Weak era:
Federer,Tilden,Budge,Nadal,Perry,Emerson,Lacoste,Wilding,Doherty,Bones
Strong era:
Laver,Sampras,Borg,Gonzales,Rosewall,Hoad,Kramer,Connors,Mac or Lendl or AA or Newk
The only weak one here is you.
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roger Federer
4. Pete Sampras
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Bill Tilden
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Don Budge
10. Jimmy Connors
1. Martina Navratilova
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Steffi Graf
5. Serena Williams
6. Suzanne Lenglen
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Maureen Connolly
9. Billie Jean King
10. Monica Seles
I thought of including Elsworth Vines, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Venus Williams, but I just couldnt find space for them.
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roger Federer
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roger Federer
4. Pete Sampras
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Bill Tilden
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Don Budge
10. Jimmy Connors
1. Martina Navratilova
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Steffi Graf
5. Serena Williams
6. Suzanne Lenglen
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Maureen Connolly
9. Billie Jean King
10. Monica Seles
I thought of including Elsworth Vines, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Venus Williams, but I just couldnt find space for them.
Nice, Rod and Kenny both have Fed at the top of their lists and you've got them both above Fed. Rod ranked Rosewall 6th amongst the old guard, BTW. I love the guy too, but this Rosewall fetishism has got to stop
1- Federer
2-Borg
3-Laver
4-Sampras
5-Nadal ( he can move up , at the end of his career he'll be the second behind the king)
6-Gonzalez
7-Lendl
8-Mcenroe
9-Rosewall
10-Agassi
A good looking list.
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roger Federer
4. Pete Sampras
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Bill Tilden
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Don Budge
10. Jimmy Connors
1. Martina Navratilova
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Steffi Graf
5. Serena Williams
6. Suzanne Lenglen
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Maureen Connolly
9. Billie Jean King
10. Monica Seles
I thought of including Elsworth Vines, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Venus Williams, but I just couldnt find space for them.
thanks but I've forgotten to include Connors in this list
Tilden has a place too
I'll edit it nowA good looking list.1- Federer
2-Borg
3-Laver
4-Sampras
5-Nadal ( he can move up , at the end of his career he'll be the second behind the king)
6-Gonzalez
7-Lendl
8-Mcenroe /Connors
9-Rosewall
10-Agassi /Tilden
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Laver
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Pancho
7. Agassi
8. Tilden
9. Lendl
10. McEnroe
Having Rosewall out of the top 10 is plain crazy. The guy was a top 3 player for 20 freaking years, nobody has ever come close to that or probably ever will. He was also the games dominant player for 4 or 5 years, as long or longer than Federer. You have him below Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe, LOL!
Also while I love Agassi there is no merit to him being above Tilden, Lendl, McEnroe, or Connors. Honestly I cant see how he can possibly be in the top 10. Talent wise he should have been, but he didnt have the career.
Having Rosewall out of the top 10 is plain crazy. The guy was a top 3 player for 20 freaking years, nobody has ever come close to that or probably ever will. He was also the games dominant player for 4 or 5 years, as long or longer than Federer. You have him below Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe, LOL!
Also while I love Agassi there is no merit to him being above Tilden, Lendl, McEnroe, or Connors. Honestly I cant see how he can possibly be in the top 10. Talent wise he should have been, but he didnt have the career.
Laver didn't rate himself. But, obviously he is at or near the top of either list.
What 4-5 years was Rosewall the game's most dominant player? I agree Agassi's career wasn't what it could have been. He had injuries and motivation lapses. But, had it been what it could have been, he would probably be top 5 all time.
There's no definitely right answer to come up with such a short list(10 players). As I've stated in my previous post, it's gets more cloudy/subjective as you move further down the list. You can throw in Connors or Rosewall and remove any two players from bottom list and that wouldn't make any difference since it's all debatable.
Seems to me a reasonable list, Bobby One, it is not that far from Nadal-Agassi's list. I think the top 7 should be there on every sensible list, the order is a matter of choice. How to input Nadal, is imo still too early to tell. Federer career is not over, too. Hoad is pretty high, when considering his real achievements. Some would put Budge, Kramer, Connors, Lendl (for instance on the basis of years at Nr. 1) over him.
I'll try a pre-open era and open era list (without using a player in both lists, so players who started their careers pre-open era or open era):
Pre-open era
1. Pancho Gonzales
2. Rod Laver
3. Bill Tilden
4. Ellsworth Vines
5. Jack Kramer
6. Ken Rosewall
7. Don Budge
8. Pancho Segura
9. Frank Sedgman
10. Lew Hoad
Open era
1. Roger Federer
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Jimmy Connors
6. Ivan Lendl
7. John McEnroe
8. Mats Wilander
9. Andre Agassi
10. Guillermo Vilas
Rosewall was clearly the best in the World in 1961, 1962, 1963, and arguably in 1960 and 1964 too.
Having Rosewall out of the top 10 is plain crazy. The guy was a top 3 player for 20 freaking years, nobody has ever come close to that or probably ever will. He was also the games dominant player for 4 or 5 years, as long or longer than Federer. You have him below Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe, LOL!
Also while I love Agassi there is no merit to him being above Tilden, Lendl, McEnroe, or Connors. Honestly I cant see how he can possibly be in the top 10. Talent wise he should have been, but he didnt have the career.
I'll try a pre-open era and open era list (without using a player in both lists, so players who started their careers pre-open era or open era):
Pre-open era
1. Pancho Gonzales
2. Rod Laver
3. Bill Tilden
4. Ellsworth Vines
5. Jack Kramer
6. Ken Rosewall
7. Don Budge
8. Pancho Segura
9. Frank Sedgman
10. Lew Hoad
Open era
1. Roger Federer
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Jimmy Connors
6. Ivan Lendl
7. John McEnroe
8. Mats Wilander
9. Andre Agassi
10. Guillermo Vilas
Gonzales was not toppled in 1960 or 1961. In 1960, Gonzales didn't play hardly any tournaments due to his disputes with Kramer, but he did dominate the 1960 world pro tour, as the standings below show:
1. Pancho Gonzales 49-8
2. Ken Rosewall 32-25
3. Pancho Segura 22-28
4. Alex Olmedo 11-44
In 1961, Rosewall won the French Pro and Wembley Pro titles, but Gonzales won his 8th US Pro title, and once again won the world pro tour:
Round Robin
1. Pancho Gonzales 33-14
2. Andres Gimeno 27-20
3. Lew Hoad 24-23
4. Barry MacKay 22-25
5. Alex Olmedo 18-29
6. Butch Buchholz 16-31
Third Place Play Off
3. Frank Sedgman 15-13 (Hoad pulled out with injury)
4. Barry MacKay 13-15
Final
1. Pancho Gonzales 21-7
2. Andres Gimeno 7-21
As for 1964, I don't really see how Rosewall is above Laver that year. Laver won 2 of the 3 pro majors, and had turned the tables in their head-to-head matches.
I just dont see how Rosewall could be one of those borderline for the bottom of the top 10. The guys longevity is unparalleled in the history of the game even today, and he was the Games top player for about as long or close to as long as most of the GOAT candidates too. Had it been Open Era he probably would have had well over 20 slams, he was such a force for such a long time.
I also dont see how Agassi's career could ever be rated above people like Lendl or Connors, unless one is going into their subjective views of his abilities more than results.
Laver's career achievement was overlapped in both era, so I don't see how you can say he's near at the top in both lists, especially in the open era.
Interesting lists. I only would contradict about Rosewall's place. But it's fine that you include Pancho Segura who is vastly underrated. He was No.4 as late as 1962 when he was already 41 and had a match point against world champ, Rosewall, at Wembley...
WRONG! Laver has Federer as No.1 only for open era. Rosewall has Federer as No.4 behind Hoad, Gonzalez and Laver.
When Federer overcomes Rosewall's 23 majors then we can discuss once more about Rosewall fetishism....
A champion should also prove his dominance in big tournaments which Gonzalez did not in 1960 and 1961. The US Open 1961 was not a big tournament (weak participation).
Rosewall's nuts then. Hoad is the single most overrated great on this forum.
Hoad is ranked by his peak level of play rather than vast achievements.
Ranking by peak level play only makes sense when the achievments are close. If peak level of play is all that mattered one could say Safin and Maureen Connolly were the two best ever, yet obviously such a claim is laughable, especialy regarding Safin. Hoad does not have the achievments to be especialy high on any list. Relatively low (all time speaking) number of amateur slams and there isnt even one year he was ranked as the top pro, there was one year he was outplaying Gonzales until his back problems began to take hold.
Rosewall's nuts then. Hoad is the single most overrated great on this forum.
I agree with Bobby One, that in sensible calculation Tilden would have won the most majors of all. Between 1920 and 1925, he was close to unbeatable, and the players who won Wimbledon, World Hard Court (RG wasn't open to foreigners) or Australia, which also had no foreign entries, like Patterson, Johnston or Borotra were not in his class. The musceteers Cochet and Lacoste began to challenge and overtake Tilden since 1926, but given 4 available majors per year, Tilden still would have sneaked in several titles, as he did in reality at Wim and Forest Hills.
Gonzalez would have much deeper competition in open tennis in the 50s: Kramer in the first years, who dominated him at first, Sedgman, who could do harm to Gorgo on grass in Australia and GB, Hoad, who excelled at Wim and grass courts, Trabert and Rosewall, who were clearly better clay court players, Segura, who was always a dangerous opponent. Given this sharp opposition, I don't see Gonzalez winning the same amount of majors and overall titles as Tilden. Rosewall had the longest career at the top, and was always very good at big events (he won Wembley as early as 1957) and especially at French venues. Laver had a shorter career, but was imo so technical sound, versatile and powerful, that he could sweep all available titles in some of his best years.
so all that peak level of play and he is 4–2 in GS finals, and 1–7 in Pro finals..just cannot see what the fuss is about.
The 1961 US Pro had Gonzales, Sedgman, Gimeno and MacKay.