A "Good" Player

Okay so lets see if guys like Sampras, Federer, Borg and Laver etc. are all time greats.

Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Courier, Agassi etc. are greats

Give me a player who simply defines good for you. A few examples I guess would be nice. Like is good a slam winner? Or does good not have any slams?

So just list 5 guys you think were just good nothing more nothing less. For me it is guys like

Roddick
Stitch
Krajicek
Mecir
Chang

I don't know those are 5 guys who are think were good tennis players but not greats. I feel good does not need a slam but guys who were multislam winners I think are more than good even if it is two because winning two takes a lot more work than one in my opinion. However what is your definition of a good player. I basically feel a good player is consistent top 10-20 player who could make a run at big events but won a lot of smaller events. How about all of you?

Chang was GOOD I suppose I dont think he was a great player. Stich and Krajieck are players I feel who should have accomplished alot more. Wimby 96 showed us was Richard could do. Stich as times showed us how deadly he was. Both of these guys could look dominant as ever and make their opponents look foolish.

Someone like Roddick, I suppose is solid and consistent, he maximizes his potential even though he doesnt have a very solid all around game. He has too many holes in his game to ever be considered a great player in any era but he would be labeled as good solid hand during any era. Basically an "era filler". Good player.. Can never be a great player

I label Hewitt as a good player. Solid. But not great.

I suppose Djokovic is labeled as good. I wouldnt call him or Murray greats yet. Both have yet to prove themselves IMO. Could Murray be a great?

I go back and forth with that. I dunno if they are truly greats or just "era fillers" either. They could be among the best or they could just be another Hewitt or Roddick.

These players are all VERY good. Good players are the ones who get to the quarters of slams and the semis of smaller events. they are the ones you might see play once in a while when a very good player lost early.

I am not sure Courier should be labeled great. He did win four majors and 5 Masters Series tournaments, which is excellent but he only won a bit over twenty tournaments in his career.

Is that that much better than Chang, who won around 34 tournaments and I believe 6 Masters Series Tournaments (if I counted correctly) and 1 major.

I always tought Gerulaitis was good and not great. The only major he won was an Australian open with a weak 64 player draw. Only played one seeded player being John Alexander in the QF or SF and the unseeded John LLoyd in a 5 set final. Llloyd should have won because Vitas cramped in the 4th set until the finish and Lloyd didnt put him away. Vitas was entertaining to watch but his only strength was his speed/reflexes. He was a good player.

Good player would be like Sampras or Agassi. Can only hit 2 shots decently, would fold in any era other than the 90s.

don't take the bait, guys. Trolls should be bored critters.

I kinda think Wilander was a very good player, who maximized his gifts (endurance, strategizing, stamina) and won more than he might have.

A good player who achieved more, maybe?

I agree. He was never truly great, but he was solidly on the tier below.

Wilander’s lack of power does not mean that he was less talented than others. Ok he could not win Wimbledon because he had no big weapon. Now he was more flexible than most as showed by the fact that he won majors on hard, clay and grass. Mcenroe always considered him as very talented but not the hardest worker. And Mcenroe was not a guy to praise his contemporaries. To me Lendl is a better case for someone who maximized his potential. At a young age you would know he was destined to greatness, he was talented no question. But he worked very hard in every way possible, so I tend to think he maximized his potential. I’d say Chang would be another example of someone who maximized his potential, at a lesser stage, he was very good, not great. In both cases you have consistency as a result.
Anyway with multiple slam winners we are among great players. It’s a question of who achieved the most and who was greater. A very good player would be a solid top 10. A good player would be top 30 and there is no big difference in terms of capacities or strokes. An average player would be a journeyman. There is no bad player at that level.

some "good" players are

Roscoe Tanner
Vitas Gerulaitis
Marat Safin
Andy Roddick
Pat Cash

Some of those guys are simply just B+ players like tanner and gerulaitis; winning australian open once because most of the great players like Borg and McEnroe and all them didnt play Australian open which was just a tournament for "good" players I think. They had an all around solid game (maybe one big strength and a big weakness in their game) but they dont have the fire power which makes a player "Great" such as Borg,Federer,Sampras or Laver

I would say almost all the top players of the Fedal era not named Federer and Nadal fall into this category.

Roddick
Hewitt
Safin- could have, would have, should have, etc...
Nalbandian
Djokovic
Murray
Del Potro- most potential to be great though

davey25 said:

I would say almost all the top players of the Fedal era not named Federer and Nadal fall into this category.

Click to expand...

Good point. Lotsa goods--only two greats.







So far.

I think Todd Martin is an excellent example of a "good" player.

Good enough to make it deep into a Slam every now and then, but not great (ie. never won one).

I think Sampras stated in his autobiography that he considered Martin a "benchmark." If he could beat him in straight sets, he knew he was playing well.

I think it's pretty easy to find a lot of "good" pros (current or former) by simply looking back at the rankings in three year increments. Find the names that are ranked in the top 10 every three years and Bingo!

Obviously, throw out those at the top who get tossed around in the GOAT arguments (Fed, Sampras, Agassi, Mac, Borg, Laver, etc) and the rest fill in the "good" category.

For example, look at today's rankings. I'd say that #2, and #4 through 10 can be considered "good" players. Look any lower on the list & it's hard to imagine them being ranked top-10 a couple years from now (maybe Cilic). Fed & Nadal are the only two "greats."

hoodjem said:

I kinda think Wilander was a very good player, who maximized his gifts (endurance, strategizing, stamina) and won more than he might have.

A good player who achieved more, maybe?

Click to expand...

I think Wilander was a great player, who achieved less than he could have if he had wanted to focus completely on tennis to the detriment of other things important to him in life. I think he should have earned more praise than criticism for the fact he was not single-mindedly focused on tennis.

He said himself in the early/mid-80's that he wasn't interested in only playing tennis all day and following a severe fitness and nutrition regime. He had other interests in life, enjoyed friendships and relationships, and wouldn't enjoy the tennis if he couldn't have fun.

He was often criticized for not desiring to be #1 enough to to go for it. Then in the late 80's when he decided it could be kind of cool to look back in 20 years and have achieved it, if only for a week, he went after it. He added the slice backhand and improved his serve, and won three Grand Slam titles in 1988 and became #1. Mission accomplished - then he moved on.

The fact that he could set his mind on something as he did, go after it, and achieve it, says a lot. How many players want it, work for it, and never get there? So what that he dropped out of the game shortly after - he did what he wanted to do and it was enough for him.

I actually find it refreshing that he had such a good balance in his life that tennis wasn't everything. He is still married to the same wife after 24 years, still is working in tennis in a variety of capacities (exos, seniors tour, commentary, was the Swedish Davis Cup captain for several years, coaching).

He could have won more, probably achieved #1 earlier and held onto it longer, had he wanted to and set his mind to it. It just wasn't important to him. Nothing wrong with that.

I think about players who almost overachieved went deep in big tournaments or had long term success despite never going to be #1
Todd Martin
Kevin Curran
Tim Henman
Brad Gilbert
Bill Scanlon
These all come to mind.

jaggy said:

Brad Gilbert
Bill Scanlon

Click to expand...

I disagree that these two can be in the category of 'good' player as it's been defined in this thread.

Bill Scanlon - Highest ranking was #9 for one week only in 1984, otherwise was in the top 20 for only 11 weeks during his career. Best Grand Slam results were two quarterfinals (AO and Wimbledon) and one semi-final (USO).

Brad Gilbert - Highest ranking was #4, but he fell in and out of the top 10 in 1988, and was in the top 10 most of 1989-1990 only. Yearend rankings were #21 in 1988, #6 in 1989, #10 in 1990 and #19 in 1991. Best Slam performances were a quarterfinal at the US Open and a quarterfinal at Wimbledon.

From that era, I agree with the above mention of Gerulaitis, Tanner and Cash. Other players I would put in the 'good' category from that period are Andres Gomez, Yannick Noah, Anders Jarryd, Miloslav Mecir and Henri Leconte just off the top of my head.

Just as an example, one of my favorites Anders Jarryd's highest ranking was #5, but he was in the top 10 for most of 1984, 1985 and 1986. Yearend rankings were #6 in 1984, #8 in 1985, #19 in 1986 and #15 in 1987 - in singles, despite being considered a doubles specialist. Best Slam performances (in singles) were three quarterfinals (2 AO, 1 USO) and a semi-final (Wimbledon). But add to that his #1 ranking in doubles for more than 100 weeks, 8 Grand Slam doubles titles (including a career Grand Slam in doubles) with several different partners - back when doubles meant something and was played by many of the top singles players.

What about Bruguera, Kafelnikov and Rafter? Definitely they aren't great, nor are they Goat contenders, but they played in slams with some success.

If Todd Martin is a good player, these could be regarded as very good players.

So there are Goat contenders (Sampras, Laver, Fed, Borg),
great players (Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe, Lendl, Nadal, Agassi),
very good players (Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter),
and good players such as Martin, Berasatequi, Larsson and Fibak.

Courier and Kuerten are somewhere between great players and very good players.