Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
Even McCauley quotes the Anderson article from World Tennis, that gives the final standings on points.
The interim points are given in Toronto Globe and Mail and Toronto Star during the Toronto stop, and other interim points are listed before and during the Forest Hills Pro.
Check NY Times and London Times for January 1960 right after the Kooyong final, where the bonus money is mentioned and listed for the top players.
The 1964 New Zealand tour was listed in Australian papers, see Andrew Tas postings for 2007, which I have printed out.
Are you being serious? Hard to believe.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Gonzales was a touch player, not a power player. Hoad's backhand was stronger than his forehand, like Laver. Sampras' serve and forehand were superior to both Gonzales' and Hoad's serves and forehands. And, Sampras was easily as great an athlete as either of them.
In any event, saying that Sampras and Federer would be overwhelmed by Hoad on clay is no more unrealistic than saying that Rosewall would have won 40 majors under any circumstances.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Not saying that Gonzalez wasn't a touch player but he was also known for being able to hit huge forehands when needed. I think Sampras was a great athlete and one of the great tennis athletes ever but if push comes to shove I think Pancho Gonzalez was a slightly better athlete. Just my opinion my friend and I think Sampras is perhaps a greater than anyone playing today if you take into account speed, power and reflexes.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I'm just trying to demonstrate that there's no reasonable basis to conclude that Hoad would "overwhelm" Sampras or Federer on clay. I agree that both Gonzales and Hoad were probably better clay court players than Samprs, but not Federer. I still pick Sampras as the top grass court player of all time.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Incidentally in that last post of mine you quote I meant to write Sampras may be greater ATHLETE than anyone playing today. I didn't mean greater than anyone playing today but that could be true also.
It's interesting that Joe has not given the points. Do you know them? Please give it to us.
I did not mean the New Zealand 4 man tour. I meant (sorry I wrote 6 players instead of 8) the 14 tournament tour that decided the world's rankings. Buchholz wrote an article in World Tennis but did not give the point standings.
I even wrote to him but without success...
It's curious that exactly you ask about my seriosity. I can ask you back: Are you serious? I doubt, see your bold claim about Hoad defeated Rosewall on clay, your wrong statements about the 1958 Perrier Cup, your claim about Hoad defeating Laver 14 times, your oxygen stupidity....
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Very few players nowadays have a plan B.
If that is your argument/opinion then put him in the top 10 greatest of all time.
Berdych is a talented player, no shame to Federer. Berdych, ever since i saw him against Agassi at the USO, i found a good hard courter, who handn't the nerves to pull a out the real big major win. His deep flat balls made Federer move more than he likes nowadays. I thought, that Fed took a bit advantage this year after RG of the sharp duel at the top between Djoker and Nadal. But on the other hand, the many tournaments he played took something out of him physically, which is showing now.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Any player that loses doesn't have a plan b. That's include Rosewall.
Not necessarily. Some players have a ton of different ways to change styles and some don't. A Tilden may lose but not because he didn't play it differently to use him as an example. Some baseliners may not have any plan but to stay back and outrally opponents.
I know you're writing that as a little joke but in reality Rosewall had many different ways of playing.
Sampras was slow and stumbling compared to Hoad and Gonzales, and give Pete a wooden raquet and he would rate about equal with Newk or Trabert. On a good day.
I have not seen the World Tennis article written by Anderson, only McCauley's quote. Presumably, the full results are there.
I have seen the interim points as reported in newspapers, and the final bonus money totals for the top players reported in New York Times and London Times.
I think that your mind would be satisfied if you bothered to check the New York Times and the London Times. Not hard to find these publications. Yes, they both still exist.
Yes, I still see that Rosewall lost the European clay tour to Hoad in 1957, according to Kramer, and without contradiction from McCauley.
The Perrier Cup was a minor event, and the claim about Hoad defeating Laver 14 STRAIGHT times is taken from Laver's own mouth, and is close to Bucholz' claim of 13 STRAIGHT losses by Laver to Hoad, etc.
Yes, oxygen is essential for a high-powered performance, not to be found at Wembley and other smoke-houses.
I do not see any serious objection to these in your statements.
Wembley
Dan, I understand your concern about smoking. It is a horrible habit. The problem is, we are judging historical performances here. And the fact is that none of the players at the time depreciated Wembley or the French Pro based on smoking. None of the tennis writers and journalists who discussed rankings at the time depreciated those events either, based on that.
Hence, you are right - smoking would have affected performances. However, we must judge history as history was. And the fact is that those events were under those conditions but nobody let that come into their thinking in terms of the prestige of the events at the time.
Dan, I understand your concern about smoking. It is a horrible habit. The problem is, we are judging historical performances here. And the fact is that none of the players at the time depreciated Wembley or the French Pro based on smoking. None of the tennis writers and journalists who discussed rankings at the time depreciated those events either, based on that.
Hence, you are right - smoking would have affected performances. However, we must judge history as history was. And the fact is that those events were under those conditions but nobody let that come into their thinking in terms of the prestige of the events at the time.
Not quite correct.
The reason I make such a noise about this is that the London Times journalists several times pointed out the heavy smoke buildup as the evening progressed at Wembley. Why would they point this out?
They further noted when certain players were getting exhausted suddenly, like Laver in the 1963 Stade Coubertin final against Rosewall, and Rosewall himself in the 1964 Wembley final.
It is not such a great jump to link the two.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Djokovic won 3 majors in one year, and went 11-1 against Federer and Nadal in one year. He's also won 30 tournaments, much more than Jan. Surely you don't believe Kodes would have come close to accomplishing that. His favourite surface was clay, but with Nadal dominating RG he would have a rough time succeeding at the French. He was clearly good on grass too, but his Wimbledon title was won in the absence of Smith, Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Okker and others . . . THAT is a depleted field. In his three major wins, he only beat one great (Nastase). When pitted against an elite player he would often come up short. From late 1970 to early 1971 he lost something like 8-9 consecutive matches. This was when he was 24 years old (granted, 5 of those loses are in the Masters where he lost to 5 great players), and it's hard to imagine Nole losing so many matches in a row. Kodes beat Smith and Ashe at the US Open though, in his defense.
Djokovic's groundstrokes are also among the greatest in the open era, and his return is an elite one too. Not to mention his movement and defense.
Look don't get me wrong, Kodes was a great player and my knowledge of the period in which he played probably isn't as good as yours or others on this forum as it was before my time, but I think it's a bit dubious to even compare the two.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Well I was talkimg in comparative terms.
Wimbledon had Borg,connors,nastase...there were so many all timers in that fabulous era
that even a depleted field was loaded
TheFifthSet
Legend
What do you mean by that? To me there's just no way Jan can come out favourable using ANY method or term, as great a player as he was (any player that has won what he has is deserving of the label of a great player).
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Laver didn't have much, if any, plan B either, unless crushing the ball even harder counts as a plan B.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Federer was definitely sub-par in that match. Even his shot selection was questionable on many points. I think he was just not physically ready to do battle against an inspired Berdych and was trying to end points early with low percentage shots. That's probably why he hit so many UE's.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I have to disagree with you there. I've seen Laver play many different ways but we all know his preferred way which was power, angles and strong volleying. However Laver could do so much more. I saw Laver defeat Harold Solomon easily in a clay court final at Breton Woods by giving Solomon a drop shot clinic. It was an excellent example of touch tennis.
Laver was playing Newcombe in a tournament one time and they were in the fifth set. Newcombe had won the last two sets and was volleying to Laver's backhand and putting away the overhead when Laver's tried to lob. Newcombe was serving and he volleyed to Laver's backhand again, Newk moved his weight backwards to prepare for what seemed to be a lob from Laver off the backhand down the line again, instead Laver hit a soft crosscourt dink at Newcombe's feet. Newk's weight was moving back so he couldn't hit a strong volley and he knew Laver would pass him on the next shot. So Newk (all this was in fractions of a second) decided to hit the volley deep and start the point over. Newcombe hit the ball out. Newcombe wrote it was a brilliant play by Laver but no one in the crowd probably knew the subtlety of what Laver did.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Laver was good and bold enough to keep waiting till he could jump onto the wave and put miles behind.his strategy could change if he played Newk or Ashe or he faced Rosewall.In that case,he manouvred carefully till finding the openingHow would Laver play a great tennis mind like Tilden
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Not so fast. Laver often had Plan C and D and E. Some of these did involve hitting harder, some involved more lobbing, some involved more "droppers", some involved more volleying and taking the net on everything, some involved staying back and passing shots, some involved all-court tennis, some plans involved all of these.
Once against Roscoe Tanner he started hitting short lobs--not over Tanner's head, but so Tanner could easily smash it. Laver would then rush the net, and try to take the smash in the air with a reflex-volley. Tanner, whose game was built around his huge serve, could not believe that anyone would try to intercept his gigantic smash, and thus his timing was thrown off, missed a few into the net. Laver did return a few smashes for easy winners. By then tanner was so "rattled" that his game fell apart.
Laver was very tactical. His tactics included knowing his opponents weaknesses.
Last edited:
What's the point of having plan b, c, d, etc anyway if you'r going to lose.
Didn't Laver lost 16 times in 1969?
Sometime there's nothing you can do if the apponent has a strong game. Let say Laver face a big server like Isner, there's nothing Laver can do except only hope Isner's 1st percentage is low. Laver has no control.
Didn't Laver lost 16 times in 1969?
Sometime there's nothing you can do if the apponent has a strong game. Let say Laver face a big server like Isner, there's nothing Laver can do except only hope Isner's 1st percentage is low. Laver has no control.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Easier said than done. Assuming we are talking about Laver playing at the present time. Players at 6' are having a tough time returning Isner's 130+mph serve. I think shorter Laver would have more problem trying to reach for the ball, not to mention atleast shoulder high(if he stand back further, the ball would at his head).
Laver's serve isn't big, so Isner could get the ball back in play. Of course Laver's movement is superior and should win most of the rally. But given this oppotunity, there's a chance for Isner to break.
How can Laver get to the net if he can't get the ball on his racket from Isner's serve, let alone get a quality return to avoid Isner taking control(he crushes any weak return). Wishful thinking.
I was exaggerating, and that's because kiki said Laver can relax with Isner's serve, as it like walking in the park. LOL
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Laver faced Pancho Gonzalez and his serve was still fantastic. He faced John Newcombe, Neal Fraser, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe and he did a pretty good job of returning their serve. It's funny, you make it sound like Laver lost all the time.
Let's face it, anyone, Roger Federer, Nadal, anyone would have problems with Isner's serve. I saw Isner hit a serve to Federer in Davis Cup that Federer or anyone else wouldn't stand a chance of returning. Problem is that Isner can't return and Laver had an excellent serve by the way. He had a great variety.
Incidentally, Rod won 106 times that year also. Awful record that year 106 wins and 16 losses plus the Open Grand Slam at the age of 31. Pathetic record.:roll:
Last edited:
55 unforced errors on the FH alone.
No shame, certainly, Berdych is a dangerous player.
Completely agree. The only way someone could be much faster than Sampras is if Pete started fading due to his anemia (which you mentioned). Admittedly, that was a problem for him in long claycourt tournaments, especially the French. A one-off showdown on clay, he'd be less susceptible.
His court coverage and footspeed was clearly below Gonzales, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall, etc.
None of these guys was around in the 1990's, and I don't think that Agassi had the footspeed of these other players, either.
TheFifthSet
Legend
David Ferrer is 5'9. How easy is he to ace? I think most of the people who would say Ferrer isn't one of best returners today are lying to themselves. Laver was 5'8, or 5'7 1/2 (he's listed at 5'8 most of the time) . . . show me a video of balls flying over the SLIGHTLY taller Ferrer's head.
If David Ferrer can hold his own in todays game, why can't one of the greatest players who ever lived [possibly the greatest]?
Last edited:
At 1:07, notice Ferrer had to jump up in the air to hit his forehand return from Isner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcMEsZ_Cp8
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. I doubt if any player in history was much faster than Sampras. Sampras certainly had so many weapons and was so talented. It's a shame he had that anemia. Perhaps his record would be far better than it is now and that would be incredible.
Losing 16 times in one year is too much. Fed in 2006 won 3 slams and 1 final. Very close to win all 4 and that year he lost only 5 times. Had Fed lost 16 times, it proves Fed is vulnerable, and in no position to be so close in winning all 4 slams.
The thing is, the chances of losing 16 times but be undefeated at the 4 slam events(28-0) is literally impossible. 1969 must be some strange year, but for today, 16 defeats is likely to be a slamless year.
TheFifthSet
Legend
1. Ball didn't come close to flying over his head . . . Ferrer returned it with interest.
2. Ferrer is one of the best returners on tour despite being only slightly taller than Laver.
3. His record versus Isner? 3-1! Against Karlovic? 2-1. Roddick? 7-4. Raonic? 4-0.
Laver was regarded as one of the best returners in his day. He's only an inch shorter than Ferrer, who has a sterling record against the guys I mentioned. He'd lose to these big servers probably about as often as Fed, which is not very. His return, scrambling and ability to take the ball early and take time away would keep him in the return games.
Last edited:
Similar threads
