15 greatest players of all time

[BluBarry]

Originally Posted by flying24 & urban

Martina is easily over Steffi. Look at their head to head at the U.S Open to tell this. From 1986 onwards they played 4 times at the U.S Open and Navratilova went 3-1 vs Graf. Considering that Graf was 17 or older in all of these matches, and Navratilova was 29 or older for all of them, it makes it extremely clear Navratilova would have dominated Graf with both in their primes.

Actually a slight correction. Steffi leads their Head to Head 9-8 and although Martina does lead 3-1 at US Open matches, The only match in a Majors that Martina won after Steffi became so dominant was in 1991 which was a horrible year for Steffi given her father's trouble with having an affair and then being jailed for Tax Evation proved too much emotional trauma for Steffi to handle not to mention her skiing accident. Monica Seles became the dominant player that year by all standards.

I would also include that the 1989 US Open was Steffi Graf's greatest defeat of Martina aside from their 88-89 meetings at Wimbledon which was Martina's best surface. The argument as to who was better Martina or Steffi will go on for ages and I personally lean towards Steffi. But again I fully understand a lot of that lends to whom you like better and you will color your decision accordingly.

So for those that believe Martina was better, I give them their props because it really is a coin toss. My only observation is, Martina was not capable of handling the power as it grew in the Women's Game. Whereas, Steffi was able to not only handle it but thrive as always until she called it quits because her knees were reducing her ability to use her best weapon, her speed.

[BluBarry]

Originally Posted by justineheninhoogenbandfan

Maybe it is unfair to say but I feel the Seles stabbing taints Grafs career. Winning 10 out of 15 slams in a period directly after you won 2 of 9, after that rival who won 7 of 9 was stabbed in the back, I just have a hard time evaluating her the same way.
That is why I would put Evert over here.

Navratilova may be greater then Evert, I know most feel that way. Even though I rate Chris over, I know I am in the minority, and I would not tell the ones who rate Martina on top that they are wrong. My reasoning though is that I just like Evert's longevity and consistency over so many years alot. Not that Navratilova did not have that as well, heck she is playing high level doubles close to 50, and reached the Wimbledon singles final at 37. However even Navratilova was not one of the clearly two best female players in the World for 13 straight years like Evert was.

I am never about trying to insult or hurt a person's feeling but where in the World do you get this stuff? Are you just throwing crap out there to start a fight or something ? Because if that's the case, then I'll take your Post in stride, chuckle then move on. Ivan Lendl won the Lipton Internationals as a Walkover due to Tomas Muster getting hit by a car the night before the Finals. Therefore by your standards, that Title should be taken away from Lendl because he didn't earn it. I could go on & on, like maybe Mauresmo shouldn't have been given the Aussy Trophy until an actual match was played. This is Sports and regradless of why a person is or was not available to compete has nothing to do with the outcome. Who's to say that if Monica, Whom I adore, didn't get stabbed that Steffi wouldn't have beaten her anyway ? When Monica did come back full throttle and kicked everyone's butt in the Canadian Tuneups prior to the US Open and then breezed through the draw to meet Steffi in the Finals, I believe since I had a seat in the Player's Box that it was Steffi holding the Trophy.

btw - Sampras played Michael Chang in the Men's Finals and had Michael won, he would have rose to #1 in the World.

[thejuice]

IMO, the sad thing about the whole Graf/Seles rivalry is that Monica Seles would have won more slams had she not been stabbed. I totally agree with BluBarry that Monica should be no lower than #4 because she and Graf totally dominated probably the best era in women's tennis. I'm not 100% sure but I think she dominated Graf on every surface other than grass. Of course "what ifs" don't count but I believe we can all assume she would have won at least another three or four slam titles had she not been stabbed. That would have put her at 12 to 13 titles that don't include Tier 1 events.

Steffi should be clearly #1 to me because she was so dominant. She won 22 major titles (only two shy of Court) and she played during an era where they were all on different surfaces. I would go so far as to say she is in the top three all time players for both sexes. Let's get this clear, I am not a Steffi Graf fan. Whenever she played Seles I would ALWAYS cheer for Monica but you have to give her props for doing her thing consistently over the years.

One last comment, I would rate Agassi in the top seven at least due to the fact that he won every major on a different surface (that is why he and Steffi were made for each other). No other man has ever done that and he needs his true credit for such a feat.

[ATPballkid]

Originally Posted by capriatifanatic

Who would you rate the 15 greatest women and men players in history at this point?

Women-1)Navratilova, 2)Court, 3)Evert, 4)Lenglen, 5)Wills Moody, 6)Graf, 7)
Connoly, 8 )King, 9)Seles, 10)Serena Williams, 11)Goolagong, 12)Bueno, 13)Hard, 14)DuPont, 15)Capriati

That is how I would rate the women from 1st to 15th best.

Men-1)Laver, 2)Borg, 3)Gonzalez, 4)Sampras, 5)Rosewall, 6)Tilden, 7)Federer, 8 )Budge, 9)Perry 10)Lendl, 11)McEnroe, 12)Agassi, 13)Connors,
14)Kramer, 15)Wilander

That is how I would rate the men from 1st to 15th best.

I can already bet some of you wont like that I have Capriati in the top 15 but I really feel she belongs there.

great list but why is Sampras #4?

[ATPballkid]

Originally Posted by thejuice

IMO, the sad thing about the whole Graf/Seles rivalry is that Monica Seles would have won more slams had she not been stabbed. I totally agree with BluBarry that Monica should be no lower than #4 because she and Graf totally dominated probably the best era in women's tennis. I'm not 100% sure but I think she dominated Graf on every surface other than grass. Of course "what ifs" don't count but I believe we can all assume she would have won at least another three or four slam titles had she not been stabbed. That would have put her at 12 to 13 titles that don't include Tier 1 events.

Steffi should be clearly #1 to me because she was so dominant. She won 22 major titles (only two shy of Court) and she played during an era where they were all on different surfaces. I would go so far as to say she is in the top three all time players for both sexes. Let's get this clear, I am not a Steffi Graf fan. Whenever she played Seles I would ALWAYS cheer for Monica but you have to give her props for doing her thing consistently over the years.

One last comment, I would rate Agassi in the top seven at least due to the fact that he won every major on a different surface (that is why he and Steffi were made for each other). No other man has ever done that and he needs his true credit for such a feat.

Graf was pretty good ... as far as women tennis players go. The
problem with HER is twofold:

1. She had 2 or 3 great years before losing her #1 ranking until a
German fan of hers stabbed #1 Monica Seles in the back to reclaim any
semblance of #1 again.

2. Even with the stabbing of the red hot Monica Seles in the spring of
1993, SHE STILL did not establish any significant all-time records in
women's tennis other than the most U.S. Opens on hardcourts ... the
most weeks ranked #1 on the WTA computer rankings ... and the one for
having won each Slam 4 times (all of which would have, naturally, been
less likely if Seles had not been been stabbed.

Martina Navratilova is undeniably the greatest female tennis champion of all time.

[Aykhan Mammadov]

I have no intention to answer to post 1.

It just shows that the author knows not so much about tennis.

Wilander among 15 best in history ? Lendl whose hands were shaken against Cash in Wimby final. U are joking !!!

Capriati is among greatest ? With 3 slams ? And where is great Hingis with 5 then? And if to take into account their head-to- head score where Hingis leads with 5:4, and taking into account 41 titles of Hingis against 14 of Capriati?

U are JOKING !!!! This thread is not serious.

No way should Laver be ahead of Sampras,Federer or Agassi. Have you seen highlights of his matches? Anyone who plays in an era wear players wore khakis cannot be the best ever. Right now you have to say 1)Sampras 2) Bjorg 3)Federer 4)Agassi 5)Lendl. Sure Laver won the Grand Slam twice but did he do it on every surface like Agassi?

[ATPballkid]

Originally Posted by BluBarry

Unfortunately, your first sentence stopped me cold. I could get no further than your first 4 words "Seles would have had".

Unlike some of her more exhuberant fans who appear to exist in perpetual denial, Graf is very much aware of the all too common perception within the tennis community, & without, of the symbiotic relationship between her ultimate success and the forcible removal of Monica Seles from the game.

[flying24]

My list-

1)Navratilova
2)Court
3)Evert
4)Lenglen
5)Graf
6)King
7)Wills Moody
Connoly
9)Seles
10)Serena Williams
11)Bueno
12)Goolagong
13)Betz
14)Marble
15)Gibson


1)Sampras
2)Laver
3)Borg
4)Gonzalez
5)Rosewall
6)Federer
7)Budge
McEnroe
9)Connors
10)Tilden
11)Lendl
12)Perry
13)Kramer
14)Cochet
15)Hoad

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by flying24

First of all the Seles stabbing of course. While of course nobody will never know for sure what would have happened, one can never prove what would have happened, what is the fairest thing to do, completely ignore it, or by using some reasonable logic look at the total accomplishments of Graf in the post-stabbing years in a diminished way? One does not know for sure what would have happened, both Graf and Seles are too great to say with 100% certainty, and there are too many variables that come into play in sports, however the better question is what most LIKELY would have happened? Isnt that the fairer way to look at a situation like that, the most LIKELY.

No it is not. It is up to the players to prove the degree of their greatness, not for fans to guess.

The greatness of a player is based solely on their accomplishments, and the fact is that Monica Seles acheived what she acheived - no more, no less. She has failed to acheive more than Steffi Graf, and many other players in the sport. Why she failed, or what she would've acheived under different circumstances is completely irrelevant.

Let me put this as concisely as possible : Even if the Seles stabbing was a conspiracy on part of the entire WTA and Hall of Famers to stop her from winning, Seles would still remain in the exact same spot in terms of all-time greatest players.

Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished, and no one else deserves any "asterix" on their career for what Seles failed to accomplish. This is exactly why Laver gets credit for only two grand slams (or one if we're speaking of only open-era). Tempting as it may be, it is not up to us to guess what he would've accomplished had the rules not forbidden him to play the slams for several years. Nor does anyone else who won the grand slams while Laver wasn't allowed to play deserve any "asterix" in their list of accomplishments.


To answer the original question of this thread, I rank:
1.) Laver
2.) Sampras
3.) Borg
4 - 15) Doesn't really matter, but I would guess Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi would be in there.

I have left off Tilden, Gonzalez, etc since I don't know much about their careers.

[BluBarry]

Originally Posted by avmoghe

No it is not. It is up to the players to prove the degree of their greatness, not for fans to guess.

The greatness of a player is based solely on their accomplishments, and the fact is that Monica Seles acheived what she acheived - no more, no less. She has failed to acheive more than Steffi Graf, and many other players in the sport. Why she failed, or what she would've acheived under different circumstances is completely irrelevant.

Let me put this as concisely as possible : Even if the Seles stabbing was a conspiracy on part of the entire WTA and Hall of Famers to stop her from winning, Seles would still remain in the exact same spot in terms of all-time greatest players.

Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished, and no one else deserves any "asterix" on their career for what Seles failed to accomplish. This is exactly why Laver gets credit for only two grand slams (or one if we're speaking of only open-era). Tempting as it may be, it is not up to us to guess what he would've accomplished had the rules not forbidden him to play the slams for several years. Nor does anyone else who won the grand slams while Laver wasn't allowed to play deserve any "asterix" in their list of accomplishments.


To answer the original question of this thread, I rank:
1.) Laver
2.) Sampras
3.) Borg
4 - 15) Doesn't really matter, but I would guess Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi would be in there.

I have left off Tilden, Gonzalez, etc since I don't know much about their careers.

Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim

Originally Posted by avmoghe

"The Greatness of a Player is based solely on their accomplishments"

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *

So my point is, in talking about the GOAT as countless Poster have discussed, fought about, yelled & screamed about, insulted over for as long as Tennis Forums were around, have NEVER been concluded in any sort of agreement.
Why ? Because we see the Players we like differently than the next guy. When I started playing this game, Ivan Lendl was my first inspiration in attempting to copy a style. Then along comes Agassi and I liked the way he approached the game and I followed suit or tried to at least. And the fact that Andre is one of only five men that has won all four majors puts him in any conversation about the GOAT as I see it or spin it occuring to some.
Of course Andre isn't but you get my point I'm sure.

[avmoghe]

Originally Posted by BluBarry

Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *

So my point is, in talking about the GOAT as countless Poster have discussed, fought about, yelled & screamed about, insulted over for as long as Tennis Forums were around, have NEVER been concluded in any sort of agreement.
Why ? Because we see the Players we like differently than the next guy. When I started playing this game, Ivan Lendl was my first inspiration in attempting to copy a style. Then along comes Agassi and I liked the way he approached the game and I followed suit or tried to at least. And the fact that Andre is one of only five men that has won all four majors puts him in any conversation about the GOAT as I see it or spin it occuring to some.
Of course Andre isn't but you get my point I'm sure.

There is some misunderstanding here. I'm not conclusively putting Borg above Lendl - that's up to each and every person here. Every person here has his/her own opinion on which acheivement is greater. For example, if a person values winning all four grand slams above a number of the grand slam titles, that person can easily place Agassi over Sampras.

It is not my intention to argue that my list is the only valid one and everyone else's is wrong.



The entire point of my post was to to prove that players get judged on their accomplishments - not on what they may have accomplished had circumstances been different.

The entire top part of my post refers to why the Seles stabbing means absolutely nothing in terms of her greatness. Seles deserves credit for what she accomplished and nothing else, and Graf or anyone else deserves credit for everything they've accomplished themselves. The fact that Seles was stabbed does not in any way reduce the validity of other's accomplishments.

[Arafel]

Originally Posted by BluBarry

Without commenting on your entire Post, you claim

To some degree one would have to agree with that however in my personal estimation I extend that definition to also include the Intangibles such as the Players technical skills, ability to succeed on a variety of surfaces, tactical aptitude and consistancy. Taking note that you didn't claim how many Slam Titles a person needs to have in order to proclaim them as great.

Ivan Lendl reached 8 consecutive US Open Finals from 1982 - 1989 winning three in a row 85-86-87. Also tallied a total of 94 Singles Titles during his reign.
Match Record - 1070/238
Held #1 Ranking for 270 weeks. And speaking of consistency,
Austrailian Open - 3 Straight Finals
French Open - 4 Straight Finals
Wimbledon - 2 Straight Finals
Us Open - 8 Straight Finals
-----------------------------------------
Regarding the Master's Cup
5 Winners 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987
8 Finals 8 years in a Row
11 Semifinals or better 11 years in a Row

* But yet you place Borg above him when you distinctly proclaim accomplishments is your barameter to go by.
Borg, as good or great as he was, never won the US Open or Austrailian Open.
Held the Number One Ranking far less weeks then Lendl and other than Wimbledon, didn't have a consecutive record close to what Ivan had. *

Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

[irishbanger]

If you take these players, in their prime, and have a tournament, players like Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, go out early. Laver couldn't crack the top 10 today---its just the evolution of the sport.

[Arafel]

Originally Posted by pits of the world

No way should Laver be ahead of Sampras,Federer or Agassi. Have you seen highlights of his matches? Anyone who plays in an era wear players wore khakis cannot be the best ever. Right now you have to say 1)Sampras 2) Bjorg 3)Federer 4)Agassi 5)Lendl. Sure Laver won the Grand Slam twice but did he do it on every surface like Agassi?

I'm going to assume you are young. First, while three of the Slams were on grass in Laver's era, the grass played quite differently in each venue, much like while the Australian and US currently are on hard courts, they play differently.

Laver won 2 CALENDAR year Slams. That trumps Agassi winning each Slam at least once. I don't understand this focus on these boards on a "Career Slam." When did that become a yardstick? I remember Martina winning 6 straight Slams at one point; nobody made a big deal of a "Martina Slam" or a "Career Slam" then. It seems that people keep trying to reduce the yardstick of greatness, instead of setting something high for people to aspire to.

[BluBarry]

Originally Posted by Arafel

Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

Oh Please ! There's way too much there to get into but I'm sorry to say Lendl's accomplishments out weigh Borg's imo. Even though we all know Borg was fantastic. So if you've followed my trend of thought within this Thread, you will notice that accomplishments don't necessarily solidify one Player over another. There are other factors you have to take in consideration in order to have a serious discuss about the GOAT.

As for Seles, I firmly believe Monica would have done much more but given what the History Books tell us that's all I can go by. And I keep hearing how Seles Owned Graf but if any of you actually watch any of those matches as I did, you would have seen that Seles' wins over Graf almost always came down to a point here or there that made the difference. Like Monica's last victory over Steffi at the French where it went 8-6 in the 3rd. Monica broke Steffi's 6th game and I believe they had something like 4 deuces before Monica finally broke. Actually the only blowout between them was at Wimbledon and even though I was extremely happy for Steffi winning, I was equally disappointed in Monica's performance because she was just too good for that type of beating.

[BluBarry]

Originally Posted by Arafel

Borg won 4 straight French Opens between 78-81 and 3 straight Wimbledons, plus made the finals of the 81 Wimbledon. Yes, Borg never won the US. It was his one weak spot, just like Wimbledon was Lendl's. But Borg came far closer to winning his weakest Slam (4 finals) than Lendl did his (2 finals). Your point about Australia isn't valid because Borg never played it. In the late 70s-early 80s, the Australian wasn't very important, and ranked below several other tournaments like Dallas, Philly, and the Masters. Borg's accomplishments trump Lendl's.

For that matter, so do Connors'. Connors owned Lendl until 84, when his age caught up to him and made it much harder for him to compete. Most of Lendl's wins over Connors came way past Connors' prime. Connors beat Lendl in the two most important matches they played, the US Open finals in 82-83.

Btw - Lendl also had four straight French Finals and two straight Wimbledon's where the Grass wasn't his favorite surface as it was for Borg. And what do you mean by "Came closer to winning ?" Either you win or you lose (period)

[stormholloway]

Grass was Borg's favorite surface? That's not true. Just because he loved Wimbledon doesn't make it his favorite surface in terms of his skills and style of play. Borg was a clay court player by all standards. The fact that he dominated Wimbledon just showed how talented he was. In fact, I don't see how Borg's game was more suited to grass than Lendl's. Lendl was better suited to faster surfaces than Borg, yet Borg has the 5 Wimbledon titles.

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

Wasnt Lendl considered a choker in big matches from 82-84(his French Open final win was because Mac choked)? The 83 U.S Open final I have seen on tape and it was an epic meltdown from serving for the 3rd set, really ugly stuff.

[Arafel]

Originally Posted by BluBarry

Btw - Lendl also had four straight French Finals and two straight Wimbledon's where the Grass wasn't his favorite surface as it was for Borg. And what do you mean by "Came closer to winning ?" Either you win or you lose (period)

I mean just that. Borg played 4 US finals, 76, 78. 80-81. the 76 final against Connors and 80 final against McEnroe were both very close, 4 sets and 5 sets respectively, and a point here or there could have tipped the match to Borg.

Lendl played 2 Wimbeldon finals, but didn't win a set in either of them and wasn't particularly in the match.

Further, Borg winning 3 straight French-Wimbledon combos, considering the small amount of time between the tournaments, trumps ANYTHING Lendl accomplished.