced upon a live chess game on the FICS featuring #21 Dmitry Jakovenky (2729) and now I hear that Laver is #2 on the list of Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest! Yes!

Congratulations, Laver: You're #2.

[TMF]

We already have a thread like this in the general pro player forum.

Anyway, here's the top ranked male and female players:

Originally Posted by TMF

GREATEST FEMALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Steffi Graf*
2 Martina Navratilova*
3 Margaret Court*
4 Chris Evert*
5 Billy Jean King*
6 Serena Williams*
7 Monica Seles*
8 Venus Williams*
9 Suzanne Lenglen*
10 Justine Henin*
11 Maureen Connolly*
12 Helen Wills Moody*
13 Matina Hingis*
14 Evonne Goolagong*
15 Maria Bueno*
16 Althea Gibson*
17 Lindsay Davenport*
18 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario*
19 Kim Clijsters*
20 Doris Hart*
21 Tracy Austin*
22 Jennifer Capriati*
23 Alice Marble*
24 Margaret Osborne duPont*
25 Virginia Wade*
26 Hana Mandlikova*
27 Helen Hull Jacobs*
28 Louise Brough Clapp*
29 Maria Sharapova*
30 Pauline Betz Addie*
31 Molla Mallory*
32 Ashly Cooper*
33 Gabriela Sabatini*
34 Mary Piece*
35 Amelie Mauresmo*
36 Dorothea Lambert Chambers*
37 Shirley Fry-Irvin*
38 Svetlana Kuznetsova*
39 Ann Haydon-Jones*




GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by Chopin

Gentlemen, it's been a great day: first I chanced chanced upon a live chess game on the FICS featuring #21 Dmitry Jakovenky (2729) and now I hear that Laver is #2 on the list of Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest! Yes!

Congratulations, Laver. You're #2.

Can you find Pancho Gonzales on the list.. that will tell you how big joke the list is, together with Lendl so low and Nadal so near the top and many other mistakes

[Mustard]

Can somebody please explain how McEnroe can be above Connors? I've seen a few people list this. Connors won more majors, more titles, much better consistency, had more weeks at number 1. Connors is always underrated, as is Gonzales (the forgotten dominant champion) due to turning professional over 18 years before the open era started having only had a short amateur career before that.

[Nadal_Power]

And who can explain Rosewall behind all of them?

Shame on you Tennis Channel

[monfed]

Yup it's official, Federer's the GOAT and Laver's #2.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by TMF

We already have a thread like this in the general pro player forum.

Anyway, here's the top ranked male and female players:

Do you really believe Nadal is ahead of Borg, or do you not care because Federer is on top?


I'm a Nadal fan but I don't think he is ahead of Borg at this time.

[gavna]

You need to understand the criteria they are using...it's greatest tennis players of all time, not just singles, not just doubles, they're combining stats - so the players who had great success in all facets are getting ranked higher, Fed, Connors, Lendl, Sampras...etc did not play doubles much or at all.

[SoBad]

How would Ann Haydon-Jones do against someone like Hoad or Fereder on red clay, best of three sets? Could be a tough one.

[krosero]

The choice of the #1 and #2 players would mean something if the list made any kind of sense, or had any kind of reasonable consistency. On many lists Pancho Gonzalez had more years as #1 than any player in history, and he's been thrown up into the cheap seats here. Rosewall had an amazing career spanning decades, and yet he's got Emerson ahead of him? Rosewall clearly has a greater career than Budge, as do other players like Tilden; yet Budge is thrown up near the top of the list. It must be due to his Grand Slam in '38. And the Grand Slam is a great achievement, but if winning one allows you to leapfrog half a dozen players with greater resumes, then Laver's two Grand Slams should be throwing him leaps and bounds over anyone with equal or greater resumes -- like Roger.

Maybe some will assume that Federer trumps even two Grand Slams because he's a modern player. But clearly that is not the reasoning of the people who made the list, because Don Budge goes back much farther than Laver and he's been thrown up there with Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras. Laver's age should be no problem on this list; and his two Grand Slams should carry massive weight if Budge's single Slam is being given more weight than careers as great as Rosewall's and Tilden's.

Don't get me wrong, I think Federer is a reasonable choice for #1; I just don't think it means much when the list is so nonsensical and inconsistent from beginning to end.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Can somebody please explain how McEnroe can be above Connors?

I suppose they are factoring in doubles as well.

[robow7]

Emmo in front of Rosewall, FAIL!

Gonzales at 22, Major FAIL!

[Mustard]

Pancho Gonzales will never get his due recognition, because he "only won 2 majors" and spent 18 years as a professional before the open era had even started. Basically, his career from age 22 to 39 has been mostly ignored, with the bulk of the recognition for him coming for the 1948 and 1949 US Championship wins, and the 1969 Wimbledon classic with Charlie Pasarell when Gonzales was 41 years old.

The irony is that had Gonzales stayed amateur well into the 1950s and won majors elsewhere other than the US Championships at Forest Hills, he'd be more recognised today, yet his reputation misses out because he dominated the professional game instead (where all the best players were).

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by drakulie

I suppose they are factoring in doubles as well.

Yep. Looking at tennis achievements holistically McEnroe has the edge on Connors for sure. His doubles achievements made sure of that.

The list does seem to factor in plenty of intangibles but also has a bias against players the further you go back in years. Tony Wilding won four consecutive Wimbledons plus 2 world hardcourt championships and yet is ranked behind Yannick Noah. Go figure.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The irony is that had Gonzales stayed amateur well into the 1950s and won majors elsewhere other than the US Championships at Forest Hills, he'd be more recognised today, yet his reputation misses out because he dominated the professional game instead (where all the best players were).

Yeah, it's strange, for achieving something lesser (dominating the amateur game), he would have achieved greater recognition than he has now.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

The choice of the #1 and #2 players would mean something if the list made any kind of sense, or had any kind of reasonable consistency. On many lists Pancho Gonzalez had more years as #1 than any player in history, and he's been thrown up into the cheap seats here. Rosewall had an amazing career spanning decades, and yet he's got Emerson ahead of him? Rosewall clearly has a greater career than Budge, as do other players like Tilden; yet Budge is thrown up near the top of the list. It must be due to his Grand Slam in '38. And the Grand Slam is a great achievement, but if winning one allows you to leapfrog half a dozen players with greater resumes, then Laver's two Grand Slams should be throwing him leaps and bounds over anyone with equal or greater resumes -- like Roger.

Maybe some will assume that Federer trumps even two Grand Slams because he's a modern player. But clearly that is not the reasoning of the people who made the list, because Don Budge goes back much farther than Laver and he's been thrown up there with Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras. Laver's age should be no problem on this list; and his two Grand Slams should carry massive weight if Budge's single Slam is being given more weight than careers as great as Rosewall's and Tilden's.

Don't get me wrong, I think Federer is a reasonable choice for #1; I just don't think it means much when the list is so nonsensical and inconsistent from beginning to end.

Totally agree. Incidentally Laver at number two is pretty incredible considering how long ago he played but people talk about Laver all the time so his legend remains in people's minds. When McEnroe was playing he was ranked ahead of Laver, same with Borg, same with Sampras etc. However at the same time the list makes no sense at all so Laver at number two or number one wouldn't matter. It seems to be a list where someone remembers some great like Laver and thought, "Yeah that Laver should be up there somewhere but who is this Pancho Gonzalez. That Gonzalez can't be too good because I don't hear him mentioned much."

It seems to me that this is a subjective list based on people who know nothing about tennis history. Now the choice of Federer is reasonable but can someone explain to me why he's ahead of for example Graf since Graf won more tournaments, more majors, won the Golden Slam and had a higher lifetime winning percentage than Federer. Do they rank the women lower than the men or were they equal? If it's equal then a lot of women are up there with anyone.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Pancho Gonzales will never get his due recognition, because he "only won 2 majors" and spent 18 years as a professional before the open era had even started. Basically, his career from age 22 to 39 has been mostly ignored, with the bulk of the recognition for him coming for the 1948 and 1949 US Championship wins, and the 1969 Wimbledon classic with Charlie Pasarell when Gonzales was 41 years old.

The irony is that had Gonzales stayed amateur well into the 1950s and won majors elsewhere other than the US Championships at Forest Hills, he'd be more recognised today, yet his reputation misses out because he dominated the professional game instead (where all the best players were).

Great post. Gonzalez won a lot of Pro Majors. I believe Gonzalez won 14 total majors if you include Pro Majors.

Gonzalez at number 35 is such a joke since he ranks with anyone that ever lived. I've been doing a close study of his record and it's mind boggling how good it is. He's at worst in the top five of all male players and up there with anyone. To rank players like Emerson or Becker ahead of him is a total joke. Becker couldn't even serve as well as Gonzalez. What could Becker do that was better than Pancho Gonzalez? Gonzalez was defeating guys like Laver, Roche, Arthur Ashe when he was in his forties.

How did they rank Hoad over Gonzalez? I know Hoad was gifted but Gonzalez did so much more and usually defeated Hoad when they played.

On another note, Tilden should also be higher on the list. He was virtually invincible in his day.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Totally agree. Incidentally Laver at number two is pretty incredible considering how long ago he played but people talk about Laver all the time so his legend remains in people's minds.

I know, it's encouraging just to see him being ranked with the current alltime great who's in everyone's mind every day. But still, there's more to tennis history than Rod Laver. He's up there; he's in the conversation. Great. But all of his contemporaries are still waiting in line. Laver has two contemporaries -- Rosewall and Pancho -- who are GOAT candidates and are arguably as great as him, arguably even greater. But they're not even making it into the conversation.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by krosero

The choice of the #1 and #2 players would mean something if the list made any kind of sense, or had any kind of reasonable consistency. On many lists Pancho Gonzalez had more years as #1 than any player in history, and he's been thrown up into the cheap seats here. Rosewall had an amazing career spanning decades, and yet he's got Emerson ahead of him? Rosewall clearly has a greater career than Budge, as do other players like Tilden; yet Budge is thrown up near the top of the list. It must be due to his Grand Slam in '38. And the Grand Slam is a great achievement, but if winning one allows you to leapfrog half a dozen players with greater resumes, then Laver's two Grand Slams should be throwing him leaps and bounds over anyone with equal or greater resumes -- like Roger.

Maybe some will assume that Federer trumps even two Grand Slams because he's a modern player. But clearly that is not the reasoning of the people who made the list, because Don Budge goes back much farther than Laver and he's been thrown up there with Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Sampras. Laver's age should be no problem on this list; and his two Grand Slams should carry massive weight if Budge's single Slam is being given more weight than careers as great as Rosewall's and Tilden's.

Don't get me wrong, I think Federer is a reasonable choice for #1; I just don't think it means much when the list is so nonsensical and inconsistent from beginning to end.

They said Don Budge also won 8 slams in double and mixed double. That could be the reason why Don is ranked high. Also Laver didn't win any slam in double.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Do you really believe Nadal is ahead of Borg, or do you not care because Federer is on top?


I'm a Nadal fan but I don't think he is ahead of Borg at this time.

THere's always a disagreement in this kind of debate and you can argue for both side.

They put substantial weight on Nadal career slam but Borg won only 2 of the the 4 slam events. I think that's the reason why they had him over Borg despite Borg's other stats are superior than Nadal.

It's not that Nadal is distant ahead of Borg, they are ranked 6 and 7 respectively.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by TMF

They said Don Budge also won 8 slams in double and mixed double. That could be the reason why Don is ranked high.

Rosewall won 10 Slam titles in doubles, so if doubles was weighted so heavily, why is Rosewall well behind Budge? Rosewall is ahead of Budge in Slam doubles (10-8 ) and in Slam singles (8-6). And Ken's pro career dwarfs Budge's. So it must be Budge's Grand Slam that is lifting him up so high. But then Laver with two Grand Slams should get the greatest lift of all.

Originally Posted by TMF

Also Laver didn't win any slam in double.

And where did you read that? He has 9 Slam titles in doubles. Roger of course has none. That doesn't disqualify Federer as GOAT (hardly), but it is a negative mark for Federer, and a plus for Laver, in this particular list, if doubles is being given a lot of weight.