Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree with your point of Rosewall getting burnt out at Wimbledon.he had to overcome the two last great W champs, Smith and Newcombe.But I would not say that much about the 74 USO.

Tanner and Amitraj did not wera him down as much.

Connors had to fight a guy called Kodes, who would wear his opponents down.He had a tough path before meeting the 3 times GS champion.Stockton was not that much of a deal but he was just as much tired as Kenny should be.IMO.

kiki, I would say that Rosewall at the US Open was tired after his four set SF against Newcombe. He beat Tanner at Wimbledon.

[fluffyyelloballz]

I can only do the women really:
1. Navratilova
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Graf
5. S. Williams
6. Lenglen
7. Seles
8. Jean-King
9. Moody
10. Connolly

[fluffyyelloballz]

Of the men I know about:
1. Laver
2. Rosewell
3. Federer
4. Gonzales
5. Sampras
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Nadal
9. Lendl
10. McEnore

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by fluffyyelloballz

Of the men I know about:
1. Laver
2. Rosewell
3. Federer
4. Gonzales
5. Sampras
6. Tilden
7. Borg
8. Nadal
9. Lendl
10. McEnore

fluffyyelloballz, Interesting list. Your top 7 (or are also my top 7 ( but in different order.

I'm grateful that you rank RosewAll ahead of Federer and at No.2. Not many posters are so courageous (even though many of them are aware of Muscles' huge achievements...).

Don't tell your list to Dan Lobb!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

fluffyyelloballz, Interesting list. Your top 7 (or are also my top 7 ( but in different order.

I'm grateful that you rank RosewAll ahead of Federer and at No.2. Not many posters are so courageous (even though many of them are aware of Muscles' huge achievements...).

Don't tell your list to Dan Lobb!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Bobby.
I accept the opinions of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and they were NOT restricting their ratings to peak form when they selected Hoad number one.

[fluffyyelloballz]

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by fluffyyelloballz

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

Hoad's always been a subject of debate with many experts. Some say at his best (for one match, maybe a series of matches) that he was the best of all time. He played a very risky style which also allowed him to often lose to players that he should have considering his talent beat fairly easily. Not sure if he ever was CLEARLY the best player in any one year. That's a subject constantly debated by experts and in this thread by BobbyOne and Dan Lobb in their never ending debate. Hoad did play extremely strong competition in the pros when he played Gonzalez, Rosewall, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson among others. These are with the exception of Cooper and Anderson (and they were excellent players) all time great players.

As far as Lendl and McEnroe are concerned, Lendl clearly is ahead of McEnroe in my opinion. Lendl won 146 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. McEnroe won around 100 tournaments and 7 majors. Lendl is slightly ahead in lifetime winning percentage also at around 81.8% to 81.5%. However Lendl did this while he played more matches. For players who only played in the open era I believe Connors and Lendl have won the most tournaments. Connors is number one at 149.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, Bobby.
I accept the opinions of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and they were NOT restricting their ratings to peak form when they selected Hoad number one.

Dan, And I don't accept your silly claim that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez ranked Hoad No. 1 also regarding achievements. They are NOT idiots!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by fluffyyelloballz

Dan Lobb and Bobby one, I was wondering about Hoad. He won 4 majors, if I am correct. I did think to include him but I was need to research him more. I am not sure either about Lendl over McEnroe but I feel the 6 US open final streak pips Lendl ahead for me.
Where can I see ur lists in this thread? Do you know the pages?

fluffyyelloballz, Thanks for your interest.

Lendl had an eigth finals streak at the US Open.

Here my top ten regarding achievements.

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Tilden
4 Gonzalez
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
8 Connors
9 Budge
10 McEnroe

Hoad of course does not qualify: only 4 majors won etc

But if we consider playing level including also longevity, my top players are

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Gonzalez
4 Hoad
4 Borg tied
6 Djokovic
7 Nadal
8 Lendl
8 McEnroe tied
10 Becker
10 Roche tied

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Here my top ten regarding achievements.

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Tilden
4 Gonzalez
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
8 Connors
9 Budge
10 McEnroe

Based on achievements what makes you place Gonzalez and Tilden higher than Fed?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

But if we consider playing level including also longevity, my top players are

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Gonzalez
4 Hoad
4 Borg
6 Djokovic
7 Nadal
8 Lendl
8 McEnroe tied
10 Becker
10 Roche tied

Did you intentionally not place you know who in there?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

fluffyyelloballz, Thanks for your interest.

Lendl had an eigth finals streak at the US Open.

Here my top ten regarding achievements.

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Tilden
4 Gonzalez
5 Federer
6 Borg
7 Sampras
8 Connors
9 Budge
10 McEnroe

Hoad of course does not qualify: only 4 majors won etc

But if we consider playing level including also longevity, my top players are

1 Laver
1 Rosewall tied
3 Gonzalez
4 Hoad
4 Borg
6 Djokovic
7 Nadal
8 Lendl
8 McEnroe tied
10 Becker
10 Roche tied

I totally disagree on Becker being top 10 all time under any measure. On grass and carpet he is well up there, but overall definitely not.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I totally disagree on Becker being top 10 all time under any measure. On grass and carpet he is well up there, but overall definitely not.

Nadal/Agassi, maybe I have ranked Becker too high...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Based on achievements what makes you place Gonzalez and Tilden higher than Fed?




Did you intentionally not place you know who in there?

forzamilan90,

Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Based on achievements what makes you place Gonzalez and Tilden higher than Fed?




Did you intentionally not place you know who in there?

Don't mind Bobby. I don't think he believe what he's saying. Of course he intended to leave out Roger, who's widely consider the greatest player.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

forzamilan90,

Gonzalez and Tilden have awesome records. Both were No.1 for many years.

I don't rank Federer very high because some of his great achievements are caused by the fact that Roger faced rather weak competition in several of his peak years.

While Tilden had to play against Johnston, Cochet and Lacoste, and Gonzalez against Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert , Hoad and Rosewall plus Laver, Federer played against Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. That makes the difference!.

I still believe that Roche and Newcombe would beat Federer more often than he would beat them, not to speak about Borg and Lendl...

But I'm glad you don't contradict that I rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of Federer.

Here's my take on things. I think any records that Gonzales or Tilden possess, have nothing on the eagle's open era achievements.
Also, I think prime Fed would absolutely destroy the likes of Roche and Newcombe. Not thinking that his peak level of play is all time top 10 worthy is a travesty of the highest order (have you seen the dude play like really?) imo. The greatest open era tennis player by a considerate margin (records, streaks, dominance, ridiculous shot making, crazy level of play, all around package), and not even top 10 all time of level of play .

lol you obviously know that I wouldn't rank either Laver or Rosewall above Fed. Rosewall is a level below Laver imo. Laver I really really hold in high regard, I got him at number 2 after Fed. Rosewall's longevity and overall records are great, but no peak insane level like Fed or Laver as far as I am concerned. See my top 10 greatest:

My top 10
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Pete Sampras
5. Bill Tilden
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Ken Rosewall
8. Rafael Nadal
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by TMF

Don't mind Bobby. I don't think he believe what he's saying. Of course he intended to leave out Roger, who's widely consider the greatest player.

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

after that post I cannot take what he says seriously. F**** Roche in top 10 level of play, but not the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player WTF?

clearly a troll move. He's got Nadal and Djoker there, but no Fed. Those guys combined can't touch Fed. Hell even Djoker's awesome last year, comes short of what Fed did during his prime reign. Whatever, there's only a few guys like that on the forum (Thundervolley, kiki, BobbyOne, sometimes NadalAgassi, 90s clay comes to mind; dudes with clear cut, anti Fed agendas) . Most of the people have the right idea on who the boss is.

Yes. I know it's crazy. This is a "The Laver Forum", and that's what you would expected. For having Roger not in the top 10 but yet they criticize the experts from The Tennis Channel.

[NadalAgassi]

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

the most dominating, documented, analyzed, victorious, revered open era player

LOL at the **** melodrama. If BobbyOne is a bit biased against Federer, he is only one counteracting the rampage of lovesick Fed adoring lunatics on Planet TW.

counterracting by having Roche, Nadal and Djoker there?

and btw regarding my sentence, absolutely nothing false written there
...
most dominating in open era? yeah can't argue with that

most documented open era player? well yeah along with other current players no hypothetical here, titles, tour events, highlights everything documented available to see.

most analyzed open era player? do I even have to go here? Fed's name is constantly thrown around in tennis circles, forums, etc. and has been for a while. Add his chase for the record books, and analysis goes only deeper.

most victorious open era player? undisputed here. shitload of big titles all legit, not counting exos or anything (lots and lots of slams, masters, wtfs)

most revered open era player? yeah you know it's true. He's the definitive tennis figure. Fed's the tennis Michael Jordan basically.



where's my melodrama when the above is f**** facts.

my sentence aside, you cannot possibly think Bobby's list was that a sane, "historian" would write

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Here's my take on things. I think any records that Gonzales or Tilden possess, have nothing on the eagle's open era achievements.
Also, I think prime Fed would absolutely destroy the likes of Roche and Newcombe. Not thinking that his peak level of play is all time top 10 worthy is a travesty of the highest order (have you seen the dude play like really?) imo. The greatest open era tennis player by a considerate margin (records, streaks, dominance, ridiculous shot making, crazy level of play, all around package), and not even top 10 all time of level of play .

lol you obviously know that I wouldn't rank either Laver or Rosewall above Fed. Rosewall is a level below Laver imo. Laver I really really hold in high regard, I got him at number 2 after Fed. Rosewall's longevity and overall records are great, but no peak insane level like Fed or Laver as far as I am concerned. See my top 10 greatest:

My top 10
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Pete Sampras
5. Bill Tilden
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Ken Rosewall
8. Rafael Nadal
9. Ivan Lendl
10. John McEnroe

At least it's interesting that we have the same top seven players (in different order).

I'm aware I have annoyed the Federer fans.

Now, to even offend the Laver fans, I still claim that Rosewall's record is about even with Laver's: Rosewall won 4 more majors than Laver; he won nine majors in a row (Laver 4), his longevity is much greater; their hth at majors is 10:7 in Ken's favour; at the biggest tournament of each year (Wembley, Wimbledon, US Open 1972 and 1973) Rosewall won 5, reached final 5 times and SFs 5 times: Laver is 6/0/0, and so on...

Laver won his Wimbledons and his GSs in an age of life (23 to 30) when Rosewall was not allowed to play them.