NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm just happy Federer, Sampras and McEnroe made the cut. Much better than BobbyOne's list...lol. Having only a top 10 is pretty difficult with so many great players.
Last edited:
Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
I'm just happy Federer, Sampras and McEnroe made the cut. Much better than BobbyOne's list...lol. Having only a top 10 is pretty difficult with so many great players.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Some excellent valid points Dan.
Remember also that while Gonzalez won big matches from Kramer he also lost the tour by a resounding score of 26 to 97 on their head to head tour. Trabert while a fantastic player lost his tour to Gonzalez by 27 to 74 and Trabert was virtually unbeatable in his last year as an amateur. I think (this is from memory so don't hold me to this) that Trabert won the last 15 tournaments he played in and the last three majors of the year in his last year as an amateur.
Frank Sedgman was a dominant amateur but he still lost on tour to Kramer by 41 to 54. Sedgman may have lost by a slightly larger margin to Gonzalez at that point. Still a great showing by Sedgman considering everything.
The amateurs like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad (of course), Rosewall and Laver were extremely gifted players yet even they had to have so adjustment and improvement in their game. Kramer himself stated that Riggs improved his game. Now that may be to be nice to his friend Riggs but I got the impression from reading Kramer's book that he meant it.
Anyway the bottom line I was trying to convey was that there clearly was a difference in level of play between the pros and the amateurs.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Statistically unlikely but it is possible. Hey Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier and played for Team Canada at the same time in the 1980's. These are three of the best ever.
The NBA at one point had Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Karl Malone, John Stockton all playing at the same time.
Last edited:
Dan, I agree. If we have a look to classical music we see to our astonishment that three out of the four all-time greatest composers lived in the short span of about thirty years and all in the same city: Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert who lived in Vienna. No such a giant in the centuries afterwards. We still wait-in Vienna or elsewhere- for a new Mozart...
Last edited:
Dan, not the worst list, but where are Djokovic and Nadal?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'm actually curious about that myself.
Dan,
A reasonable list. I like that you including Sedgman there who is a very underrated and forgotten player. What about Connors, Kramer and Lendl? This list is fine.
Last edited:
You mean journeymen like Rosol, who whipped the floor with Nadal or Wawrinka pushing Nole to the extreme just a few days ago??? Do you remember Yzaga?? Fed himself lost against Horna at RG 2 week before winning his first major and he was ranked 5 at the time iirc. Sorry but it is a flawed logic to asume that it is harder to win in the context of the 60`s than nowadays. IMO it is quite the opposite. Again, in this era at least you are almost bound to face 2 or 3 top 10 players to win a slam or a Masters 1000. So the average level required to win a tournament is at the very least the same as in the pro tour, with the addition that you have to beat 2 or 3 of this so called "journeymen". So the task is a lot harder. Just to be clear i think the most amazing achievement in tennis history is Laver`s Grand Slam in the Open era but a close, and i mean really close second would be Fed making 18 out of 19 majors finals (it could be the 23 consecutive semifinals but i prefer the former). That is why i think this 2 are above the rest, because they proved themselves against the toughest competition (open era) and achieved feats hard to imagine.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
What I am trying to write is this, on average as you know well a Rosol is going to not play at a high level. A tour of just the top players like a Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga and Ferrer will have a better average level of play than if you mix in Rosol, Llodra or Fognini in the mix. Yes Rosol may serve and play out of his mind on occasion but that's not happening that often. Rosol on a good day may play better than Ferrer but for average level Ferrer is going to play at a higher level. You're getting way off what I was trying to write.
Yes Wawrinka may play well on occasion but if you just use math as an example, Wawrinka may average 5 for average level while the others may average 9. Yes on occasion Stan may throw in a 9 level match but he'll come back to the mean in the long run. Federer may average 9. He may toss in a 7 level but he'll probably make it up with a few 10s. So if you toss in a player who averages a 5 level of tennis to a group of top tennis who average 9 level tennis, the average level of play goes down. That's what I believe Rosewall meant when he said the average level was down in Open Tennis from the Pros. Rosewall played Laver, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Sedgman, Hoad. In the late 1950's he regularly played Gonzalez, Trabert, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Olmedo etc. In Open Tennis he would get guys like Tom Gorman or Bob Lutz who were good players but not generally of the level on the old Pro Tour.
By the way I wasn't writing about majors, I was just writing about tournaments in general. So when Open Tennis first started guys like Laver and Rosewall may not be playing the same tournament like they often did on the old Pro Tour and that influences the level of play in the tournament.
Remember I'm talking about average level, not the match where some players can play out of their mind. That's tennis and that of course happens at times. Henri Leconte was known to run hot and cold. He could defeat Lendl or Sampras and lose to a nobody. But on average he was not nearly at the level of Lendl or Sampras.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
And Nastase
kiki
Banned
I fully agree with your concept
It never ceased to amaze me how Plant,Page,Bonham and Baldwin could live in
the same era
kiki
Banned
Agreed, no need of belitteling
kiki
Banned
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Just think what? You throw some name and claim that they were the most elite tennis player ever, all in a decade. And what is your argument to explain it: a godly blessing?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Of course, add Vilas and Roche too, Fed's peak level of play is just not that impressive (to me atleast).
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I really can't agree with that.
Back in the day, you had an amateur tour on which people competed. I think we can safely assume that an amateur tour in those years wasn't very deep, because few people could dedicate themselves to tennis, as it didn't bring incomes to them. It is thus very likely that there was a big gap and the few players who were either/both more dedicated or had more talent and the others. Those players would dominate the amateur tour. Then, a business man like Kramer would offer them a contract to become a pro player, and the guy would then become one of the very few pro players. In order to become a pro, he only had to dominate on the amateur tour, a tour where the average level of play might have been very low. He would then be considered as a top players, as there would be a lot of advertising on each match, and the fact that they always play each over in small venue increase their hypeness.
Some of them would dominate, but, as nobody can always play at his best level, event the better player would sometimes lose, allowing the lesser players to win titles and grow their name. The lesser player place in the draw was nearly granted, as very few amateur player where pushing to enter the pro tour.
Today, only the cream of the crop turn pro, because the selection process is much more hard, and much more progressive. A player has to win future, then challenger before being able to enter the top 100. There is no big gap of level of play between the different kind of tournaments: There is a continuum between the top players and the lesser one, which is very regular, and which make it harder to make a name to yourself. Beside, I really believe that the level of dedication today of the player is nowhere the level it was in the 50's on the amateur tour, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before.
Now imagine that today, we had a huge gap between the pro tour and the amateur tour. You would have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzales, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Blake, playing very often some WTF venue against each over. They would never play against the so called journeyman that are so disrespected in this forum, and thus, Blake, Nalbandian and Gonzales would never show their vulnerability against lesser player. How hype would be the tour in such a situation? How godly would their name sound? Federer and Nadal would dominate. Then Djokovic and Murray. Then nobody in the third tier would dominate, giving the impression that they are all awesome players. And of course, time to time, a tier 3 players would win it all.
If your place at the top is not threatened, then the level of competition might be weak.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
Right then here we go, in my opinion the best players of all-time are:-
1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Jimmy Connors
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pete Sampras
6. John McEnroe
7. Rafa Nadal
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Andre Agassi
And Federer will be number 1 if he wins 20 Grand Slam titles in my, and I think his, opinion as well, from what I've read!
1. Rod Laver
2. Roger Federer
3. Jimmy Connors
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pete Sampras
6. John McEnroe
7. Rafa Nadal
8. Ken Rosewall
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Andre Agassi
And Federer will be number 1 if he wins 20 Grand Slam titles in my, and I think his, opinion as well, from what I've read!
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
How on Earth Connors can be so far ahead of Lendl?
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
Tennis career.
Apart from the top 2, who are some way ahead, I think the next 8 are all quite close, and it comes down to opinion and which criteria you use after that!
And I'm a huge Connors fan
Feather
Legend
Awesome post. Liked it a lot
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Whether you agree or disagree, do you understand the theory behind this? And in theory this should be correct if all the numbers were correct, ie the relative strength of the players. This was Rosewall's opinion. Remember that Rosewall and Laver were pretty powerful in the early Open Era and they were probably a decent amount better just a few years before.
This doesn't have anything to do with today's tour or depth of field.
Actually the amateurs were essentially pros but paid under the table. Guys like Emerson or Santana probably made more money by staying amateurs than turning pro. Laver and a few others like Hoad and Rosewall had the best of both worlds. They made money and they played against the best.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
I know it's of no use telling this to you. Did you see your stronger boy taken to 10-12 in his best slam in AO 2013 in 4th Round? You were the one who said Djokovic is stronger than Federer. I was watching the match and I thought about you! Djokovic is at his absolute peak and this is happening. Imagine what would happen to him when is post prime
Imagine him at Federer's age? Number two and winning major :wink:
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I have understood your first paragraph. Are you speaking of the average level of play? If yes, I can imagine that the average level of play was effectively higher in average. But it could be wrong. My point is that the place of the lesser pro player was not threatened. We don't know how good they really were, and we can't only assume that they were all time great just because they lot a bunch of tournament against proven all-time great. Look, Davydenko is a great player. He is clearly inferior to Federer and Nadal, even in somehow he find a way to dominate him on hard court. If, like I proposed before, these players played only in WTF tournament, his fame would be better and is name would be more recognized, but that wouldn't mean that he is that a great player.
I know it's not your case, but Dann Lobb claims that all this past pro would be dominant players today. We know that it is true for Rosewall and Laver because they proved it in the open field. But we really don't know how the other would fare in different era. Just the same for Davydenko or even Murray. They are great contemporaries players, but they are clearly inferior to Nadal and Federer. As much respect they deserve, I don't think that we can assume that they would have a lot of success against the over all-time great. There is really a big gap between the all-time great and the over merely great players.
Finally regarding Emerson, I can imagine that he won some money. Endorsement are not born with the last rain, and he was famous. But what about the first round guys? How good were they? And finally, how well would have Emerson fared against the pro, had he become one of them?
Finally you should note that I really don't disrespect these old timer. I genuinely rank Rosewall and Laver respectively at the second and third place on my all time ranking. What I disagree again is the idea that they played in toughest era ever, against all time great such as Gimeno who would trounce Fedal. I don't believe in magic nor in hazard. For an era to be significantly tougher or weaker than an other, there must be some explanation. I provided a socio-economical analysis to argue my case, and I would need socio-economical argument to believe that this era was tougher. The opinion of Rosewall is only marginally heavier than Murray's or Djokovic's.
Thanks for reading my long post (and I guess this one is not well constructed) to you and Feather (I'm always very interested by the post of both of you by the way).
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Flash,
Your post was very well written. However I want to clarify that I wasn't comparing eras, just the level of play between the pros and the amateurs before the Open Era. I believe you understand that but I want to reiterate that for others reading this post.
But yes I was writing of average level of play. The normal assumption is that over the course of a year (just to use today's players as an example) that Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer would have a higher AVERAGE level of play than the player like Rossol. Now Rosol as someone pointed out very clearly is of course able to have those "in the zone" days where he may defeat a Nadal but in general his level of play will not be at that high a level. Now let's say Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal form a tour with a few others like Ferrer, Tsonga and del Potro. In this tour, the higher levels, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray will regularly play each other along with the other top players. They won't be able to get away with as much as against lesser players so they will probably have to maintain a higher average level of play than in the past also. Now would we really have any doubt that any player from this superb group would defeat Rosol on a regular basis? We couldn't prove it because they are not playing but there is very little doubt.
Now in the past generally the cream of the crop like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Laver would turn pro. These players have already beaten virtually all the top amateurs. We do have clear evidence that the pros were clearly superior to the amateurs because all these legendary players were beaten and sometimes beaten badly in their introduction to the Pro Tour. Gonzalez who won the US Nationals got crushed by Jack Kramer on tour by 96 to 27 and he had to improve just to get to that awful final match score. Gonzalez actually lost 22 of the first 26 matches and I believe 42 of the first 50! Trabert was dominant in the amateurs in 1955 winning the last three majors and 15 tournaments in a row I believe. Trabert was beaten by Gonzalez 74 to 27. Laver won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1962 winning 22 tournaments. He was destroyed by Hoad and Rosewall losing at least 11 of his first 13 matches. It probably was worst than that. Rosewall was a great amateur but he lost to Gonzalez 50 to 26 on tour. Hoad was fantastic as an amateur but he lost much more than he won in his early days as a pro. Kramer, Segura and I believe Rosewall had to prepare him for his upcoming tour with Gonzalez. Hoad did jump out to a big early lead but Gonzalez eventually won that first tour by a match score of 51 to 36. I can give numerous other examples of this but that would take too long.
It's pretty clear to me that the pros were much superior to the amateurs. Even when Open Tennis started Joe McCauley kept track of the old pros and amateurs and the old pros won a very high percentage of the matches. Rosewall won the first Open Tournament with Laver in the final. Rosewall won the first Open Major and Laver won the first Wimbledon. Ashe won the first US Open in a mild surprise but Laver won the Grand Slam the next year in 1969.
By the way I never thought you that you didn't respect the past.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Yes, I agree that the average level was higher. It doesn't make it harder to win though. The current players have a lot of really easy warm-up matches in the early round, but some of them are pretty though, and upset happen (or used to happen). They play the top guy anyway in the later round (except in case of upset: lot of "upsetter" lose in the next round).
I also agree that the gap was huge between the pro and the amateur, and I think that this is a con to the pro tour. It means that, in order to become a pro, you only had to dominate a rather weak field. It is not a surprise that the top pro of the pro tour won the first open era tournament as they played against a field of former rival on the pro tour or against former players of the amateur tour. The fact that Rosewall could stay highely competitive far inside the open era shows that he was really an amazing player though, and the fact that he was an amazing players shows that his greates rivals were amazing too. But it is a reach to claim that his lesser rivals were too (I come back to my exemple with Davydenko).
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Feather,
That's really not fair. Stan Wawrinka played a great match and everyone, even Federer at his peak had tough matches at times. Tilden did, Laver did, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc.
Anyway he was just asking Dan where he ranked Djokovic and Nadal. Notice that Federer was on Dan's list among the top few and BobbyOne thought the list was fine.
Speaking of matches and Federer. Really looking forward to the Federer/Murray match tonight. Unfortunately it'll be on in the early morning hours in New York.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Possibly but Gimeno did win a lot of tournaments in the Pros and he did defeat Laver and Rosewall in the same tournament a number of times. That's pretty awesome to me.
Anyway it not just me, guys like Kramer and the seeding committee at Wimbledon believe Gimeno was superior to Emerson also. Push comes to shove and if someone asked me who would win the majority of matches between Emerson and Gimeno in 1965, I would pick Gimeno. Of course we assume they play on every surface. But we will never know. One fact is that Gimeno did win the French in the Open Era and Emerson never won a major in the Open Era.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I guess the reasons I would give for the Open Era being tougher than the pro tour are:
a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).
b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.
a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).
b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I have no problem considering Gimeno as a superior player than Emerson, but I can't accept that he is an all time great just because he is said to have played in the so-called tougher era ever.
Davydenko won a lot of titles and did defeat Federer and Nadal a few times, which is awesome. He was considered a threat at many several major and failed three time in SF against peak Federer. Davydenko is really a great player. He is one of my favourite, and I genuinely would have loved if he could win a major, even against Fed. But you can't rank a player like him in the all time greats, it's simply silly.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I would add, regarding the H2H, that Nadal wouldn't lead the H2H against Djokovic, Davydenko, Federer, had the the majority of the matches been played on indoor, especially on wood...H2H is very dependent of the surfaces on which most of the matches occurs. This another grief against the H2H things. What would have been the H2H of Gonzales if he had played the majority of his matches against Rosewall or Laver: you know it: he would trail.
Feather
Legend
Don't get me wrong. I am not a teen age kid to be upset that Roger Federer is not there in someone's list. I never liked his Tennis eight years ago hoping that all Tennis lovers in future will place him in the list of top ten players of all time. I respect Dan's list irrespective of whether Roger is there or not. I believe BobbyOne is here with an agenda against Roger and so I picked on that. I admit I am not being fair to Stan Wawrinka but at times you can't help being unfair.
As far as Roger Federer is concerned, if my memory serves me correct, from 2004 -2007 during his peak years he played five setters only with Agassi (US), Safin (AO), Haas (AO) and Rafa (W) and four clay losses. Three against Nadal and one against Keurten. He lost only five times in that period in majors. Even if we are to take Djokovic from 2011 onwards,. he has lost already four times and played more five setters. Roger's dominance was out of the world
Regarding SF, don't worry. Roger will mostly lose. I don't think he can grind with Murray in that slow court at age 31. And we can have posters claiming that Murray is "stronger" than Federer by the end of 2013. Peak Murray may beat a never aging peak Federer
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tougher is different in this case from average level of play. I'm just discussing average level of play. Yes it may be physically tougher for one tournament but even that's debatable because the old time pros played virtually every day. But yes I understand your point. But still you do understand what mean when I write that the average level of play of the opponents Rosewall faced was lower. Rosewall didn't face Laver as much, or Gimeno or Gonzalez or Hoad. He faced Bob Lutz instead or players not as good as Lutz.
I'm not totally sure how one can make the assumption Federer is greater or Nadal is greater against a wide field. Nadal's winning percentage at the same age is higher than Federer. In Federer's favor he has had a few years superior to Nadal's best years. The question is if both are healthy and rested who is better? Federer's smooth style takes less wear and tear out of him than Nadal. Of course that is one of the reasons Federer is stronger at the end of the year. Maybe the question should really be, assuming a normal year at their best, who is better? We have to assume Nadal will have injuries as a result of his style.
Last edited:
Feather
Legend
I think almost posters, especially if they claim to have seen Tennis from 60s would understand that H2H is surface dependent. Roger played 14 matches against Nadal on clay and lost two. He leads two surfaces, hard courts (6-5) and grass(2-1). Unfortunatley Rafa didn't go deep when Roger was in prime. Most of the people know that but they pretend that it's irrelevant. Then ONLY they can take digs at Federer stating that Rafa is stronger than Roger. You can ONLY wake up a sleeping person
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Of course you're right. I do think Nadal is stronger now (assuming health is good) on grass and hard court than he was when he was younger.
But I've thought that several times. Is it Federer's fault Nadal lost early in a tournament? Of course not. One of Federer's great strengths is that he almost never loses to a player he should beat. He is better in that respect imo than Nadal over the years.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal isn't at his peak on grass anymore I don't think, hard to say though in 2010 he beat a lackluster Berdych and 2011 Djokovic tooled a mentally frail Nadal. He's become more consistant on those surfaces now, he was still capable of great performances on hard and grass when he was younger.
And Federer's consistancy takes a massive dump on Nadal's (off clay), the finals, semi-finals, and quarter-final streaks are enough proof of this.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a teen age kid to be upset that Roger Federer is not there in someone's list. I never liked his Tennis eight years ago hoping that all Tennis lovers in future will place him in the list of top ten players of all time. I respect Dan's list irrespective of whether Roger is there or not. I believe BobbyOne is here with an agenda against Roger and so I picked on that. I admit I am not being fair to Stan Wawrinka but at times you can't help being unfair.
As far as Roger Federer is concerned, if my memory serves me correct, from 2004 -2007 during his peak years he played five setters only with Agassi (US), Safin (AO), Haas (AO) and Rafa (W) and four clay losses. Three against Nadal and one against Keurten. He lost only five times in that period in majors. Even if we are to take Djokovic from 2011 onwards,. he has lost already four times and played more five setters. Roger's dominance was out of the world
Regarding SF, don't worry. Roger will mostly lose. I don't think he can grind with Murray in that slow court at age 31. And we can have posters claiming that Murray is "stronger" than Federer by the end of 2013. Peak Murray may beat a never aging peak Federer
Frankly all I want tonight is a decent match. With the other semi I am glad Djokovic won because I don't think Ferrer would stand a chance in the final.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
pc1
G.O.A.T.
He always fights. I enjoy his game but if he faced Federer or Murray in the final I would think if Federer or Murray play decently, not even above their regular level that they would win. Anyway would you rather see Federer or Murray against Djokovic in the final or Ferrer? Unless you're a Ferrer fan I think most would rather see Djokovic against Murray or Federer and that's what we'll getting thank goodness.
Excellent post. I don`t see how anybody could counter this arguments. The greater the field is, the tougher it is to dominate. Laver for example in the period 64-67 he only had to worry about Rosewall and from time to time with Gimeno, and past their primes Gonzalez and Hoad. From 1968 he had to face (besides Rosewall and Gimeno) Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, Nastase, Connors, Santana, Kodes, etc. Adding the famous "journeymen" to the mix as well. He tasted what a journeyman could do very quickly at the Us Open. However, he came on top most of the times against this field (at least the first 2 or 3 years of the open era), which speaks volumes of him.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I didn't see the match. What happened? Did he give up or did Djokovic play too well for him to give Djokovic a match? I know Djokovic thought he (Djokovic) played very well.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
He never thought he can do something, and this is bloody Grand Slam semi
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw...er-sf-australian-open-2013-hq-spa-part1_sport
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw...er-sf-australian-open-2013-hq-spa-part2_sport
You make a good point, that it was the great amateurs who had little adjustment to make.
Players such as Trabert or Sedgman, who were nearly as good as Kramer and Gonzales, would lose a 100-match series by a considerable margin, even though their talent was almost equivalent to the top players, and in Sedgman's case sometimes superior.
It helped Kramer that Gonzales had a knee injury on the 1950 tour, and Sedgman pulled his serving-arm shoulder muscle, which changed the final outcomes.
You could add Bach, Handel, and Haydn and say that within a century all the greatest composers were active.
I am still waiting for the final tallies for them.
Djokovic doesn't have it yet, Nadal looks done.
Connors is, I think, below Newcombe on grass, although above on clay or rubber. Shortlisted, together with Newk, Ashe, Trabert, others.
Kramer would beat anyone in a best-of-100 series, but doesn't have the hot end of his game to make a PEAK list.
Likewise Lendl, who famously flubbed at Wimbledon.
kiki
Banned
Vilas and Roche peak is not that impressive, IMO.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Dan,
That's a very interesting comment you made about Kramer. I agree that is a possibility we cannot rule out. Kramer to me was a fantastic player with many weapons and a total service game that can be argued to be as great as anyone's in history. I am not quite sure what you mean by the hot end of his game.
A head to head series on many surfaces often indicates the true strength of a player and that to me is very important. To me it indicates the peak strength and consistency of a player. There are so many experts who rank Kramer as the best ever. Vic Braden, Don Budge (although Budge probably ranked Budge as number one), Sedgman and many others. Gonzalez named Kramer number one before he played Hoad so I assume Gonzalez ranked Kramer second.
kiki
Banned
Great post.And you did Kodes some justice as well...
Similar threads
