Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by urban

I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here, but i am interested to talk some tennis issues with people who care a bit about tennis history. Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

jeez, get over yourself ..... you are still in some sense "living" in those old times where exos where fiercely fought and one-on-one battles mattered very much (like in the pros in 50s and 60s ) and applying the same to the present times as per your convenience ....

quite a few of us have some knowledge of the past, but they don't apply the same standards to today, because today's play is different .... and vice versa ...

and one final word : no one is misinterpreting your statements. They are flat out biased and written with an agenda..... Me and zagor are both good enough to read & understand the statements as well as read between the lines. Give me a break !

[abmk]

Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is that I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough batte even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

here the sample size h2h is 4 matches spread over multiple years and nadal wasn't close to winning any one of them ...

not like the one match examples which you are choosing

bigger thing is the actual sample size which is the indoor tournaments played by them over the years , which is much more ...

if you were just wondering why their matches indoors weren't close, I wouldn't have said much at all ....

its just that you raised the possibility of them being on an even footing indoors ...

as far as the part of being of being a great player and giving tough matches to a player on any surface goes, that's not always true ..

wilander wasn't tough for becker/lendl indoors
sampras wasn't tough for anyone decent on clay
ditto for becker ....

again, this is where I think you over-rate the adaptability part of nadal ...... yes, he's good at it, very good , but not that good .....and the conditions today have helped him quite a bit at adapting from surface to surface .... unlike for a certain bjorn borg

and nadal isn't as versatile as federer ...

finally @ the end of the year part, it may be true to an extent on some occasions, but that can't be an excuse all the time .....put clay at the end of the year and you can be rest assured nadal would still dominate

as a matter of fact, at the YECs,

he was injured in 2005, 2008 and didn't play ...

in 2006, 2007, he was playing well and federer defeated him convincingly ...

in 2009, he was in pretty poor form, probably his worst form there, but he didn't even face federer then ..

in 2010, he was well-prepared and got through to the finals without losing a RR match ... yet federer got him 6-1 in the 3rd ...

in 2011, he took a month off before the YEC, and federer blitzed him in their RR match ...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

here the sample size h2h is 4 matches spread over multiple years and nadal wasn't close to winning any one of them ...

not like the one match examples which you are choosing

bigger thing is the actual sample size which is the indoor tournaments played by them over the years , which is much more ...

if you were just wondering why their matches indoors weren't close, I wouldn't have said much at all ....

its just that you raised the possibility of them being on an even footing indoors ...

as far as the part of being of being a great player and giving tough matches to a player on any surface goes, that's not always true ..

wilander wasn't tough for becker/lendl indoors
sampras wasn't tough for anyone decent on clay
ditto for becker ....

again, this is where I think you over-rate the adaptability part of nadal ...... yes, he's good at it, very good , but not that good .....and the conditions today have helped him quite a bit at adapting from surface to surface .... unlike for a certain bjorn borg

and nadal isn't as versatile as federer ...

finally @ the end of the year part, it may be true to an extent on some occasions, but that can't be an excuse all the time .....put clay at the end of the year and you can be rest assured nadal would still dominate

as a matter of fact, at the YECs,

he was injured in 2005, 2008 and didn't play ...

in 2006, 2007, he was playing well and federer defeated him convincingly ...

in 2009, he was in pretty poor form, probably his worst form there, but he didn't even face federer then ..

in 2010, he was well-prepared and got through to the finals without losing a RR match ... yet federer got him 6-1 in the 3rd ...

in 2011, he took a month off before the YEC, and federer blitzed him in their RR match ...

Like I wrote, I'm not getting involved with this anymore. Why do you care SOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH over something so insignificant? Especially since I wrote that I believe you are correct. If we going to worry about something, maybe we should worry about global warming instead of this.

I often don't accept things people say in sports as fact when I first hear it. I decide to QUESTION and try to research things to see if it's true and WHY it is true. So I wondered about something concerning Federer and Nadal. It seemed like a reasonable thing to think about. People for some reason got annoyed instead of simply answering the question to my satisfaction. I researched the question myself and got the answer. I wrote that the people were correct and STILL PEOPLE ARE UPSET. Why?? Because I dared to check the "why" behind the given. Are we suppose to accept everything that is a sports axiom? I've done research in a number of sports over the years and one thing I've thing is that things that are supposed to be givens in sports are not always true. One of my good friends is perhaps the foremost sports researcher in the United States and he has changed records that have been idolized by sports fans. Why? Because the so called records were incorrect. People were actually upset that he changed the records which to my mind made no sense.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by abmk

Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

Rosewall was a five-time finalist (including 1967), but faced five awesome opponents in the finals. His peak years, 1957 to 1965, found him ineligible to compete at Wimbledon.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

abmk, Thanks for writing down your opinion.

In this matter Phoenix is surely wrong. It's even debatable if the Wimbledon grass did not suit Rosewall's game.

Rosewall did beat at Wimbledon players like Trabert, Seixas, Newcombe, Roche and Smith when being very young and very till extremely old.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall was a five-time finalist (including 1967), but faced five awesome opponents in the finals. His peak years, 1957 to 1965, found him ineligible to compete at Wimbledon.

Dan, I'm glad that I can agree with you finally!

Rosewall is the one I have the hardest time ranking. I think he could be easily as high as #1 or #2 or as low as #6 or #7. I do think he easily had the best longevity of any great player ever. He was one of the 3 or 4 best players in the World for about 20 years, that is insane. It is also incredible he was the Worlds best clay courter for most of that time, in some ways he might be the real Clay GOAT even more than Nadal, and certainly above Borg atleast. Yet despite that as old as 36 and 37 in 71 and 72 he was also beating Laver who many still considered the best at that point in big matches on faster courts like the two WTF finals, which Laver desperately wanted to win, and at 39 or 40 besting the likes of John Newcombe on grass at Wimbledon and the U.S Open in 1974. My only issue with him in comparision to some of the others, especialy Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, and Federer, is he wasnt the Worlds best player nearly as long. Only about 2 or 3 years (Mustard even estimates it down at 2), which is much shorter than all those others. The others he was always generally 2nd or 3rd.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I do think he easily had the best longevity of any great player ever.

I think that's Bill Tilden. He played his first amateur match in 1912, and his last professional match in 1952.

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think that's Bill Tilden. He played his first amateur match in 1912, and his last professional match in 1952.

but was he one of the best in the World and a potential contender for slams had there been Open Era slams for that whole time, or 20 years plus? If not I still think it is Rosewall.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

but was he one of the best in the World and a potential contender for slams had there been Open Era slams for that whole time, or 20 years plus? If not I still think it is Rosewall.

Tilden not only would have been a potential contender for majors but in his prime he probably really would have been by far the major contender. You could even joke there were no contenders outside of him. It would probably be Tilden versus the rest of the field. Most likely the rest of the field would lose. I think there was a super chance Tilden would have win several Grand Slams and I would tend to think Tilden easily would have won over twenty majors. In his best years he won around 98% of his matches. Over his career, including the many years he was losing Tilden still won over fifty percent of his tournaments entered. His record is arguably as great as any, possibly greater than any player.

Tilden has every stroke. He had a great forehand, excellent backhand, a great serve, super movement and excellent stamina. His volley was okay but not great but he did win many a doubles titles so it was fine. He was also obsessed with studying the game. He was about 6'2" tall and I have no doubt if he played today he would have adapted easily to the tennis of today.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

but was he one of the best in the World and a potential contender for slams had there been Open Era slams for that whole time, or 20 years plus?

I personally have Bill Tilden as the best player in the world for 7 years, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1931, and the best professional player in 1932 and 1933. As an amateur from 1912 to 1930, Tilden won 138 out of 192 tournaments and was runner-up in 28 others. Amongst the amateur tournaments he won were 7 US Championships, 3 Wimbledons and a WHCC (precursor to the French Championships). As a professional from 1931 onwards, Tilden was the best on the big pro tours until dethroned by Ellsworth Vines in 1934, while he also won 2 US Pros and 2 French Pros, as well as coming very close in many others during the 1930s while Tilden was in his 40s.

Tilden's post-1946 career was severely affected by the scandals involving him, including jail time, but he continued to play sporadically up to 1952. A 60 year old Tilden was actually on his way to play at the 1953 US Pro tournament in Cleveland when he died of a massive stroke.

Originally Posted by pc1

Tilden not only would have been a potential contender for majors but in his prime he probably really would have been by far the major contender. You could even joke there were no contenders outside of him. It would probably be Tilden versus the rest of the field. Most likely the rest of the field would lose. I think there was a super chance Tilden would have win several Grand Slams and I would tend to think Tilden easily would have won over twenty majors. In his best years he won around 98% of his matches. Over his career, including the many years he was losing Tilden still won over fifty percent of his tournaments entered. His record is arguably as great as any, possibly greater than any player.

Tilden has every stroke. He had a great forehand, excellent backhand, a great serve, super movement and excellent stamina. His volley was okay but not great but he did win many a doubles titles so it was fine. He was also obsessed with studying the game. He was about 6'2" tall and I have no doubt if he played today he would have adapted easily to the tennis of today.

I am already well aware Tilden was clearly the best player in the World for about 6 or 7 years. However my question was whether he was a top 3 or 4 player in the World for about 20 years capable of winning majors had it been Open Era that whole time like Rosewall was (eg- was he top 3 in the World and a potential winner of hypothetical Open Era slams still in 1939). If he wasnt then I still consider Rosewall the best ever as far as longevity goes.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I am already well aware Tilden was clearly the best player in the World for about 6 or 7 years. However my question was whether he was a top 3 or 4 player in the World for about 20 years capable of winning majors had it been Open Era that whole time like Rosewall was (eg- was he top 3 in the World and a potential winner of hypothetical Open Era slams still in 1939). If he wasnt then I still consider Rosewall the best ever as far as longevity goes.

If you consider that he won his first tournament in 1918, was in the US Nationals final that year and that he dominated the pros for years until he was dethroned by Ellsworth Vines in 1934. If you consider that he won his last tournament in 1938 over the great Nusslein, yes I would say he's up there with Ken Rosewall. For longevity I would still give Rosewall the edge.

Originally Posted by pc1

If you consider that he won his first tournament in 1918, was in the US Nationals final that year and that he dominated the pros for years until he was dethroned by Ellsworth Vines in 1934. If you consider that he won his last tournament in 1938 over the great Nusslein, yes I would say he's up there with Ken Rosewall. For longevity I would still give Rosewall the edge.

Thanks, that is what I was wanting to know.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Rosewall is the one I have the hardest time ranking. I think he could be easily as high as #1 or #2 or as low as #6 or #7. I do think he easily had the best longevity of any great player ever. He was one of the 3 or 4 best players in the World for about 20 years, that is insane. It is also incredible he was the Worlds best clay courter for most of that time, in some ways he might be the real Clay GOAT even more than Nadal, and certainly above Borg atleast. Yet despite that as old as 36 and 37 in 71 and 72 he was also beating Laver who many still considered the best at that point in big matches on faster courts like the two WTF finals, which Laver desperately wanted to win, and at 39 or 40 besting the likes of John Newcombe on grass at Wimbledon and the U.S Open in 1974. My only issue with him in comparision to some of the others, especialy Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, and Federer, is he wasnt the Worlds best player nearly as long. Only about 2 or 3 years (Mustard even estimates it down at 2), which is much shorter than all those others. The others he was always generally 2nd or 3rd.

NadalAgassi, Thanks for the Rosewall praise. You are right that Muscles really dominated only 2-3 years. But his record looks better if we concede that he was a tied or Co. No.1 for several years: 1960, 1961, 1964, 1970, 1971. Even for 1959 he could be considered as he was 8:4 against Gonzalez and had the best overall record according his own claim.

The Little Master had bad luck insofar as his career coincided with Laver's and Gonzalez'. In his clashes with Rod he was rather old in most years (1965 till the end) in comparison to a four years younger Laver! In 1965 and 1966 he was pretty close to Rocket.

I rank Rosewall 16 times among the top 3, together with Gonzalez.

I think that Rosewall's lack of long domination as clear No.1 is compensated by his other super records: 23 majors won, 2 WCT finals won, 9 majors won in a row, positive balance against all other greats at big events, longevity and other feats.

I'm glad you rank Rosewall at least No.6 or 7, probably higher. Not all posters are doing that way...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think that's Bill Tilden. He played his first amateur match in 1912, and his last professional match in 1952.

Mustard, I agree that Tilden must be considered as possibly greatest regarding longevity. The years of playing don't count too much because Tilden was weak in his first years and in his last years. But I rank him very high because he almost won a match against pro champion, Riggs in 1946 when he was already 53!!! However: Rosewall was ranked at No.2 by Tingay for 1974 when he turned 40, a feat never reached by Tilden. But Tilden was great in 1939, at 46 when he thrice beat Budge...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Mustard, I agree that Tilden must be considered as possibly greatest regarding longevity. The years of playing don't count too much because Tilden was weak in his first years and in his last years. But I rank him very high because he almost won a match against pro champion, Riggs in 1946 when he was already 53!!! However: Rosewall was ranked at No.2 by Tingay for 1974 when he turned 40, a feat never reached by Tilden. But Tilden was great in 1939, at 46 when he thrice beat Budge...

We also must consider Gonzalez.

[fluffyyelloballz]

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 tied
6 Djokovic
7 Nadal
8 Lendl
8 McEnroe tied
10 Becker
10 Roche tied

Thanks I shall have to research Budge as I know little about him. As for Longevity and playing levels, I have never considered a top ten based on that. Interesting to see Becker and Novak in the list. I do agree that Novak's 2011 and Becker's prime was incredible.

[dominikk1985]

1. fed: he has the rafa issue and no strong opponents from 04-05 but career slam, longest no.1 and most slams. also probably GOAT in both W (most important slam) and USO. he also continued to win from 08-12 despite facing very strong opponents and not being the youngest guy.

2. laver: most dominant of all despite missing his prime years but I don't reward for "what if" and he did not have very strong opponents

3. pete: a lot of slams plus owned his main rivals. he also had to face a lot of good opponents. but he was just too weak on clay to be considered GOAT. no career slam

4.borg: very dominant and could have won more if not his early retirement and AO skipping. but again no what ifs so he is 4th

5. rafa: 11 slams plus owning the GOAT on clay. their h2h is skewed but even baby nadal could keep up with prime fed on every surface. however not good enough in the AO and USO to be considerd higher. career slam is nice but just one title each is a little thin. he is behind borg because borg dominated two slams vs rafas 1

6.connors: most tournaments won and very long no.1 and also missed some more slams because of AO skipping. however he did not have the best opponents (laver was old and borg not yet there), when borg took over he beat connors most of the time (especially 79-81 when connors did not win a single match)

7.from here it becomes tough. I go with lendl at 7

8.I go with macenroe since agassi was owned so much by pete

9.agassi: career slam and very long and successsfull career although he was owned by sampras

10. djokovic: not the most slams but he had to face a slightly past prime fed and prime nadal as probably the best opposition ever. murray is not bad either.