What is a Tennis Great?

Wuornos · Nov 8, 2007

When you talk about a player being one of the greats, what exactly do you mean?

How many players do you classify as greats?

For me it would be around the dozen mark for the men and an equal number for the women in the open era, with a similar number below that, that I would refer to as good players but not greats.

saram · Nov 8, 2007

I would say a great wins more than one slam on more than one surface. Is able to attain #1 at the end of the year for more than just one season--not necessarily back to back, but more than one season. They are able to stay at or near the top for three to four years. Able to challenge the clay court specialists, S&V players, etc.

Someone that basically stands above all others during his/her era for a good tenure.

saram · Nov 8, 2007

I would say there have been about 10-15 greats. To name a few (and forget some others)...

Bjorg
Llendl
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
Laver
Johnny Mac
Connors
Edberg

Court
Graf
Henin
Serena
Venus
Hingis
Navratilova
Evert

I am sure I have forgone a few. There were others that were close...

Chang
Becker
Courier
Noah
Hewitt
Safin
Davenport
Seles
Capriati

Go ahead...blast me....I'm sure some will...

Mingo · Nov 8, 2007

Dozen sounds about right to me

Wuornos · Nov 9, 2007

saram said:
I would say there have been about 10-15 greats. To name a few (and forget some others)...

Bjorg
Llendl
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
Laver
Johnny Mac
Connors
Edberg

Court
Graf
Henin
Serena
Venus
Hingis
Navratilova
Evert

I am sure I have forgone a few. There were others that were close...

Chang
Becker
Courier
Noah
Hewitt
Safin
Davenport
Seles
Capriati

Go ahead...blast me....I'm sure some will...

I doubt anyone would blast you for those selections.

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts.

Based purely on my personal opinion and not through my favourite statistical pass time, my selections are very similar to yours. As follows:

Male Greats

Roger Federer
Ivan Lendl
Rod Laver
Pete Sampras
Björn Borg
Mats Wilander
Jim Courier
John McEnroe
Andre Agassi
Boris Becker
Jimmy Connors
Ken Rosewall

Male Good/Close

Stefan Edberg
Guillermo Vilas
Rafael Nadal
Ilie Năstase
Stan Smith
John Newcombe
Jan Kodeš
Arthur Ashe
Lleyton Hewitt
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Andy Roddick
Pat Cash
Patrick Rafter
Johan Kriek
Gustavo Kuerten
Vitas Gerulaitis
Marat Safin

Female Greats

Steffi Graf
Martina Navratilova
Margaret Smith Court
Monica Seles
Chris Evert
Serena Williams
Martina Hingis
Venus Williams
Billie Jean King
Justine Henin
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario
Evonne Goolagong
Lindsay Davenport
Hana Mandlíková

Female Good / Close

Jennifer Capriati
Maria Sharapova
Amélie Mauresmo
Ann Jones
Gabriela Sabatini
Kim Clijsters
Tracy Austin
Conchita Martínez
Jana Novotná
Andrea Jaeger
Mary Pierce
Virginia Wade

Regards

Tim

vive le beau jeu ! · Nov 9, 2007

Wuornos said:
I doubt anyone would blast you for those selections.

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts.

Based purely on my personal opinion and not through my favourite statistical pass time, my selections are very similar to yours. As follows:

Male Greats

Roger Federer
Ivan Lendl
Rod Laver
Pete Sampras
Björn Borg
Mats Wilander
Jim Courier
John McEnroe
Andre Agassi
Boris Becker
Jimmy Connors
Ken Rosewall

Male Good/Close

Stefan Edberg
Guillermo Vilas
Rafael Nadal
Ilie Năstase
Stan Smith
John Newcombe
Jan Kodeš
Arthur Ashe
Lleyton Hewitt
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Andy Roddick
Pat Cash
Patrick Rafter
Johan Kriek
Gustavo Kuerten
Vitas Gerulaitis
Marat Safin

what ??? :shock:
courier over edberg ?!... heresy ! :roll:

please tell me it's a mistake...

Wuornos · Nov 9, 2007

vive le beau jeu ! said:
what ??? :shock:
courier over edberg ?!... heresy ! :roll:

please tell me it's a mistake...

Everyone knows Courier was superior to Edberg because of his kewl cap!

l_gonzalez · Nov 9, 2007

Courier over Edberg is a travesty... I really hope it's joke. Edberg was awesome.

Wuornos · Nov 9, 2007

l_gonzalez said:
Courier over Edberg is a travesty... I really hope it's joke. Edberg was awesome.

No, not a joke, but just my personal opinion. I know it's not considered the done thing but I really rate both Courier and Wilander. In my opinion they may not have accomplished as much but at their best they were more dominant than people like Edberg or Becker or come to that more dominant than Agassi or Connors. They made the top of the game theirs in a way I don't think these other players did.

Just my personal point of view.

What's your reason or prefering Edberg?

Regards

Tim

bluetrain4 · Nov 9, 2007

Wuornos said:
No, not a joke, but just my personal opinion. I know it's not considered the done thing but I really rate both Courier and Wilander. In my opinion they may not have accomplished as much but at their best they were more dominant than people like Edberg or Becker or come to that more dominant than Agassi or Connors. They made the top of the game theirs in a way I don't think these other players did.

Just my personal point of view.

What's your reason or prefering Edberg?

Regards

Tim

Edberg has more Slams (6-4) than Courier and more Slam finals. Edberg won his slams over a much greater period of time (1985-1992) than Courier (1991-1993). Edberg destroyed Courier in the 1991 US Final (giving up only 6 games) (though Courier beat Edberg in 4 sets in both the 1992 and 1993 AO). Both made the finals of all 4 slams, which is impressive. Both spent time at #1.

I'm not saying tha Courier isn't a "great" but if he is, Edberg definitley should be.

Wuornos · Nov 9, 2007

bluetrain4 said:
Edberg has more Slams (6-4) than Courier and more Slam finals. Edberg won his slams over a much greater period of time (1985-1992) than Courier (1991-1993). Edberg destroyed Courier in the 1991 US Final (giving up only 6 games) (though Courier beat Edberg in 4 sets in both the 1992 and 1993 AO). Both made the finals of all 4 slams, which is impressive. Both spent time at #1.

I'm not saying tha Courier isn't a "great" but if he is, Edberg definitley should be.

Yep we both have our differences in opinion. I can see why though. You believe that winning slams over a greater period of time and winning more slams is a good indicator of greatness.

For me the total number of slams have less meaning than the period of time over which they are won. And here we differ most in that I believe winning them in less time is a greater indicator of greatness.

To be honest I think you can make a case for both points of views.

I suspect your view of Edberg being rated above Courier is a far more comonly held view though.

Take care

Tim

Harry_Wild · Nov 10, 2007

I think Illie Nastase as being great! That is great fun to watch. Another great is John McEnroe; good frien of Illie's. Jimmy Connors is also great! All are great trouble makers!

vive le beau jeu ! · Nov 10, 2007

Wuornos said:
I suspect your view of Edberg being rated above Courier is a far more comonly held view though.

definitely !
make a poll if you wanna get the confirmation...

absolutely no way this lumberjack is greater than the artist !

FiveO · Nov 10, 2007

Between Courier and Edberg the argument is very close.

Courier basically displaced Edberg as the world number one. He ended with a 6-4 h2h overall and 4-2 in major late rounds beating Edberg on clay, hardcourts and even grass. From the '91 RG through the '93 USO Courier reached the final of 7 of the 10 majors played, at least one final at each of the four venues winning 4. During the same time frame Edberg who started at #1, reached 4 major finals winning two. Courier played a big part in ending Edberg's short time at the very top just as Sampras would end Courier's short reign.

Aesthetically I prefer Edberg, but there is no denying that Courier helped push the reigning #1, Edberg, off his throne and then took his place.

Supernatural_Serve · Nov 10, 2007

A tennis great is someone who captures the attention and imagination of people.

saram · Nov 10, 2007

Wuornos said:
Yep we both have our differences in opinion. I can see why though. You believe that winning slams over a greater period of time and winning more slams is a good indicator of greatness.

For me the total number of slams have less meaning than the period of time over which they are won. And here we differ most in that I believe winning them in less time is a greater indicator of greatness.

To be honest I think you can make a case for both points of views.

I suspect your view of Edberg being rated above Courier is a far more comonly held view though.

Take care

Tim

One could also throw in Courier's Davis Cup titles (2) when arguing for Courier. I thought/think Courier was a wonderful player that showed he was capable of winning on more than one surface. I did opt for Edberg over Courier because he brought a one-dimensional game of S&V and was able to work it with success against a variety of games/players he faced.

You don't, or shouldn't, have to justify a choice in Courier. He is a multiple slam champion, was in the finals of all four, and has two Davis Cup championships, as well as inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2005. If you are in the Hall of Fame, you must be a tennis great.

In my list, I did forget Wilander and Vicaro...I should have added them as greats as well.

saram · Nov 10, 2007

Supernatural_Serve said:
A tennis great is someone who captures the attention and imagination of people.

Donald Young and John Isner have captured the attention and imagination of the tennis world this summer...does that make them tennis greats?

FiveO · Nov 10, 2007

IMO "Greats" qualify as a larger group and what Hall of Fame should be using as the criteria for induction.

Multiple slam winners don't win multiple slams by accident, while I believe some single slam winners are anomolous and shouldn't qualify.

Win a major and make three or more finals and I think that can eke a player in depending on the level of competition in the era.

I think the term "Great" covers a larger group.

I also believe that GOAT is a group of guys. In the Open era I would put Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

While I think he barely misses and falls to the top of the next group, I think a good case can be made for Lendl to be included in the first. He was basically the Dallas Cowboys AND the Buffalo Bills of the '90s rolled together in a crowded very top of the rankings in his era.

I think players like Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Newcombe, Becker, Wilander and Agassi constitute the next tier.

Then Edberg, Vilas, Courier.

Players like Kuerten, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Kodes, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin, Kafelnikov, Bruguera etc the next.

The "just ins" are Ivanisevic, Roddick, Chang not because the won but because they've backed it up with 3 or more other major finals. Stich is on the bubble either just in or just out IMO. I would include him and fully admit my subjectivity on him.

Just out Krajicek, Muster, Gerulaitis, Moya, Ferrero, etc. Great players but just outside looking in. I would put Kriek in this group as well despite the two major titles.

That's my definition of "Great" from their I rank them in tiers. Were some guys in lower tiers capable of beating or flat out better than tiers above? Sure. But I think one has to give alot more weight to getting it done vs. the flash or perceived ability to get it done. JMO.

vive le beau jeu ! · Nov 10, 2007

edberg >>> courier

FiveO said:
Between Courier and Edberg the argument is very close.

Courier basically displaced Edberg as the world number one. He ended with a 6-4 h2h overall and 4-2 in major late rounds beating Edberg on clay, hardcourts and even grass. From the '91 RG through the '93 USO Courier reached the final of 7 of the 10 majors played, at least one final at each of the four venues winning 4. During the same time frame Edberg who started at #1, reached 4 major finals winning two. Courier played a big part in ending Edberg's short time at the very top just as Sampras would end Courier's short reign.

Aesthetically I prefer Edberg, but there is no denying that Courier helped push the reigning #1, Edberg, off his throne and then took his place.

but it's simply because courier is of the "next" generation !
for instance, edberg took lendl's #1 spot, this is not a reason for considering him greater than lendl !

in terms of career achievements edberg is above courier in almost everything ! look...

#1 weeks: 72-58
years ended in top10: 10-4
slam titles: 6-4
slam finals: 11-7
different slam won: 3/4 - 2/4
total career titles: 42-23
different surfaces for career titles: 4/4 - 3/4
(and i don't talk about career achievements in double !)

honestly, i don't know what else you need.

and if you talk about capturing the attention and imagination of people (as Supernatural_Serve says), please... edberg is one more time above the lumberjack.
even the ATP agrees with me :
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/legends/default.asp
they don't put courier there... but they put rafter ! this time, precisely because he captures attention and imagination ot people...

and about davis cup ?
edberg also won it in 1984, 1985 and 1994 !
one more time than courier... once again.

FiveO · Nov 10, 2007

vive le beau jeu ! said:
but it's simply because courier is of the "next" generation !
for instance, edberg took lendl's #1 spot, this is not a reason for considering him greater than lendl !

in terms of career achievements edberg is above courier in almost everything ! look...

#1 weeks: 72-58
years ended in top10: 10-4
slam titles: 6-4
slam finals: 11-7
different slam won: 3/4 - 2/4
total career titles: 42-23
different surfaces for career titles: 4/4 - 3/4
(and i don't talk about career achievements in double !)

honestly, i don't know what else you need.
and if you talk about capturing the attention and imagination of people (as Supernatural_Serve says), please... edberg is one more time above the lumberjack.
even the ATP agrees with me :
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/legends/default.asp
they don't put courier there... but they put rafter ! this time, precisely because he captures attention and imagination ot people...

and about davis cup ?
edberg also won it in 1984, 1985 and 1994 !
one more time than courier... once again.

Yeah but what you're overlooking, even if four years constitutes a full generation difference, is that Courier was the third best of his generation behind his pure contemporaries, Sampras and Agassi. Sampras mugged Courier in very short order limiting his count in everything.

Edberg had significant help from Becker and Wilander in unseating Lendl who spotted Edberg nearly six years not four.

When Edberg ascended the throne he and Becker leapfrogged Lendl dropping him to #3. And after Edberg took the top spot Lendl never won another major.

When Courier succeeded Edberg he dropped Stefan to #2 and after Courier was there the Swede won another major indicating that the peak of their careers and respective time at #1 overlapped a little more than Edberg/Lendl.

HEAD/PRINCE RULE · Nov 11, 2007

UP Coming

Nadal
Joker
Gasquet
Tsonga
Stepanek
Marcos Baghdatis
Benjamin Becker ( If he show what he can do)

Legend of Borg · Nov 11, 2007

Wuornos said:
Everyone knows Courier was superior to Edberg because of his kewl cap!

Oh, lol! I see how it is!

Wuornos · Nov 17, 2007

FiveO said:
IMO "Greats" qualify as a larger group and what Hall of Fame should be using as the criteria for induction.

Multiple slam winners don't win multiple slams by accident, while I believe some single slam winners are anomolous and shouldn't qualify.

Win a major and make three or more finals and I think that can eke a player in depending on the level of competition in the era.

I think the term "Great" covers a larger group.

I also believe that GOAT is a group of guys. In the Open era I would put Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

While I think he barely misses and falls to the top of the next group, I think a good case can be made for Lendl to be included in the first. He was basically the Dallas Cowboys AND the Buffalo Bills of the '90s rolled together in a crowded very top of the rankings in his era.

I think players like Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Newcombe, Becker, Wilander and Agassi constitute the next tier.

Then Edberg, Vilas, Courier.

Players like Kuerten, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Kodes, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin, Kafelnikov, Bruguera etc the next.

The "just ins" are Ivanisevic, Roddick, Chang not because the won but because they've backed it up with 3 or more other major finals. Stich is on the bubble either just in or just out IMO. I would include him and fully admit my subjectivity on him.

Just out Krajicek, Muster, Gerulaitis, Moya, Ferrero, etc. Great players but just outside looking in. I would put Kriek in this group as well despite the two major titles.

That's my definition of "Great" from their I rank them in tiers. Were some guys in lower tiers capable of beating or flat out better than tiers above? Sure. But I think one has to give alot more weight to getting it done vs. the flash or perceived ability to get it done. JMO.

Thanks FiveO

That's a great answer. I certainly agree with you on the 'one has to give alot more weight to getting it done vs. the flash or perceived ability to get it done'.

Thanks for the input.

Tim

hoodjem · Nov 17, 2007

saram said:
Donald Young and John Isner have captured the attention and imagination of the tennis world this summer...does that make them tennis greats?

NO, definitely not if that's all they did.

P.S. I would place Edberg higher than Courier, caps notwithstanding.

Tennis-Chris · Nov 17, 2007

saram said:
I would say there have been about 10-15 greats. To name a few (and forget some others)...

Bjorg
Llendl
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
Laver
Johnny Mac
Connors
Edberg

Court
Graf
Henin
Serena
Venus
Hingis
Navratilova
Evert

I am sure I have forgone a few. There were others that were close...

Chang
Becker
Courier
Noah
Hewitt
Safin
Davenport
Seles
Capriati

Go ahead...blast me....I'm sure some will...

Saram, that is a good list. The only one I would even debate is Edberg.

What is a Tennis Great?

How many players would you refer to as greats within the open era?

1

2-4

5-9

10-16

17-25

26-36

37-49

50-64

65-81

81+

Professional

Legend

Legend

New User

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Similar threads