Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Phoenix1983]

After many discussions in this section of the forum, I have decided to update my GOAT list.

As a reminder, here is my original list:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Gonzales
8. Budge
9. Tilden
10. Lendl

After consideration, I realise I have underrated Rosewall and Gonzales, and, as a result, overrated Sampras, Borg and Nadal. I'm also swapping Tilden and Budge around.

This is my new GOAT list:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Rosewall
4. Sampras
5. Gonzales
6. Borg
7. Nadal
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl

My belief that GOAT is still between Federer and Laver, however, still stands. They remain the only men with no holes in their resume.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

My belief that GOAT is still between Federer and Laver, however, still stands. They remain the only men with no holes in their resume.

People will point to Federer's head to head with Nadal.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course not. Borg wasn't as good as he would be later in 1974. He was excellent but he improved greatly in 1977. You are absolutely right.
Laver was top notch but no longer THE Rod Laver. He was still able to beat players like Ashe in 1975, Ashe's number one year but he lost 6-1 6-1 to Borg in one match in 1974.

Lendl was good but on the downside of his career.
Becker I'm not sure of because he was still capable of great things but I think he was mentally burnt out. He was still very young.

Here's Borg against Vijay in 1974. As you can see Borg was very good. Vijay was one of those players who could beat anyone. I was at the match and I can tell you Vijay was in the zone in the first set.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDFd4q3CycU

I've seen that clip before .... some real good fascinating tennis ...borg of course could play on grass even then ... but he improved quite a bit by 76 ...

'similar' thing for nadal in 2006 ...krosero has already pointed out many of those facts ...

again, point of those examples was that it isn't just the 'names',but how those players were playing that also matters ...

Originally Posted by pc1

It really doesn't matter. I know this, when I see Roddick and Blake play I am not crazy about their style and it makes shocks me to realize both were in the top six one year. I don't think they were that talented or good. Just my taste in tennis. Nalbanian was far more talented in my opinion.

I'll give Roddick this, he had a great serve to keep him in almost every match.

blake was at the top for a short while , when he was playing well ..... he wasn't there for that long ... roddick at his prime of course would be in the top 6 in every era ...

nalbandian of course was more talented than roddick, but roddick was just mentally stronger and more consistent ...

rios/mecir were far more talented than chang/gomez/muster .......plenty such examples in tennis history ...

[NatF]

Not sure how anyone could surprised at Roddick being the top 6. Very underrated player.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Actually even Okker could have some modest claims of greatness. He won over 50 tournaments in his career, won the Italian Open I believe and was in the opinion of people like Rod Laver to be one of the most talented players in tennis, if not the most talented.

Stupid Okker story involving me. I saw Okker at the US Open long after he had retired. I recognized the distinct forehand swing from a long distance and realized it was him. Early that morning for some reason I was watching a video of him playing Ken Rosewall and Rosewall aced him in that short clip. I was chatting with him and I mentioned I saw him play Rosewall that day (forgetting to mention it was on a video) and he give me this totally puzzled look. I explained it but really felt ridiculous.

He was also a great doubles players and as a silly side note, was MVP of the World Team Tennis All Stars. He teamed with Laver and they won 6-1 I believe. I think it was in 1976. Borg and Nastase played the men's singles and Borg won easily.

Super fast reflexes at the net and a truly great forehand. Great speed also.

Flying Dutchman.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Phoenix,

1974 was really strong: nine players included who were No.1 at a time.

I just can´t get that Alexander ever got so highly ranked.I figured out that his best ever rank´d be something like 10 or 11, which is already superb.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by abmk

rios/mecir were far more talented than chang/gomez/muster .......plenty such examples in tennis history ...

Actually given that you mentioned Chang, according to pc1 he was a tennis great, a player to be feared (even though Agassi and Sampras both stated they didn't fear him at all and the outcome solely depended on them, I'm paraphrazing) and a tough competition but of course he's shocked Roddick (who is a comparable player to say the least) reached top 6, comedy gold.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NatF

Not sure how anyone could surprised at Roddick being the top 6. Very underrated player.

Definitely, here's Roddick giving one of the best Wimbledon players in tennis history a run for his money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEu3n-XznQ

2009 Wimbledon F.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgvB7ROqrY

2004 Wimbledon F.



Here's him beating "peak" Nadal (so we don't get these he was just a kid, baby etc. excuses):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XODe_DNZqc

2008 Dubai SF (notice "just a serve" Roddick won the 2nd set 6-2)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWqONgXPQaU

2010 Miami QF, Nadal's best year to date with Roddick being in the twilight of his career.


Here's Roddick beating a "strong era" player Murray in 2009 Wimbledon SF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtXeTYk3wGw



Yup, one of the greatest shocks in tennis history, Roddick being ranked inside top 6.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Actually given that you mentioned Chang, according to pc1 he was a tennis great, a player to be feared (even though Agassi and Sampras both stated they didn't fear him at all and the outcome solely depended on them, I'm paraphrazing) and a tough competition but of course he's shocked Roddick (who is a comparable player to say the least) reached top 6, comedy gold.

I think it's overstating it to call Chang a tennis great but he was capable of beating Agassi like for example at the US Open. If I did call Chang a tennis great (which I don't recall) then it's incorrect terminology that I did use. But Chang was an excellent player.
Here's the head to head with Agassi leading 15 to 7. Chang was a shadow of himself in the late 1990's and afterward.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=C274&oId=A092
If Agassi didn't fear him, he was stupid because he lost some big matches to him. Sampras, after losing the first bunch of matches to Chang really didn't have too much problems with Chang afterwards.

As far as Roddick is concerned, perhaps it's a personal preference. I can't stand his strokes. Only his serve stands out to me and it's fantastic. And of course the serve is the most important stroke. He is an awful mover to boot.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think it's overstating it to call Chang a tennis great but he was capable of beating Agassi like for example at the US Open. If I did call Chang a tennis great (which I don't recall) then it's incorrect terminology that I did use. But Chang was an excellent player.
Here's the head to head with Agassi leading 15 to 7. Chang was a shadow of himself in the late 1990's and afterward.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=C274&oId=A092

As far as Roddick is concerned, perhaps it's a personal preference. I can't stand his strokes. Only his serve stands out to me and it's fantastic. And of course the serve is the most important stroke. He is an awful mover to boot.

Regardless of what one might think about Roddick's game as far aesthetics go, him being ranked inside top 6 should surprise no one even remotely knowledgable about 2000+ tennis era.

That's great that Chang's H2H with Agassi was 15 to 7, Roddick's H2H with Novak is 6-5 and with Nadal is 3-7, he also has slam wins against all of the big 3 players (Novak, Murray, Nadal) and has beaten Nadal in both of his (Nadal's) best years.

Roddick has flaws in his game but his serve, consistency off the ground, very good FH, excellent fitness and mental toughness make him an excellent player.

Regarding his movement, his anticipation and balance were sorely lacking but he was a pretty fast guy around court, there are far worse movers out there, especially when you compare with other players with the serve of his caliber.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

If Agassi didn't fear him, he was stupid because he lost some big matches to him.

The two big matches Agassi lost to Chang (both in 1996) he was in the dumps mentally after losing 1995 USO F to Sampras, he spiraled all the way down to #141 in 1997, used meth etc.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

After many discussions in this section of the forum, I have decided to update my GOAT list.

As a reminder, here is my original list:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Nadal
6. Rosewall
7. Gonzales
8. Budge
9. Tilden
10. Lendl

After consideration, I realise I have underrated Rosewall and Gonzales, and, as a result, overrated Sampras, Borg and Nadal. I'm also swapping Tilden and Budge around.

This is my new GOAT list:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Rosewall
4. Sampras
5. Gonzales
6. Borg
7. Nadal
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl

My belief that GOAT is still between Federer and Laver, however, still stands. They remain the only men with no holes in their resume.

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

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

The two big matches Agassi lost to Chang (both in 1996) he was in the dumps mentally after losing 1995 USO F to Sampras, he spiraled all the way down to #141 in 1997, used meth etc.

Chang reached number 2 in the world. To take him lightly would be very stupid. He could beat Rafter in Davis Cup. He could beat Mark Philippoussis, Rios, Goran...anyone.

You're trying to say Agassi took Chang lightly. Perhaps so but that doesn't say much for him if he thought that.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

And that's why I write he's reasonable.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Chang reached number 2 in the world.

Yeah, and Roddick reached #1 in the world.

Originally Posted by pc1

To take him lightly would be very stupid. He could beat Rafter in Davis Cup. He could beat Mark Philippoussis, Rios, Goran...anyone.

Roddick could (and actually did) beat anyone as well and could actually compete with great players even if they were in excellent forms themselves yet Chang is this excellent player while Roddick is walking miracle for reaching top 6, please.

Originally Posted by pc1

You're trying to say Agassi took Chang lightly. Perhaps so but that doesn't say much for him if he thought that.

There's a reason he took him lightly, if Agassi's game was on Chang had no weapons to hurt him, if he was off well he could lose to anyone regardless, in Agassi's mind the outcome of this match-up was solely dependent on how he was playing.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

I realised I was applying double standards putting Sampras, Borg and Nadal ahead of Rosewall when they have also not won all major titles (yes, Nadal has won the four majors but on homogenous surfaces and he has not won the YEC on a fast indoor court). Therefore I put Rosewall ahead of them. Gonzales does deserve a bit more credit than I gave him due to his longevity - I think there is little to choose between him and Sampras.

Overall I think now that Borg and Nadal should not rank in the top 5 all time (although they of course do in the Open Era), their achievements are not quite sufficient and we should not assume that all the top 5 greats were Open Era dominators.

Mind you BobbyOne, the lack of a Wimbledon title means I can never consider Roseall above Federer and Laver. I must continue to disappoint you in this...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I realised I was applying double standards putting Sampras, Borg and Nadal ahead of Rosewall when they have also not won all major titles (yes, Nadal has won the four majors but on homogenous surfaces and he has not won the YEC on a fast indoor court). Therefore I put Rosewall ahead of them. Gonzales does deserve a bit more credit than I gave him due to his longevity - I think there is little to choose between him and Sampras.

Overall I think now that Borg and Nadal should not rank in the top 5 all time (although they of course do in the Open Era), their achievements are not quite sufficient and we should not assume that all the top 5 greats were Open Era dominators.

Mind you BobbyOne, the lack of a Wimbledon title means I can never consider Roseall above Federer and Laver. I must continue to disappoint you in this...

It surprises me how underrated Bjorn Borg is starting to be in this forum.While one can agree or not wether he´d be top 5 or just top 10 ever, let´s remind everyone that this guy not only gave tennis the extraordinary popularity that has not matched since GE, but also won the channel slam 3 times in a row, when clay was clay and grass was grass.

Not to mention his long time record of 5 Wimblies on a row and the amazing fields he beat, day in and day out at the MSG...for two years in a row.

¿Where is Borg nº1, BTW?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I realised I was applying double standards putting Sampras, Borg and Nadal ahead of Rosewall when they have also not won all major titles (yes, Nadal has won the four majors but on homogenous surfaces and he has not won the YEC on a fast indoor court). Therefore I put Rosewall ahead of them. Gonzales does deserve a bit more credit than I gave him due to his longevity - I think there is little to choose between him and Sampras.

Overall I think now that Borg and Nadal should not rank in the top 5 all time (although they of course do in the Open Era), their achievements are not quite sufficient and we should not assume that all the top 5 greats were Open Era dominators.

Mind you BobbyOne, the lack of a Wimbledon title means I can never consider Roseall above Federer and Laver. I must continue to disappoint you in this...

Phoenix,

To me the mark of greatness is the ability to play well on all surfaces. This garbage (and I do think it's ridiculous) about having to win all the majors to validate your greatness makes no sense to me. Winning majors is important in establishing greatness but it's not the end all. Rosewall was greater than players like a Ashe or Stan Smith as players and they won Wimbledon. Do you really think that if Ashe in his prime played Rosewall in his prime on center court that Rosewall wouldn't win the great majority of the time? Rosewall at near 40 defeated Smith (toward the end of his prime) in five sets to reach the final against Connors.

I don't think that because Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon that you should penalize him for that considering the situation. By situation I mean he couldn't play Wimbledon at all for years.

By you know what. I'm just happy you're winning to examine the different viewpoints as I would yours and others.

[kiki]

while Kodes cannot be regarded as top ten for the whole open era, let´s remind everybody what he won.

-.2 consecutive FO titles, beating peak Nastase in the second year
-.a Wimbledon title with a field containing 3 all timers like Borg (months before he won Paris and reached Dallas F in the strongest ever indoor event played), Connors ( a few months before jimmy won 3 out of 4 slam titles) and Ilie Nastase, on his best season, with a devastating RG win just a month before.

-2 USO finals, beating Ashe,Roche and Newcombe ( before he lost to Smith) in 71 and beating peakest Smith in 1973, on his way to a five set final lost to John Newcombe.

-.a DC final, where a terrific Borg overwhelmed, singlehandedly, the whole Czech team

Only a true great champion is able to do it

he also lost two consecutive Italians, a title very short of GS status back then.Peak Orantes ( he said he had played the best cc match of his career so far) and the best Rod Laver of the 70´s prevented Kodes from winning it.

He also reached the semis at the 1972 Wimbledon tournament, and played the year end masters and the Dallas WCT finals, but didn´t fare too well in both.

Kodes had great energy and determination, moved well, had a good forehand, excelent backhand, mediocre serve and was prompt to come to the net, where he had great reflexes and intuition.He was also known as Mr Courage.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Phoenix,

To me the mark of greatness is the ability to play well on all surfaces. This garbage (and I do think it's ridiculous) about having to win all the majors to validate your greatness makes no sense to me. Winning majors is important in establishing greatness but it's not the end all. Rosewall was greater than players like a Ashe or Stan Smith as players and they won Wimbledon. Do you really think that if Ashe in his prime played Rosewall in his prime on center court that Rosewall wouldn't win the great majority of the time? Rosewall at near 40 defeated Smith (toward the end of his prime) in five sets to reach the final against Connors.

I don't think that because Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon that you should penalize him for that considering the situation. By situation I mean he couldn't play Wimbledon at all for years.

By you know what. I'm just happy you're winning to examine the different viewpoints as I would yours and others.

Pc1: I must say I fundamentally disagree tht a player doesn't have to win the major titles on all surfaces. The mark of a great champion in any sport is to win on the biggest stages.

Is there any player/team in any sport who is considered GOAT in their discipline while not winning the biggest prizes? The closest I can come may be Cruijff in soccer (although he is usually not quite considered GOAT in consensus opinion) who inspired a team to a World Cup final but did not win it.

Forgive me: as ridiculous as you find the idea of "a guy must win all majors to be considered GOAT"' I find it equally ridiculous that a man with a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals can be considered GOAT.