Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
gino, You cannot have studied tennis history seriously. If you would have you would not rank Emerson (a non-top 20 player) at place 7 or 8. You are the only poster since years who rate Emerson ahead of giants like Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Hoad, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Newcombe, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl (I probably forgot a few).

EVERY serious tennis fan does know that Laver, Roche and Ashe were not at the top of their games during those finals! Just an example: Roche was about No.10 in the world when he lost to Emmo. Two years later he was mature and got to No.2 of ther world. In 1967 he was too young.

Ashe in 1966 and 1967 was not even a top ten player. After he matured he got to No.2 in 1968. Please don't reply by bringing me the amateur rankings of the 1960's. They are irrelevant in comparison with the "mixed" rankings of amateurs PLUS pros.

If you don't believe me and the other posters here, please ask Rod Laver and Tony Roche if they were tops when losing to Emerson.
Click to expand...
Bobby, Roche was the defending champion at Roland Garros in 1967...Emmo dominated him in the final.
Ashe defeated Emmo in the 1965 U.S. at Forest Hills, and became an overnight star as a result...Ashe could play tennis.
Laver matured fully as a player in 1961, dominated the Wimbledon event that year, and Emmo's win over Laver in the Forest Hills final was a major win.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
gino said:
All I get is criticism, man! I actually considered someone giving me advice and get bashed for it! Bummer. I'd like to see @BobbyOne strike a few tennis balls and give him my constructive criticism without making it personal or offensive o_O:eek:
Click to expand...

gino, I apologize for the term "ignoramus". But believe me, I was called ignoramus and idiot by well-known posters here and I even have survived...

I still must say that your rankings are not serious as they ignore the great achievements of the old pros before open era. That's your problem, not mine.

By the way, I'm a terribly bad tennis player. In tennis history I'm 1000 times better...

You did consider the advice regarding Gonzalez but none of my advices regarding Rosewall, Laver, Roche and Ashe.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Rosewall was sharp and looked great in his first several matches against Laver...he saw no need to spend many practice matches against Laver and help Laver prepare to beat Rosewall's game, of course.
Yes, prize money is closely correlated to success on the tennis court.
Click to expand...

Dan, No comment.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
This statement I do not understand. It must be a strange subtlety of translation.
Click to expand...

hoodjem, Some posters here (Limpin etc.) use to discuss with me only in a hostile way. That's not fair.

I differ between reasonable anger (or even hate) and unreasonable hate.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, Roche was the defending champion at Roland Garros in 1967...Emmo dominated him in the final.
Ashe defeated Emmo in the 1965 U.S. at Forest Hills, and became an overnight star as a result...Ashe could play tennis.
Laver matured fully as a player in 1961, dominated the Wimbledon event that year, and Emmo's win over Laver in the Forest Hills final was a major win.
Click to expand...

Dan, It's senseless to discuss with you if you , like gino, ignore tennis history and the true rankings. If a fan says that Santana or Emerson or Stolle was the true No.1 in 1966 (as all three were listed up in several rankings) then I know he/she has not studied tennis history!!
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Dan, You ignore tennis history. Laver, Roche and Ashe were way behind their peak years when losing to Emerson.
Click to expand...
Bobby, Laver was fully mature in 1961 and 1962...Laver blew Rosewall away at Kooyong and Adelaide in January 1963, which shows just how developed his game had become in the amateur ranks.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Bobby, Laver was fully mature in 1961 and 1962...Laver blew Rosewall away at Kooyong and Adelaide in January 1963, which shows just how developed his game had become in the amateur ranks.
Click to expand...

Dan, Just ask Laver or Rosewall. Or read Laver's book. Laver said after his first match as a pro: "I figured I would have to learn tennis a second time" (about that formulation). Why has he said that if he was matured? And why did he lose almost all matches against Rosewall and Hoad in their series?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne said:
Dan, Just ask Laver or Rosewall. Or read Laver's book. Laver said after his first match as a pro: "I figured I would have to learn tennis a second time" (about that formulation). Why has he said that if he was matured? And why did he lose almost all matches against Rosewall and Hoad in their series?
Click to expand...
Bobby, read the facts again...Laver adjusted quickly to Hoad and Rosewall, and blew Rosewall off the court in best-of-five set matches at Kooyong and Adelaide in January 1963...he arrived quickly.
 
gino

gino

Legend
pc1 said:
Don't worry about it. Just state your opinions and if people disagree they will hopefully give reasons why. You can take their reasons into account or not. I live in New York and people tend to be very straightforward here to say the least so I'm used to it. Your views are just as good as anyone else's.

Are you a Warrior's fan? With Durant they look almost unbeatable on paper.
Click to expand...

Amen to that @pc1 ... Don't think he meant any harm, but the conceited and arrogant way in which he provides criticism is lost on me. Not fan.

Since I was young. Very young. The dubs used to average ~20 wins on paper and now we're the modern showtime Lakers. A total departure from what I've been used to as a Oakland sports fan. I was in those seats at Oracle when we were getting blown out by non-playoff teams.

As far as Kevin goes.. Very pumped. No doubt stephen, klay, and dray will see a decline in their production. Although stephen/dray may see a boost in APG... But KD is a proven scorer that we can go to in isolation when the ball movement becomes flat. He will make the squad sooo much harder to defend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
gino

gino

Legend
BobbyOne said:
gino, Having been a NCAA player and coach does NOT nevcessarily mean that such a person is an expert in tennis history. I'm sure that even Bollettieri does not know the half about playing strength of Tilden, Gonzalez and Roche of what most posters here are knowing. He surely has not studied the results of those players as meticulously as our best posters here have done and especially great experts like Collins and McCauley have done.

Be proud of what you have done as a player and coach but please don't try to rewrite tennis history!
Click to expand...

Fair enough @BobbyOne ..... I do believe that I know a lot more about the history of the game then my contemporaries. However, maybe next time you challenge my claims we can have a mutually constructive dialouge
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
gino said:
Since I was young. Very young. The dubs used to average ~20 wins on paper and now we're the modern showtime Lakers. A total departure from what I've been used to as a Oakland sports fan. I was in those seats at Oracle when we were getting blown out by non-playoff teams.

As far as Kevin goes.. Very pumped. No doubt stephen, klay, and dray will see a decline in their production. Although stephen/dray may see a boost in APG... But KD is a proven scorer that we can go to in isolation when the ball movement becomes flat. He will make the squad sooo much harder to defend.
Click to expand...

I was rooting for Warriors during the playoffs. It seemed to me that it would be a shame if a 73 win team didn't win the championship. Now with Durant they have even more options. Can they win 70 games again? It may take a little while for them to get some chemistry but hopefully by playoff time they will be ready.
 
gino

gino

Legend
pc1 said:
I was rooting for Warriors during the playoffs. It seemed to me that it would be a shame if a 73 win team didn't win the championship. Now with Durant they have even more options. Can they win 70 games again? It may take a little while for them to get some chemistry but hopefully by playoff time they will be ready.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that sentiment. As a die-hard Oakland fan. I was enamored when I was able to experience the first parade of my life in 2015 in Oakland. It meant so much to the fans, the city, and the old players. Nobody likes us. We've morphed into this pseudo-villian without any actual concrete evidence to validate that hatred. WE drafted Stephen, Klay, Draymond, Harrison, Festus, Kent Bazemore (just signed a massive deal with ATL), and have recruited second-tier free agents that have transformed our culture (Iguodala, Bogut, Livingston, Barbosa, Speights, etc). NBA "fans" should appreciate a team that is crafted from smart recruitment and draft day tactics....The team's popularity on a national scale has increased exponentially since 2011-2012 ( when Nate Robinson was our starting PG for more games then Steph). People forget the warriors were the asscrack of the league for 40+ years. Everyone has been so quick to support and rally around LeBron whining his way into the right situation. Don't get me wrong. I respect the hell out of LeBron. But enough is enough. He singlehandedly got Dray suspended for game 5. Enough of the retrospective criticism. We lost. Bummer

As far as next year goes. I have us winning anywhere from 65-68 games and retaining the #1 seed in the NBA. No record breaking performances. Durant, Steph, Klay, and Draymond will rest 20-25+ 4th quarters and get their third shot at the Cavs. The Cavs are sneakily adding some depth around their core. Mike Dunlevy is a knock-down shooter. Frye never really got going for them. They will be better. The dubs need to develop a new defensive scheme with the omission of Bogut, who is a MASSIVE loss on the defensive end. With the likes of Zaza, Javale, and KD nearing 7-feet tall, we need Ron Adams to prove his worth as a defensive guru. Steve has a lot to worry about, but a lot to be thankful for. I am so excited. I cannot wait. But, I will eagerly be biting my fingernails until the post-season. Wins don't mean anything until May. Any loyalties in the NBA, @pc1?
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
gino said:
I appreciate that sentiment. As a die-hard Oakland fan. I was enamored when I was able to experience the first parade of my life in 2015 in Oakland. It meant so much to the fans, the city, and the old players. Nobody likes us. We've morphed into this pseudo-villian without any actual concrete evidence to validate that hatred. WE drafted Stephen, Klay, Draymond, Harrison, Festus, Kent Bazemore (just signed a massive deal with ATL), and have recruited second-tier free agents that have transformed our culture (Iguodala, Bogut, Livingston, Barbosa, Speights, etc). NBA "fans" should appreciate a team that is crafted from smart recruitment and draft day tactics....The team's popularity on a national scale has increased exponentially since 2011-2012 ( when Nate Robinson was our starting PG for more games then Steph). People forget the warriors were the asscrack of the league for 40+ years. Everyone has been so quick to support and rally around LeBron whining his way into the right situation. Don't get me wrong. I respect the hell out of LeBron. But enough is enough. He singlehandedly got Dray suspended for game 5. Enough of the retrospective criticism. We lost. Bummer

As far as next year goes. I have us winning anywhere from 65-68 games and retaining the #1 seed in the NBA. No record breaking performances. Durant, Steph, Klay, and Draymond will rest 20-25+ 4th quarters and get their third shot at the Cavs. The Cavs are sneakily adding some depth around their core. Mike Dunlevy is a knock-down shooter. Frye never really got going for them. They will be better. The dubs need to develop a new defensive scheme with the omission of Bogut, who is a MASSIVE loss on the defensive end. With the likes of Zaza, Javale, and KD nearing 7-feet tall, we need Ron Adams to prove his worth as a defensive guru. Steve has a lot to worry about, but a lot to be thankful for. I am so excited. I cannot wait. But, I will eagerly be biting my fingernails until the post-season. Wins don't mean anything until May. Any loyalties in the NBA, @pc1?
Click to expand...
Well I'm a long time Knick fan. So basically I haven't seen a championship it seems for eternity.
 
gino

gino

Legend
pc1 said:
Well I'm a long time Knick fan. So basically I haven't seen a championship it seems for eternity.
Click to expand...

Not a bad team to be associated with. The addition of Rose, Noah, and Courtney Lee will definitely propel the Knicks into playoff contention. I think they will land 4-5 seed in the East. The Knickerbocker squad is definitely looking up
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
gino said:
Not a bad team to be associated with. The addition of Rose, Noah, and Courtney Lee will definitely propel the Knicks into playoff contention. I think they will land 4-5 seed in the East. The Knickerbocker squad is definitely looking up
Click to expand...
They look better and I think they are a playoff team. If they met your team in the playoffs (they won't get that far) they would be swept.

By the way since Joakim Noah is the son of Yannick Noah (who by the way had the best overhead I've ever seen) I wonder how is his tennis game. Most super tall tennis players aren't that agile and athletic but Joakim is so I wonder if he didn't have the talent to be a great tennis player. He grew up a Knick fan by the way. Hopefully Derrick Rose will play somewhat close to his old MVP level.
 
gino

gino

Legend
pc1 said:
They look better and I think they are a playoff team. If they met your team in the playoffs (they won't get that far) they would be swept.

By the way since Joakim Noah is the son of Yannick Noah (who by the way had the best overhead I've ever seen) I wonder how is his tennis game. Most super tall tennis players aren't that agile and athletic but Joakim is so I wonder if he didn't have the talent to be a great tennis player. He grew up a Knick fan by the way. Hopefully Derrick Rose will play somewhat close to his old MVP level.
Click to expand...
Love the story of Yannick and Joakhim. Had no clue he grew up a Knicks fan, that's awesome. Rose looked much more comfortable last year. Not his explosive self, but towards the end of the season he picked up those poor shooting percentages and really flourished as a primary ball handler. In this stage of his career, I hope he becomes a pass-first guard and let's the lanes come to him. He cannot dunk over 7-footers any more, but damn, the boy can play. Stoked to see how courtney lee adjusts to the offense and gives Melo/Rose more spacing
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Brett69 said:
11)Borg
12) Gonzales
13)Perry
14) Rosewall
Click to expand...

Don Budge? Jack Kramer? Bill Tilden? Ellsworth Vines? All above Perry, in my view.

Further, for me, Borg and Gonzales are genuine GOAT candidates along with Federer, Sampras and Laver. Djokovic is on the cusp. Connors, Nadal, Agassi, McEnroe and Lendl are all time greats just a step below. Murray isn't quite there yet. Again, just my 2 cents.

PS: Some excellent footage of Perry beginning at about :36 seconds:

 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Don Budge? Jack Kramer? Bill Tilden? Ellsworth Vines? All above Perry, in my view.

Further, for me, Borg and Gonzales are genuine GOAT candidates along with Federer, Sampras and Laver. Djokovic is on the cusp. Connors, Nadal, Agassi, McEnroe and Lendl are all time greats just a step below. Murray isn't quite there yet. Again, just my 2 cents.

PS: Some excellent footage of Perry beginning at about :36 seconds:

Click to expand...
Perry shows his great forehand in these clips, but his backhand here is nothing more than a chip shot, or "cut"....not a world class shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Brett69 said:
1) Connors
2) Nadal
3)Federer
4)Sampras
5) Laver
6)Agassi
7) McEnroe
8) Lendl
9) Djokovic
10) Murray
Click to expand...

Murray at #10?

Above the likes of Borg etc...and just below Djokovic. Can't see any rational basis for that.

If you rank Djokovic so lowly I can't see the basis for putting Murray at #10 considering the usual nonsense about him being cost slams by the competition.
 
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Here is a ranking which doesn't rank by achievements or by peak, but by likelihood to being the GOAT.

Position 1 to 3: Federer, Gonzalez, Laver. One of this player is the GOAT. It's difficult to rank them because they played under very different circumstances. Laver and Gonzalez achievements are bigger than Federer, but Federer performed under the more transparent current system, which I endorse versus the systems in place during Gonzalez and Laver. Also I love him, so probably Federer n°1, Laver n°2, Gonzalez n°3.

Position 4 to 9: Borg, Kramer, Tilden, Nadal, Rosewall. These are players that I think are inferiors to the first 3 and so are not GOAT candidates, but there are so many parameters which are difficult to take into account that I may be wrong. Kramer and Tilden I can't rank more precisely, but given their achievements and/or reputation, they are up there. Rosewall is the most achieved player ever to me, but I do agree his peak might have not been high enough. Borg should have played longer. Nadal is an animal and is up there in peak level with anyone on all surfaces under the current playing conditions. For this reason I think I would rank him close to the bottom of this list, because I can't really see him perform nearly as well under different playing conditions. He played in the perfect era for his strength and weakness.

Position 10: Sampras. Clearly better than everyone not already mentioned, but his clay resume is insufficient for a GOAT candidate, and for that alone can't be in higher group. My critic of his clay achievement is not based on comparison with other player in this list, but because he was out achieved or matched by too many lesser players from his own era.

Djokovic is not in the list but he could quickly join the second group, or even the first group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
Brett69

Brett69

Rookie
NatF said:
Murray at #10?

Above the likes of Borg etc...and just below Djokovic. Can't see any rational basis for that.

If you rank Djokovic so lowly I can't see the basis for putting Murray at #10 considering the usual nonsense about him being cost slams by the competition.
Click to expand...
I'll bottom line this for you: these lists are all opinion based. I hated that Borg retired at 26 so imo it greatly diminished his status. Again, completely subjective and my opinion. Murray winning 2 Wimbys an Open back 2 back Olympic gold and runner up at A.O and the F.O seems impressive in this highly competitive era.
Notice how I placed Connors #1? That would be cannon fodder for the tennis purists out there. No player has ever won more singles titles. Nobody! Much less a player 5'9 and 155lbs . He overachieved and was under appreciated. Again...just my opinion
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
This is interesting.

Who is the guy with the funky serve wearing shorts at the beginning?
Click to expand...

I don't know more than what is stated on the video itself. I just thought Perry's shotmaking looked impressive, even if he lost that match. He is known for his forehand which was somewhat unorthodox, flat, sometimes underspin, with very little follow through. Yet, he hit the hell out of the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
L

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Brett69 said:
I'll bottom line this for you: these lists are all opinion based. I hated that Borg retired at 26 so imo it greatly diminished his status. Again, completely subjective and my opinion. Murray winning 2 Wimbys an Open back 2 back Olympic gold and runner up at A.O and the F.O seems impressive in this highly competitive era.
Notice how I placed Connors #1? That would be cannon fodder for the tennis purists out there. No player has ever won more singles titles. Nobody! Much less a player 5'9 and 155lbs . He overachieved and was under appreciated. Again...just my opinion
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that Connors is an all time great. I wouldn't put him at #1 myself. I would also say that he was no overachiever. He was massively talented and he fulfilled his talent. Too bad Neale Fraser couldn't help him more with his serve. If he had more of a weapon for a serve, he might have been a GOAT candidate.

FYI, Connors is 5'10", and he won about 150 total singles titles (more or less). Laver was about 5' 8.5" (he looks like he's shrunk a bit), and won 200 singles titles that can be found so far.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
Here is a ranking which doesn't rank by achievements or by peak, but by likelihood to being the GOAT.

Position 1 to 3: Federer, Gonzalez, Laver. One of this player is the GOAT. It's difficult to rank them because they played under very different circumstances. Laver and Gonzalez achievements are bigger than Federer, but Federer performed under the more transparent current system, which I endorse versus the systems in place during Gonzalez and Laver. Also I love him, so probably Federer n°1, Laver n°2, Gonzalez n°3.

Position 4 to 9: Borg, Kramer, Tilden, Nadal, Rosewall. These are players that I think are inferiors to the first 3 and so are not GOAT candidates, but there are so many parameters which are difficult to take into account that I may be wrong. Kramer and Tilden I can't rank more precisely, but given their achievements and/or reputation, they are up there. Rosewall is the most achieved player ever to me, but I do agree his peak might have not been high enough. Borg should have played longer. Nadal is an animal and is up there in peak level with anyone on all surfaces under the current playing conditions. For this reason I think I would rank him close to the bottom of this list, because I can't really see him perform nearly as well under different playing conditions. He played in the perfect era for his strength and weakness.

Position 10: Sampras. Clearly better than everyone not already mentioned, but his clay resume is insufficient for a GOAT candidate, and for that alone can't be in higher group. My critic of his clay achievement is not based on comparison with other player in this list, but because he was out achieved or matched by too many lesser players from his own era.

Djokovic is not in the list but he could quickly join the second group, or even the first group.
Click to expand...

Flash, I think you have forgotten one player regarding 4 to 9. I only counted 5 players therein.

Thanks for calling Rosewall the most achieved player ever. Not many posters would say this.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Brett69 said:
I'll bottom line this for you: these lists are all opinion based. I hated that Borg retired at 26 so imo it greatly diminished his status. Again, completely subjective and my opinion. Murray winning 2 Wimbys an Open back 2 back Olympic gold and runner up at A.O and the F.O seems impressive in this highly competitive era.
Notice how I placed Connors #1? That would be cannon fodder for the tennis purists out there. No player has ever won more singles titles. Nobody! Much less a player 5'9 and 155lbs . He overachieved and was under appreciated. Again...just my opinion
Click to expand...

Brett69, Connors won about 150 titles, Laver won at least 200 titles.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
I don't know more than what is stated on the video itself. I just thought Perry's shotmaking looked impressive, even if he lost that match. He is known for his forehand which was somewhat unorthodox, flat, sometimes underspin, with very little follow through. Yet, he hit the hell out of the ball.
Click to expand...
Yep. OK, thanks.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
This is interesting.

Who is the guy with the funky serve wearing shorts at the beginning?
Click to expand...
Limpinhitter said:
I don't know more than what is stated on the video itself. I just thought Perry's shotmaking looked impressive, even if he lost that match. He is known for his forehand which was somewhat unorthodox, flat, sometimes underspin, with very little follow through. Yet, he hit the hell out of the ball.
Click to expand...
It was the "Fifth Musketeer": Christian Boussus, a French left-hander. (In this video he lost to the English Pat Hughes.)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Boussus

A description of his funky serve:
"He further analysed his service game and found it be most unorthodox. Boussus completely omitted to swing his racquet behind his head while serving making his serves rather ineffective."
 
Last edited:
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
Position 10: Sampras. Clearly better than everyone not already mentioned, but his clay resume is insufficient for a GOAT candidate, and for that alone can't be in higher group. My critic of his clay achievement is not based on comparison with other player in this list, but because he was out achieved or matched by too many lesser players from his own era.
Click to expand...

Please explain why Sampras is at No 10 and yet Pancho is a GOAT candidate, to you. They both had a clay weakness.

Not sure why there is a growing consensus on this board that Gonzales is up there with Federer and Laver as one of the undisputed all-time top 3/GOAT candidates.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Brett69 said:
I'll bottom line this for you: these lists are all opinion based. I hated that Borg retired at 26 so imo it greatly diminished his status. Again, completely subjective and my opinion. Murray winning 2 Wimbys an Open back 2 back Olympic gold and runner up at A.O and the F.O seems impressive in this highly competitive era.
Notice how I placed Connors #1? That would be cannon fodder for the tennis purists out there. No player has ever won more singles titles. Nobody! Much less a player 5'9 and 155lbs . He overachieved and was under appreciated. Again...just my opinion
Click to expand...

Opinions can be wrong. If I wanted I could have picked out Connors at #1, Nadal above Federer, Agassi's and Djokovic's places but by far the most crazy thing of all is Murray at #10. Forget about the guys in the pre-open era, placing Murray above the likes of Edberg/Becker/Wilander is silly enough but Borg.

You rate Murray for competing in an highly competitive era. Well Borg won far more and did it competing against your #1 pick. Murray with 3 slams at #10 is completely indefensible for so many reasons. Most of Murray's big successes have come when Nadal wasn't even in the draw :D

The Murray hype is insane.

But you have your right to your opinion afterall...
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NatF said:
Opinions can be wrong. If I wanted I could have picked out Connors at #1, Nadal above Federer, Agassi's and Djokovic's places but by far the most crazy thing of all is Murray at #10. Forget about the guys in the pre-open era, placing Murray above the likes of Edberg/Becker/Wilander is silly enough but Borg.

You rate Murray for competing in an highly competitive era. Well Borg won far more and did it competing against your #1 pick. Murray with 3 slams at #10 is completely indefensible for so many reasons. Most of Murray's big successes have come when Nadal wasn't even in the draw :D

The Murray hype is insane.

But you have your right to your opinion afterall...
Click to expand...
I agree. There's no way Murray is in the top ten but I will say he is imo one of the most talented players I've seen.
 
Brett69

Brett69

Rookie
NatF said:
Opinions can be wrong. If I wanted I could have picked out Connors at #1, Nadal above Federer, Agassi's and Djokovic's places but by far the most crazy thing of all is Murray at #10. Forget about the guys in the pre-open era, placing Murray above the likes of Edberg/Becker/Wilander is silly enough but Borg.

You rate Murray for competing in an highly competitive era. Well Borg won far more and did it competing against your #1 pick. Murray with 3 slams at #10 is completely indefensible for so many reasons. Most of Murray's big successes have come when Nadal wasn't even in the draw :D

The Murray hype is insane.

But you have your right to your opinion afterall...
Click to expand...
Dude,just chill. This is hardly worth taking that serious. It's just an opinion, and honestly when I got to number 4 or 5 I started to realize, who cares?
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
I agree. There's no way Murray is in the top ten but I will say he is imo one of the most talented players I've seen.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree with you :D or at least I think the implementation of that talent leaves a lot to be desired it it is there.

Brett69 said:
Dude,just chill. This is hardly worth taking that serious. It's just an opinion, and honestly when I got to number 4 or 5 I started to realize, who cares?
Click to expand...

I'm chilled, I just disagree with you. Maybe you need to calm down if you can't handle a little disagreement ;)

I'm not one to mince my words too much, but I'm hardly upset by your list :D
 
Brett69

Brett69

Rookie
Limpinhitter said:
There's no doubt that Connors is an all time great. I wouldn't put him at #1 myself. I would also say that he was no overachiever. He was massively talented and he fulfilled his talent. Too bad Neale Fraser couldn't help him more with his serve. If he had more of a weapon for a serve, he might have been a GOAT candidate.

FYI, Connors is 5'10", and he won about 150 total singles titles (more or less). Laver was about 5' 8.5" (he looks like he's shrunk a bit), and won 200 singles titles that can be found so far.
Click to expand...
Connors was officially listed as 5'10 and 155. I can tell you that having met him a few times, he wasn't 5'10. Now, I didn't stand next to him in his prime so it's possible he might have lost an inch ( in height) Gravity brings you down.
I disagree that he was massively talented. McEnroe is massively talented. Federer is massively talented. Agassi was massively talented. Guys like Connors,Borg and Nadal are talented through tremendous hard work
 
Brett69

Brett69

Rookie
NatF said:
Well I disagree with you :D or at least I think the implementation of that talent leaves a lot to be desired it it is there.



I'm chilled, I just disagree with you. Maybe you need to calm down if you can't handle a little disagreement ;)

I'm not one to mince my words too much, but I'm hardly upset by your list :D
Click to expand...
I can handle your disagreement. I thought you were getting uptight about my list. Believe me , it's all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

granddog29
Whats your top 10 all time now (women)
Replies
21
Views
1K
DMP
D
tennisaddict
Top 10 in 5 years time
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
Nadalgaenger
Nadalgaenger
granddog29
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
280 281 282
Replies
14K
Views
436K
borg number one
borg number one
90's Clay
List your top 10 all time for both men and women at this point in time
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
22K
DSH
DSH
S
  • Poll
Who are the final 2 top 10 female players of all time
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
PDJ
PDJ
Top