Clay Court GOAT

BTURNER · Jun 14, 2011

Arafel said:
What's really amazing is that she is tied for third in GS titles overall (18, with Martina,) and she skipped the French Open for three years (76-78) during her prime, when she was absolutely unbeatable on clay. That's not to mention all the Australians she didn't play in this period; I think her first was in 81.

Yeah but she lucked out in that the Open switched to Har Tru, the surface she was raised on, for exactly those years rather than the grass. She might have won one or maybe two but threats that did not exist on the clay, could have on grass. it is really those Opens on which much of her clay reputation must rest. Chris barely broke a sweat in those 3 years at the Open. Her RG titles hardly saw the creme de la creme in the 70's years overwhelming the draw. But everyone came over for the US Open.

Limpinhitter · Jun 15, 2011

TMF said:
You can’t do that !

If you are handing out slam titles to players that didn’t play, then you are taking away slams from the players that actually did play and won it. The injury and any factor that prevent a player from performing or don’t play is all part of the sport.

With your logic, let’s take away some of Laver’s slam b/c he didn’t compete against entire field before the open era. Let’s add Muster another FO since he got a terrible car accident during his teen. Stripped away Sampras AO since Agassi didn’t play when he won. Strip away Ferrero and GAudio FO in 2002/2003 since Guga had a bad hip. And so on and so on.

See? It doesn’t work that way. Especially when we’re just dealing with speculation.

Hahaha! I see you're having trouble with this concept. Let me try again. People right here on TT take away grand slams, award major titles, impute greatness based on speculation, etc. etc. etc. all day long. As long as the speculation is supported with reason and rationality, it's as valid as the reasonableness of the argument proffered.

How many times have you taken away Laver's 62' grand slam because there weren't any pros in any of the draws? I happen to agree that Laver probably wouldn't have won the GS if the pros were in the draw. He might have won one or two majors that year. On the other hand, if Laver was eligible to play the majors from 64-67, he might have won another G.S., perhaps more than one, and who knows how many major singles and doubles titles.

Similarly, how many more major titles would Seles have won, and how many fewer would Graf had won, had Seles not been stabbed in the back by a psychopathic German Graf fan? It's easy to support such a premise because Seles actually was beating Graf in the majority of the majors they played in over the previous 3 years when Seles took the #1 ranking away from Graf.

See, it isn't that hard to comprehend.

TMF · Jun 15, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
Hahaha! I see you're having trouble with this concept. Let me try again. People right here on TT take away grand slams, award major titles, impute greatness based on speculation, etc. etc. etc. all day long. As long as the speculation is supported with reason and rationality, it's as valid as the reasonableness of the argument proffered.

Well, that's just them. I don't like the idea of handing out free slam titles at the expense of the other players(the real winner).

Limpinhitter said:
How many times have you taken away Laver's 62' grand slam because there weren't any pros in any of the draws? I happen to agree that Laver probably wouldn't have won the GS if the pros were in the draw. He might have won one or two majors that year. On the other hand, if Laver was eligible to play the majors from 64-67, he might have won another G.S., perhaps more than one, and who knows how many major singles and doubles titles.

I always refer to Laver as a 11 slam winners. However, i believe his accomplishments has less weight than the modern era. That's include only conquered on 2 surfaces and the field lacks the depth/talent.

He might or might not win more, that doesn't prove anything. You don't earn free slam for not playing. Capiche ?

Limpinhitter said:
Similarly, how many more major titles would Seles have won, and how many fewer would Graf had won, had Seles not been stabbed in the back by a psychopathic German Graf fan? It's easy to support such a premise because Seles actually was beating Graf in the majority of the majors they played in over the previous 3 years when Seles took the #1 ranking away from Graf.

See, it isn't that hard to comprehend.

It's a good debate. But Graf will always be remember as a 22 slam winners. Not 15, not 18, but 22. And everyone will remember Seles 9 slams. Not 15, not 12 or any other imaginary number.

That's like having Nadal quitting today and we can hand out free slams for him in the future, regardless who ever win slams from now on.

See how ridiculous you sound?

Limpinhitter · Jun 15, 2011

TMF said:
Well, that's just them. I don't like the idea of handing out free slam titles at the expense of the other players(the real winner).

I always refer to Laver as a 11 slam winners. However, i believe his accomplishments has less weight than the modern era. That's include only conquered on 2 surfaces and the field lacks the depth/talent.

He might or might not win more, that doesn't prove anything. You don't earn free slam for not playing. Capiche ?

It's a good debate. But Graf will always be remember as a 22 slam winners. Not 15, not 18, but 22. And everyone will remember Seles 9 slams. Not 15, not 12 or any other imaginary number.

That's like having Nadal quitting today and we can hand out free slams for him in the future, regardless who ever win slams from now on.

See how ridiculous you sound?

Yes, it's a good debate. You said it yourself. That's the whole point. This entire section is about debate, some good, some not so good. If it isn't a good debate, someone will point that out quickly enough. If Ralph quit today, the debate about what he would have, should have, could have done, would be every bit as extensive and contentious as the debate about Borg retiring early, which continues, unabated, 30 years later.

Sneezy · Jun 15, 2011

Whenever these GOAT topics come up between my friends and I, we always try to keep context in mind. You can still have a lively debate without those "If they played XXX number of years they would have won XXX number of slams." Because if it didn't happen, then it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you can come up with any scenario. For example, I can say "What if the guy who stabbed Seles stabbed Graf too, and then Kimiko Date won 10 slams." Then I could argue Kimiko Date belongs in the discussion for female GOAT. Well that didn't happen, so there really isn't a point in debating it.

With context in mind, since Seles did have Graf's number during those few years before the stabbing, I would say she was the better player during that time. But thats only for that time. However, overall Graf would be higher on the female GOAT totem pole by virtue of her final stats. But is Graf more of a GOAT then Evert or Navratilova, thats where you can debate excluding those "what ifs."

Limpinhitter · Jun 15, 2011

Sneezy said:
Whenever these GOAT topics come up between my friends and I, we always try to keep context in mind. You can still have a lively debate without those "If they played XXX number of years they would have won XXX number of slams." Because if it didn't happen, then it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you can come up with any scenario. For example, I can say "What if the guy who stabbed Seles stabbed Graf too, and then Kimiko Date won 10 slams." Then I could argue Kimiko Date belongs in the discussion for female GOAT. Well that didn't happen, so there really isn't a point in debating it.

With context in mind, since Seles did have Graf's number during those few years before the stabbing, I would say she was the better player during that time. But thats only for that time. However, overall Graf would be higher on the female GOAT totem pole by virtue of her final stats. But is Graf more of a GOAT then Evert or Navratilova, thats where you can debate excluding those "what ifs."

You're missing the point. It's not a dichotomy. It's a sliding scale of rationality and logical support. The more rational your premise, and the stronger your support, the better your argument.

Sneezy · Jun 15, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
You're missing the point. It's not a dichotomy. It's a sliding scale of rationality and logical support. The more rational your premise, and the stronger your support, the better your argument.

So if its a sliding scale or spectrum, does that mean some people are totally delusional?

TMF · Jun 16, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
Yes, it's a good debate. You said it yourself. That's the whole point. This entire section is about debate, some good, some not so good. If it isn't a good debate, someone will point that out quickly enough. If Ralph quit today, the debate about what he would have, should have, could have done, would be every bit as extensive and contentious as the debate about Borg retiring early, which continues, unabated, 30 years later.

Good, fun to debate. But not the best or the objective way to debate. If we play your game, I can take away a few slams from Laver since he compete only on one circuit before the open era. take a few more away if he had to compete slam on hc. See my point? Everyone will start arguing for and against certain players, then taking away their slam trophies and hand it to other players they please.

People still believe Federer can win few more slams. Let's say Fed retired today, he should be awarded a few more slams in the future(according to your logic). I cannot accept(and I'm a Fed fan).

TMF · Jun 16, 2011

Sneezy said:
Whenever these GOAT topics come up between my friends and I, we always try to keep context in mind. You can still have a lively debate without those "If they played XXX number of years they would have won XXX number of slams." Because if it didn't happen, then it doesn't matter. Otherwise, you can come up with any scenario.

Agree. It's crazy to remove/add slam titles from one player to another. Everyone will have their own list of players with certain number of slams. Crazy !

Limpinhitter · Jun 16, 2011

TMF said:
Good, fun to debate. But not the best or the objective way to debate. If we play your game, I can take away a few slams from Laver since he compete only on one circuit before the open era. take a few more away if he had to compete slam on hc. See my point? Everyone will start arguing for and against certain players, then taking away their slam trophies and hand it to other players they please.

People still believe Federer can win few more slams. Let's say Fed retired today, he should be awarded a few more slams in the future(according to your logic). I cannot accept(and I'm a Fed fan).

You can make any argument you want. Whether you can support it with sound argument is another matter.

TMF · Jun 16, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
You can make any argument you want. Whether you can support it with sound argument is another matter.

Ok. Let's do this...Laver wouldn't have a CYGS had the 4 slam events was competing on Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass.

pc1 · Jun 16, 2011

TMF said:
Ok. Let's do this...Laver wouldn't have a CYGS had the 4 slam events was competing on Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass.

Actually Laver was pretty dominant on all surfaces-grass, clay, wood, hard court, indoor canvas etc. He may very well have had a grand slam.

Datacipher · Jun 16, 2011

TMF said:
Ok. Let's do this...Laver wouldn't have a CYGS had the 4 slam events was competing on Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass.

facepalm_picard_riker.jpg%3Fw%3D417%26h%3D267

In 69, while winning THE grand slam again, he won the biggest indoor and hard court tournaments of the year.

TMF: such a knob....

timnz · Jun 16, 2011

TMF said:
Ok. Let's do this...Laver wouldn't have a CYGS had the 4 slam events was competing on Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass.

Why would you think that? All the evidence points the other way eg the fact that laver won around 30 hard court tournaments in his career.

Limpinhitter · Jun 16, 2011

timnz said:
Why would you think that? All the evidence points the other way eg the fact that laver won around 30 hard court tournaments in his career.

TMF: "Confound you and all of your pesky facts."

I personally saw Laver win a hard court WCT event, both singles and doubles. He lost 2 sets in the tournament, one to Emmo (his doubles partner), and one to Bob Lutz. To this day, Lutz was one of the most impressive players I've seen. I don't know why Lutz didn't win a few majors. He was a supremely talented player and a physical specimen.

pc1 · Jun 16, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
To this day, Lutz was one of the most impressive players I've seen. I don't know why Lutz didn't win a few majors. He was a supremely talented player and a physical specimen.

Lutz enjoyed the good life. A lot of players thought he was the more talented of the Smith/Lutz doubles team.

Sneezy · Jun 16, 2011

pc1 said:
Lutz enjoyed the good life. A lot of players thought he was the more talented of the Smith/Lutz doubles team.

Was Lutz a mental flake like Murray or Kuznetsova?

Limpinhitter · Jun 17, 2011

Sneezy said:
Was Lutz a mental flake like Murray or Kuznetsova?

Nah! He was just a laid back Californian from USC. He and Stan Smith were considered one of the all time great doubles teams and won several doubles majors and dozens of other titles together. He was built like a pit bull and had a forearm like Laver's.

urban · Jun 17, 2011

Laver is acually the leading open era player for open hard court finals winning percentage, i think something of 19-2 in official hard court tournaments.

Limpinhitter · Jun 17, 2011

urban said:
Laver is acually the leading open era player for open hard court finals winning percentage, i think something of 19-2 in official hard court tournaments.

TMF's head just exploded!

CyBorg · Jun 17, 2011

The grand slam is a nice accomplishment, but it's not a good measure of who the greats are.

For one thing, numerous great players were not in the position to compete in grand slam tournaments, before the open era and even in the early years of open era.

Another factor to keep in mind is that some grand slam events were not always the most important. That's also true for a bulk of the open era.

The really good arguments for Laver's greatness are bit more complex and detailed than just saying "grand slam". Similarly any argument against Laver that questions the value of his grand slam is a strawman.

It takes a little bit more time to study Laver's era and understand the extent to which he dominated it. But most people don't want to take the time.

robow7 · Jun 17, 2011

Good point cyborg, one should really read the older book on Laver written by Bud Collins and Kramer's book to really get a feel how it was then. No, the depth of competition is nowhere near what it is today but then those top guys had to meet each other week after week since they couldn't avoid one another at different tourneys. Can you imagine Rafa and Fed going at it 15-20 times a year?

Datacipher · Jun 17, 2011

robow7 said:
Good point cyborg, one should really read the older book on Laver written by Bud Collins and Kramer's book to really get a feel how it was then. No, the depth of competition is nowhere near what it is today but then those top guys had to meet each other week after week since they couldn't avoid one another at different tourneys. Can you imagine Rafa and Fed going at it 15-20 times a year?

Reminds me of reading about olmedo's struggle after joining the pro tour. Everyone knew he was good, but it was a rough initiation getting beaten up by the very top pros night after night!

illuminati · Jun 20, 2011

nadal is now definitely the clay GOAT.

borg does not have ANY clay stat over nadal.

on clay, nadal is either equal to borg in a few stats and clearly superior to borg in many stats.

CyBorg · Jun 20, 2011

illuminati said:
nadal is now definitely the clay GOAT.

borg does not have ANY clay stat over nadal.

on clay, nadal is either equal to borg in a few stats and clearly superior to borg in many stats.

Nonsense. One can definitely make some very good arguments for Nadal. Certainly.

But if I were Borg's "lawyer" I would point directly to a) Nadal's back-to-back losses to Djokovic this year, adding that no player ever gave Borg such trouble in his prime years on red clay, b) Nadal's loss to Soderling in the 2009 RG, adding that Borg never suffered such a defeat in his prime on red clay.

So there you go. Borg 1977-1981 untouchable on the red clay.

pc1 · Jun 20, 2011

CyBorg said:
The grand slam is a nice accomplishment, but it's not a good measure of who the greats are.

For one thing, numerous great players were not in the position to compete in grand slam tournaments, before the open era and even in the early years of open era.

Another factor to keep in mind is that some grand slam events were not always the most important. That's also true for a bulk of the open era.

The really good arguments for Laver's greatness are bit more complex and detailed than just saying "grand slam". Similarly any argument against Laver that questions the value of his grand slam is a strawman.

It takes a little bit more time to study Laver's era and understand the extent to which he dominated it. But most people don't want to take the time.

Super post Cyborg. If you look at his accomplishments, his competitive and his skills you can how truly great Laver was. You can't just assume certain things and write because of that Laver wasn't great.

TMF · Jun 20, 2011

Datacipher said:
In 69, while winning THE grand slam again, he won the biggest indoor and hard court tournaments of the year.

TMF: such a knob....

Pay attention !!

We are talking about slam events, not other non-slam event. It’s very likely Laver wouldn’t have won 4 slam events if he must conquer variety of surfaces(Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass).

TMF · Jun 20, 2011

timnz said:
Why would you think that? All the evidence points the other way eg the fact that laver won around 30 hard court tournaments in his career.

And the evidence was pointing to Novak winning FO this year since he was the best player during the clay season. Including beating Nadal 2 times at the clay MS. Novak didn’t even made the FO final, let alone winning it. Just b/c Laver won other tournaments on hc doesn’t mean he will win it on a slam event. Furthermore, many players have won tournaments on clay but NEVER won the FO. So don’t give Laver a free pass. Capiche ?

TMF · Jun 20, 2011

Limpinhitter said:
TMF's head just exploded!

LOL...you like to use hypothetical reasoning to downtalk the modern players all the time, but when I use it, you get all mad.

TMF · Jun 20, 2011

robow7 said:
Good point cyborg, one should really read the older book on Laver written by Bud Collins and Kramer's book to really get a feel how it was then. No, the depth of competition is nowhere near what it is today but then those top guys had to meet each other week after week since they couldn't avoid one another at different tourneys. Can you imagine Rafa and Fed going at it 15-20 times a year?

How much top 2 players meet more often in a year is depends on the depth of the field that allow them to. For instance, let's randomly remove 90% of the playing field but keep Roger and Nadal. Their chances will meet more often since there's less resistance from the field.

robow7 · Jun 20, 2011

TMF said:
How much top 2 players meet more often in a year is depends on the depth of the field that allow them to.

It also highly depends on how many tournaments are offered on the same week. Often the big boys will avoid one another entirely in that manner.

TMF · Jun 20, 2011

robow7 said:
It also highly depends on how many tournaments are offered on the same week. Often the big boys will avoid one another entirely in that manner.

According to Mac during the FO this year, he said during his heyday the top players are spreadout...Borg was in Europe while he was in the states, and Connors was somewhere else.

Today, all top tier tournaments Fed and Nadal both play. Even Nole and Murray doesn't skip either. There's no hole in any of the draw(unlike in those days).

Mustard · Jun 20, 2011

TMF said:
According to Mac during the FO this year, he said during his heyday the top players are spreadout...Borg was in Europe while he was in the states, and Connors was somewhere else.

Today, all top tier tournaments Fed and Nadal both play. Even Nole and Murray doesn't skip either. There's no hole in any of the draw(unlike in those days).

That's because the early years of the open era had a lot of politics, with different governing bodies running tours etc. It wasn't until the ATP took over the running of the main tour in 1990 that some sort of order was brought to the tour, and even then we'd see many players play a load of clay-court tournaments throughout the year while others played a load of hardcourt or carpet tournaments, and there was that big "baseliner vs. serve and volleyer" divide. Since 2000, there really has been "order", with the big players having to play the same tournaments for the most part, and serve and volley mostly disappeared around 2002-2003 time.

Limpinhitter · Jun 20, 2011

illuminati said:
nadal is now definitely the clay GOAT.

borg does not have ANY clay stat over nadal.

on clay, nadal is either equal to borg in a few stats and clearly superior to borg in many stats.

Greatness is not measures solely by stats. Greatness is measured by a combination of things including the level of play that a player played at in his/her career. Whether Borg played at a higher level than Ralph is debatable, but, it's a factor that must be considered.

robow7 · Jun 20, 2011

TMF said:
According to Mac during the FO this year, he said during his heyday the top players are spreadout...Borg was in Europe while he was in the states, and Connors was somewhere else.

Today, all top tier tournaments Fed and Nadal both play. Even Nole and Murray doesn't skip either. There's no hole in any of the draw(unlike in those days).

Fair enough, but I was looking back a little further when Laver and Rosewall met how many ungodly times.

CyBorg · Jun 20, 2011

TMF said:
And the evidence was pointing to Novak winning FO this year since he was the best player during the clay season. Including beating Nadal 2 times at the clay MS. Novak didn’t even made the FO final, let alone winning it. Just b/c Laver won other tournaments on hc doesn’t mean he will win it on a slam event. Furthermore, many players have won tournaments on clay but NEVER won the FO. So don’t give Laver a free pass. Capiche ?

Goes in one ear, out the other.

Xemi666 · Jun 26, 2011

CyBorg said:
Nonsense. One can definitely make some very good arguments for Nadal. Certainly.

But if I were Borg's "lawyer" I would point directly to a) Nadal's back-to-back losses to Djokovic this year, adding that no player ever gave Borg such trouble in his prime years on red clay, b) Nadal's loss to Soderling in the 2009 RG, adding that Borg never suffered such a defeat in his prime on red clay.

So there you go. Borg 1977-1981 untouchable on the red clay.

Oh really? I guess Borg's loss to Panatta never happened then

pc1 · Jun 26, 2011

Xemi666 said:
Oh really? I guess Borg's loss to Panatta never happened then

Actually it wasn't Borg's prime years. His prime years were from 1977 on.

kiki · Jun 26, 2011

TMF said:
Borg, Nadal, Federer, Lendl, Wilander I believe are the only players who made atleast 5 RG finals. So they are the top 5.

But Kuerten won 3 out of 3 while Federer won 1 out of 5...

kiki · Jun 26, 2011

BTURNER said:
Evert followed that up with the second longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning another 64 matches straight. She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for a 189-1 match record on clay surface court. This 2nd record held firm until Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007! Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however.

Agreed.Evert, Graf and Seles are the best cc players of the modern era.

kiki · Jun 26, 2011

TMF said:
Pay attention !!

We are talking about slam events, not other non-slam event. It’s very likely Laver wouldn’t have won 4 slam events if he must conquer variety of surfaces(Deco Turf, Plexicushion, Clay, and Grass).

Laver might have won on every unimagnable surface, even those that do not exist any more.Like parking soil, f.i

kiki · Jun 26, 2011

TMF said:
Good, fun to debate. But not the best or the objective way to debate. If we play your game, I can take away a few slams from Laver since he compete only on one circuit before the open era. take a few more away if he had to compete slam on hc. See my point? Everyone will start arguing for and against certain players, then taking away their slam trophies and hand it to other players they please.

People still believe Federer can win few more slams. Let's say Fed retired today, he should be awarded a few more slams in the future(according to your logic). I cannot accept(and I'm a Fed fan).

Under which logic do you support that Laver would not have won a HC GS title? who would have, in his place, if the US Open had been play on Decoturf in 1962 or 1969?

kiki · Jun 26, 2011

pc1 said:
Actually Laver was pretty dominant on all surfaces-grass, clay, wood, hard court, indoor canvas etc. He may very well have had a grand slam.

I agree.On Ice,Sand,Mug and Powder, he´d have a GS too

The Hermit · Jun 26, 2011

CyBorg said:
Nonsense. One can definitely make some very good arguments for Nadal. Certainly.

But if I were Borg's "lawyer" I would point directly to a) Nadal's back-to-back losses to Djokovic this year, adding that no player ever gave Borg such trouble in his prime years on red clay, b) Nadal's loss to Soderling in the 2009 RG, adding that Borg never suffered such a defeat in his prime on red clay.

So there you go. Borg 1977-1981 untouchable on the red clay.

sorry, but the same can be said about Nadal in 2005-2008 and 2010. I think he already pass Borg now, if he wins one more FO, then he is absolutely clayGOAT

CyBorg · Jun 27, 2011

The Hermit said:
sorry, but the same can be said about Nadal in 2005-2008 and 2010. I think he already pass Borg now, if he wins one more FO, then he is absolutely clayGOAT

Yeah and what happened in 2009? Erased from your memory?

The Hermit · Jun 27, 2011

CyBorg said:
Yeah and what happened in 2009? Erased from your memory?

Dude, I know about 2009, that is why I exclude that year in my post, reading comprehension,

Notice both Borg and Rafa has five years untouchable on clay.

CyBorg · Jun 27, 2011

The Hermit said:
Dude, I know about 2009, that is why I exclude that year in my post, reading comprehension, Notice both Borg and Rafa has five years untouchable on clay.

Again, I think that one can make a very good argument for Nadal. But if I were arguing for Borg I would point to the fact that his prime was uninterrupted by a down year on the surface. How important that is depends on your point of view.

The Hermit · Jun 27, 2011

Ah okay, your point is 'uniterrupted', well, it is fine, but if Rafa wins RG next year, I don't think it is debatable.

CyBorg · Jun 27, 2011

Of course it's debatable for reasons like the ones already mentioned. Furthermore the debate doesn't end with these two. We also have Rosewall, but no one wants to debate for him.

John123 · Jun 29, 2011

It seems to me that Borg and Nadal have such similarly perfect resumes on clay that we should just call them co-#1.

As a few others have mentioned, two players from 100 years ago merit consideration because each lost zero matches on clay throughout his prime. One is Laurie Doherty (1900-1906), and the other is Anthony Wilding (1911-1914).

Even if people want to discount Doherty because clay-court tennis wasn't too developed yet in his day, there's really no way to ignore Wilding, whose results are outrageously impressive on clay: by some measures, he won the most and lost the least of anyone ever on that surface. For some details, see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=276485 (entries #27 and #36).

I really think that the clay-court GOAT is a three-way tie among Wilding, Borg, and Nadal. All of them basically could not have been better.

Clay Court GOAT

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

New User

G.O.A.T.

New User

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

New User

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Banned

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Rookie

Similar threads