Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Another thing about Laver's Grand slam is that the Australian open was not equal to the other majors ( many players used to skip it ) + The weak competition + the fact that majors at that time were played on grass and clay . therefore , Roger's 3 slams+1 final ( more than once ) or 12 out of 16 slams in 4 years is a more impressive feat

this is not to belittle Laver, no. I do believe he's one of the greatest but one should at the same time be more objective and fair towards other greats

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
Another thing about Laver's Grand slam is that the Australian open was not equal to the other majors ( many players used to skip it ) + The weak competition + the fact that majors at that time were played on grass and clay . therefore , Roger's 3 slams+1 final ( more than once ) or 12 out of 16 slams in 4 years is a more impressive feat

this is not to belittle Laver, no. I do believe he's one of the greatest but one should at the same time be more objective and fair towards other greats

Apart from Arthur Ashe, the 1969 Australian Open had all the best players. And the grass of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills all had different conditions.

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Apart from Arthur Ashe, the 1969 Australian Open had all the best players.

really ?? I've heard many times that it wasn't highly regarded and that many players at that time used to skip it

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Apart from Arthur Ashe, the 1969 Australian Open had all the best players. And the grass of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills all had different conditions.

grass is grass my friend . maybe there's a little difference but it remains grass

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
really ?? I've heard many times that it wasn't highly regarded and that many players at that time used to skip it

Yes, in the 1970s and early 1980s, especially from 1976-1982, but not in 1969. The 1969 Australian Open had Laver, Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Gonzales, Stolle, Riessen, Gimeno, Bowrey, Emerson, Ruffels, Buchholz, Anderson, Taylor and Stone.

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Laver is said to have won 200 tournaments . Can someone put a list of them and provide us with some information and details about them ?

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
grass is grass my friend . maybe there's a little difference but it remains grass

Forest Hills was a bog of a court that year. The 1969 US Open final between Laver and Roche shows this pretty clearly.

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Yes, in the 1970s and early 1980s, especially from 1976-1982, but not in 1969. The 1969 Australian Open had Laver, Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Gonzales, Stolle, Riessen, Gimeno, Bowrey, Emerson, Ruffels, Buchholz, Anderson, Taylor and Stone.

they are Australian ? NO?

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
Laver is said it have won 200 tournaments . Can someone put a list of them and provide us with some information and details about them ?

Here's a list of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Singles_titles_.28200.29

Providing details for 200 tournaments would take some time

Iron Man · Sep 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Here's a list of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Singles_titles_.28200.29

Providing details for 200 tournaments would take some time

Be patient with me if you can

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
they are Australian ? NO?

Australians had a load of tennis talent from the 1930s to the 1970s. It was like a conveyer belt. There was Crawford, Hopman, McGrath, Bromwich, Quist, Pails, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Fraser, Emerson, Laver, Mulligan, Stolle, Roche, Newcombe and Edmondson. I may have missed some as well. Edmondson was probably the last of a long line. Since Edmondson won the 1976 Australian Open, the only really prominent Australian male players has been Cash, Rafter and Hewitt.

Besides, of those names I mentioned from the 1969 Australian Open, Gonzales, Riessen, Gimeno, Buchholz and Taylor were not Australian.

TMF · Sep 8, 2012

Mustard said:
Apart from Arthur Ashe, the 1969 Australian Open had all the best players. And the grass of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills all had different conditions.

1969 AO the draw consists over 50% of the players from one country(Aussie). The depth of the competition isn't even close to today since the best athletes are coming from all around the world.

Mustard · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
1969 AO the draw consists over 50% of the players from one country(Aussie). The depth of the competition isn't even close to today since the best athletes are coming from all around the world.

As I've said, the Australians were dominant in tennis at the time. They were the best players.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

urban said:
The list made by kiki is interesting, i can understand the fascination angle. I am glad to see Roche so high, because i always thought, that he was a great talent, a technical virtuoso with all the shots, who was hampered by injuries. Nastase on his day was indeed something else. If you don't look on his major wins, but on his head to head scores, you see the outstanding quality. He was fast like the wind, had a wonderful athletic body with strong legs. He played better against the great players, than often against the lesser ones.

From the fascination standpoint, the player who fascinated me the most out the last 15 years, was Rios. You may like him or not, i cannot even say myself that i like him. But what angles and spins, what invention, what beautiful tennis.

As I said, in most cases the differences are so tight that it is just how I made the list today...what do you mean by the fascination angle?

The criteria is: I see a player more than once live, I analyze different aspects,I judge potential and talent ( of coursem always a subjective thing) and finally I quantiify how much I enjoy him play or not and from there up try to put him in an order.

That is what counts, not boring stuff that anybody can read in wiky or any book.That is not watching tennis.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

urban said:
The list made by kiki is interesting, i can understand the fascination angle. I am glad to see Roche so high, because i always thought, that he was a great talent, a technical virtuoso with all the shots, who was hampered by injuries. Nastase on his day was indeed something else. If you don't look on his major wins, but on his head to head scores, you see the outstanding quality. He was fast like the wind, had a wonderful athletic body with strong legs. He played better against the great players, than often against the lesser ones.

From the fascination standpoint, the player who fascinated me the most out the last 15 years, was Rios. You may like him or not, i cannot even say myself that i like him. But what angles and spins, what invention, what beautiful tennis.

As I said, in most cases the differences are so tight that it is just how I made the list today...what do you mean by the fascination angle? I just don´t get your point.

The criteria is: I see a player more than once live, I analyze different aspects,I judge potential and talent ( of course always a subjective thing) and finally I try to quantify how much I enjoy him play or not and from there up try to put him in an order.

That is what counts, not boring stuff that anybody can read in wiky or any book.That is not watching tennis.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
a very convincing argument .

I like so much dear kiki

when did you start watching tennis ?

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
It's impossible to play 34 events per year, you know that!

Unlike in those days, todays' tournament the player has to at least win 4 matches for the title. It also physically demanding, more running, more effort in every strokes. Then there's a lot hard court events that takes a beating on the body.

laver try to play 34 events in today's condition, he'll collapse !

ROFLMAO

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
really ?? I've heard many times that it wasn't highly regarded and that many players at that time used to skip it

a multislam path consisting of Emmo.Stolle,Roche and Gimeno..LOL

BobbyOne · Sep 8, 2012

kiki said:
I talk from what I have seen, and I don´t care to post it.I wonder if you are the classical book eater that probably watched a few tapes here and there or you can back up with a personnal opinion, not just a book sheet, what you are posting.I mean, watching times and times the greats live...

I have watched a few players from Rosewall to Murray...

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
they are Australian ? NO?

Yes, Gonzales and Gimeno are first generation australians...plus australians dominated tennis from 1950 onwards, you don´t know that.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
1969 AO the draw consists over 50% of the players from one country(Aussie). The depth of the competition isn't even close to today since the best athletes are coming from all around the world.

More than 50% of the NBA are americans...does it mean the NBA is a joke?

BobbyOne · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
You don't have a leg to stand on so you had to come up with this crap as usual.

Quality tennis today >>> 40 years ago.

Thanks for your qualified answer.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
You don't have a leg to stand on so you had to come up with this crap as usual.

Quality tennis today >>> 40 years ago.

And what is your scientific proof of this?

How about giving some answers backed by some facts and apples to apples comparisons instead of apples to oranges comparison? Do your research before making some statements.

TMF · Sep 8, 2012

kiki said:
More than 50% of the NBA are americans...does it mean the NBA is a joke?

No. But the NBA is a lot better than 40 years ago because the league has much more foreign players. More of a global sports means there's more depth/talent players.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
No. But the NBA is a lot better than 40 years ago because the league has much more foreign players. More of a global sports means there's more depth/talent players.

You realize the NBA has many more teams now so the level of play may not be as good.

TMF · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
And what is your scientific proof of this?

How about giving some answers backed by some facts and apples to apples comparisons instead of apples to oranges comparison? Do your research before making some statements.

And do you guys have any scientific proof of this?

BobbyOne said:
You should not forget that Laver in 1969 had tougher competition than Federer nowadays has.

Funny how you say I belittles Laver but the old-timers started the whole thing.

My reason is always remaining the same and it's a valid point. Tennis and any other sports improve overtime. It can't regress, can't stay constant, but gets better.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
It's impossible to play 34 events per year, you know that!

Unlike in those days, todays' tournament the player has to at least win 4 matches for the title. It also physically demanding, more running, more effort in every strokes. Then there's a lot hard court events that takes a beating on the body.

laver try to play 34 events in today's condition, he'll collapse !

It was 32 tournaments. Here's a little information-Tipsarevic has played 29 tournaments so far this year and it's September. Do the math. At that rate it's about 38 tournaments in one year. Almagro has played 28 tournaments so far this year in 2012 and at that rate he'll play about 37. Yeah, it's impossible---IN YOUR MIND but not in reality.

Just a little more information-Guillermo Vilas won 17 tournaments in 1977 on a 145-14 match record. I'm fairly certain he played over thirty tournaments. Laver and Vilas also played doubles. These guys had super stamina and no they didn't collapse.

TMF · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
You realize the NBA has many more teams now so the level of play may not be as good.

The reason why they have more team because there's more athletes. If population continue to grow and more people try out for basketball, there's more athletes that are good enough to play in the NBA. Same for baseball, hockey, etc...

TMF · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
It was 32 tournaments. Here's a little information-Tipsarevic has played 29 tournaments so far this year and it's September. Do the math. At that rate it's about 38 tournaments in one year. Almagro has played 28 tournaments so far and at that rate he'll play about 37. Yeah, it's impossible---IN YOUR MIND but not in reality.

He played 21 tournament so far this year.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Janko-Tipsarevic.aspx?t=pa

And it's not the number of tournaments that tells the story, but the number of matches. Right now, he's played a total of 66 matches(including this USO).

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
He played 21 tournament so far this year.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Janko-Tipsarevic.aspx?t=pa

And it's not the number of tournaments that tells the story, but the number of matches. Right now, he's played a total of 66 matches(including this USO).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

Actually you may be correct because I think the 29 and 28 respectively is over a 12 month period. Still 29 is not far from 32. Check number 33, he's played 31 tournaments over 12 months. Actually a few have played over 30 tournaments over 12 months.

The bottom line is that they (the top players) make soooooooooooo much money they don't have to play a lot of tournaments.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
The reason why they have more team because there's more athletes. If population continue to grow and more people try out for basketball, there's more athletes that are good enough to play in the NBA. Same for baseball, hockey, etc...

No they have more teams to make more money. It's the real world. You could have the greatest athletes in the world and if you don't make money they wouldn't be playing.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
And do you guys have any scientific proof of this?

Funny how you say I belittles Laver but the old-timers started the whole thing.

My reason is always remaining the same and it's a valid point. Tennis and any other sports improve overtime. It can't regress, can't stay constant, but gets better.

What are you writing about? I never claimed scientific proof of anything. I give out information that can be backed up. You make outrageous statements that Isner would serve 60 aces against Laver.

Please make some sense in your rebuttals.

BobbyOne · Sep 8, 2012

TMF,thanks for your qualified answer. It speaks for itself...

I have defended you against unqualified insults but you insult me badly.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

Delete post.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
No. But the NBA is a lot better than 40 years ago because the league has much more foreign players. More of a global sports means there's more depth/talent players.

Sorry to say this but your lack of knowledge is astonishing.NBA was a better league in the 80´s and there were 0 non americans.That means, 100% of the field was US citizens ( except Olajuwon) and that is the same as for aussies in the 60´s, although there were some very good non aussie players.

Think a little bit better next time.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
The reason why they have more team because there's more athletes. If population continue to grow and more people try out for basketball, there's more athletes that are good enough to play in the NBA. Same for baseball, hockey, etc...

There is only wishful thinking behind that theory

CyBorg · Sep 8, 2012

Iron Man said:
Another thing about Laver's Grand slam is that the Australian open was not equal to the other majors ( many players used to skip it ) + The weak competition + the fact that majors at that time were played on grass and clay . therefore , Roger's 3 slams+1 final ( more than once ) or 12 out of 16 slams in 4 years is a more impressive feat

this is not to belittle Laver, no. I do believe he's one of the greatest but one should at the same time be more objective and fair towards other greats

The Aussie was poorly attended after Laver won it. In 1969 it was very well attended. You should study the draws rather than speaking generally.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

Kiki,

While I disagree a bit with the order of your list. Thanks for writing it. I like the names on there.

Great stuff.

BobbyOne · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
Delete post.

TMF wrote that I write the same crap as usual. I had mentioned that Laver did have tough competition in 1969 with players like Rosewall, Emerson, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and Smith.

Sorry, I came late with my answer. But you gave me the opportunity to show how wrong TMF was when writing that Laver did not have tough opposition when making the Grand Slam that year...

CyBorg · Sep 8, 2012

TMF said:
No. But the NBA is a lot better than 40 years ago because the league has much more foreign players. More of a global sports means there's more depth/talent players.

I guess this must mean that Oscar Robertson isn't very good.

CyBorg · Sep 8, 2012

IMO, there's more than 5 or close to 10 players in tennis history that we can call "first-tier". We can identify them, because we know who dominated which generation.

But ranking them is fruitless. It's like ranking Andrei Tarkovsky films versus Ingmar Bergman films. Why bother?

I'd isolate these players: Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer.

If we go WWI and earlier we could add some more.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

CyBorg said:
I guess this must mean that Oscar Robertson isn't very good.

Amazing how people rarely talk about the Big O anymore. He was the first guy to average a triple double.

Red Auerbach the great Celtic GM and coach who obviously knew NBA talent once said that player with the greatest talent was Wilt Chamberlain who played in the 1960's and 1970's.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
Kiki,

While I disagree a bit with the order of your list. Thanks for writing it. I like the names on there. Great stuff.

Your commands are orders for me.

As you can see, I didn´t put Kodes in the top 10.

BobbyOne · Sep 8, 2012

CyBorg said:
IMO, there's more than 5 or close to 10 players in tennis history that we can call "first-tier". We can identify them, because we know who dominated which generation.

But ranking them is fruitless. It's like ranking Andrei Tarkovsky films versus Ingmar Bergman films. Why bother?

I'd isolate these players: Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer.

If we go WWI and earlier we could add some more.

I happily agree with your tier 1 list.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

BobbyOne said:
TMF wrote that I write the same crap as usual. I had mentioned that Laver did have tough competition in 1969 with players like Rosewall, Emerson, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe and Smith.

Sorry, I came late with my answer. But you gave me the possibility to show how wrong TMF was when writing that Laver did not have tough opposition when making the Grand Slam that year...

I undrstand. Of course Laver had tough competition in 1969 and throughout his great career. TMF only writes that to defend his favorite. There is no reason to put down people to make your favorite better. The favorite of his in this case is a fantastic player and will be remembered throughout tennis history.

I know a lot of people who love to put people down to bring themselves up. Never could understand that because those people should strive to improve themselves to reach the other person's level. In some ways this is similar I believe.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

pc1 said:
Amazing how people rarely talk about the Big O anymore. He was the first guy to average a triple double.

Red Auerbach the great Celtic GM and coach who obviously knew NBA talent once said that player with the greatest talent was Wilt Chamberlain who played in the 1960's and 1970's.

I won´t discuss with the big Red.Robertson is an all time great and Chamberlain is still the reference for the post game.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

CyBorg said:
IMO, there's more than 5 or close to 10 players in tennis history that we can call "first-tier". We can identify them, because we know who dominated which generation.

But ranking them is fruitless. It's like ranking Andrei Tarkovsky films versus Ingmar Bergman films. Why bother?

I'd isolate these players: Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer.

If we go WWI and earlier we could add some more.

Hoad,Budge,Cochet,Wilding,Perry,Kramer,Connors,Newcombe,Mac,Lendl,Nadal,Agassi,Becker and Sedgman would make a long second tier although I could agree that Hoad and Budge have top tier credentials.

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

kiki said:
Hoad,Budge,Cochet,Wilding,Perry,Kramer,Connors,Newcombe,Mac,Lendl,Nadal,Agassi,Becker and Sedgman would make a long second tier although I could agree that Hoad and Budge have top tier credentials.

Kramer would also have top tier credentials easily also in my opinion as would Connors and Lendl because of the huge amount of tournaments they won plus WCTs, Year End Masters.

I thought Nadal was a shoo in for the top level but that's questionable because of his injuries. Still think he'll do it.

kiki · Sep 8, 2012

CyBorg said:
I guess this must mean that Oscar Robertson isn't very good.

...neither are Bill Russell,Jerry Lucas,Jerry West,Earl Monroe,Walt Frazier,Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlian.

No, Dwight Howard and Westbrook are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than them...

pc1 · Sep 8, 2012

kiki said:
...neither are Bill Russell,Jerry Lucas,Jerry West,Earl Monroe,Walt Frazier,Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlian.

No, Dwight Howard and Westbrook are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than them...

Outside of Dwight Howard, are there any decent centers today?

Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads