Pete Sampras year end number 1 for six years

jorel

jorel

Hall of Fame

This stat alone can always be used to argue that Sampras is one of the greatest ever…if not the greatest along with Federer

Even if 20 other people get 15 grand slams each in the future

For six years,,,he was the best player on the planet at the end of the year

Even the mighty Federer cant make that claim
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.
 
M

MLB_MOB

Banned
While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
Well, 6 Year-End Nº1 and 286 total weeks at nº1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nº1 and 302 total weeks at nº1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nº1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).
 
Hood_Man

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
It's an incredible stat and I agree that it puts him right up there with the best, he dominated a decade.

Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the 6 year-end #1 stat is the record Sampras will be able to hold on to for a long time to come.

I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.

At the end of the day you can't really compare eras. Sampras was amazing in his though. His ground strokes were much better than people seem to remember.


mattennis said:
Well, 6 Year-End Nº1 and 286 total weeks at nº1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nº1 and 302 total weeks at nº1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nº1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).
Click to expand...
 
U

ultradr

Legend
tennis_pro said:
Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.
Click to expand...

Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
ultradr said:
Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.
Click to expand...

QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....
 
axel89

axel89

Banned
mattennis said:
QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....
Click to expand...
get over it everything evolves tennis man
 
U

ultradr

Legend
Hood_Man said:
Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.
Click to expand...

In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.

IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
heninfan99 said:
I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.
Click to expand...

Pancho wasn't good enough on clay to be GOAT.
 
paulorenzo

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
MLB_MOB said:
While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak
Click to expand...

imagine what nadal would be like if it was his idea of a good time. those water bottles would be sooo organized.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
ultradr said:
In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.
Click to expand...

If 5 years of domination is weak for Fed as an all-time great then so is 6 years for Sampras as well, you do realize number 6 is closer to number 5 than number 10, Fastdunn? Not to mention that Fed was more dominant in his years at #1 than Sampras was by a solid margin, yes I know you can say that was due to homogenization of the surfaces/different seeding system in slams etc. but I can also say Fed didn't have 6 or more years at #1 because Nadal is a greater player and competitor than Agassi.

And yes it's possible there will a more dominant player than Fed in current conditions but until it actually happens, it's just speculation and thus silly to use as an argument.

ultradr said:
IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be the reason Fed is still playing, if he was a nutjob.

He's playing because he hopes to win a few more slams if he can (thus making his slam record tougher to break) and because he still enjoys it.

Thinking that he could stand at the top over Nadal, Novak and Murray at the age of 31-32 with them being in their mid 20s would make him delusional and somehow I never got that vibe from Fed's interviews.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
NadalDramaQueen said:
Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
tennis_pro said:
Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.
Click to expand...


I can say the same about this homogenized JOKE era which is a pusher's paradise and makes year round dominance 5 times easier then any era prior.

3 guys just in the last 5 years alone have managed 3 slams in one calendar year.. Prior to that, it was done twice in 40 plus years?

Guys today's dont even have to deal with fast surfaces be it indoors or outdoors (which would DESTROY any chance of consistency they have)
 
Last edited:
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
zagor said:
Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NadalDramaQueen said:
We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.
Click to expand...

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

zagor said:
Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.
Click to expand...

That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.
 
Last edited:
F

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
helloworld said:
It would have been 7 straight years if Pete didn't skip the 1999 US Open. Scary...
Click to expand...

it would've been only 5 straight years if Becker in 1998 didn't agree to drop out of a mickey mouse tournament to let Pete in (and Rios would've ended #1).. shameful..
 
B

Blocker

Professional
tennis_pro said:
Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.
Click to expand...

But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
NadalDramaQueen said:
We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.
Click to expand...

Yes but these things are not always decided by a set of objective criteria, remember people were already claiming (rightly or wrongly) Fed is the greatest ever back in 2006 because they were so impressed by his level of play from 2004-2006 period.

Heck, look at Laver's list for example:

From the past
10. John Newcombe (AUS)
9. Jack Crawford (AUS)
8. Bobby Riggs (USA)
7. Ellsworth Vines (USA)
6. Ken Rosewall (AUS)
5. Fred Perry (GBR)
4. Don Budge (USA)
3. Pancho Gonzalez (USA)
2. Jack Kramer (USA)
1. Lew Hoad (AUS)

From the Open era
10. Stefan Edberg (SWE)
9. Ivan Lendl (USA)
8. Jimmy Connors (USA)
7. Andre Agassi (USA)
6. Novak Djokovic (SER)
5. Rafael Nadal (ESP)
4. John McEnroe (USA)
3. Pete Sampras (USA)
2. Bjorn Borg (SWE)
1. Roger Federer (SUI)

He put Hoad at #1 solely for his peak play and also put McEnroe ahead of Nadal and Borg ahead of Sampras even though stats would dictate otherwise.

NadalDramaQueen said:
The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.
Click to expand...

Well IMO a GOAT list that doesn't include Sampras is not inclusive enough.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.
 
Feather

Feather

Legend
pc1 said:
Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.
Click to expand...

Subjectively you don't see the tremendous level of difference between Federer and Sampras on clay?

I find a lot of difference.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
pc1 said:
Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, some people think there is a lot between Federer and Sampras, but in my opinion, this second opinion is as useless as yours.

I don't know how anyone can construct anything (arguments included) based off of unfalsifiable opinions.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
fed_rulz said:
it would've been only 5 straight years if Becker in 1998 didn't agree to drop out of a mickey mouse tournament to let Pete in (and Rios would've ended #1).. shameful..
Click to expand...

It could have been 4 had Agassi showed up and play after the 1995 US Open. Agassi was simply non-existent after the US Open, who was in the driver seat to claim the #1.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NadalDramaQueen said:
Subjectively, some people think there is a lot between Federer and Sampras, but in my opinion, this second opinion is as useless as yours.

I don't know how anyone can construct anything (arguments included) based off of unfalsifiable opinions.
Click to expand...

If you say so. Incidentally I was supporting you on this topic. :?
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Blocker said:
But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?
Click to expand...

Pete lost 17/18 times that year and slamless Rios was threaten him, woo hoo !

Del Potro had to deal with 2 slam winners Federer, and Nadal/Nole/Murray. Sampras is lucky not to have anyone challenge him.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
pc1 said:
If you say so. Incidentally I was supporting you on this topic. :?
Click to expand...

I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see examples of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
NadalDramaQueen said:
I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see example of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.
Click to expand...

I understand. Thanks for explaining.

Like I've said before I always hope that the current champion can be the best ever because that would mean we are seeing the highest quality of play. Unfortunately it's often not the case.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
zagor said:
Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great.

Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.

Anyway while Chang and Goran weren't all time greats and while Lendl wasn't what he was I was just using them as examples of some of the tough competition Sampras faced.
 
Last edited:
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
pc1 said:
Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great..
Click to expand...

Chang wasn't feared by the best if they were in decent form and no he certainly wasn't capable of beating anyone at their best, he was a lesser version of Hewitt who wouldn't sniff #1 if he was the same generation as Fed (Roger doesn't go on walkabout when CC season arrives), the guy's vastly overrated in comparison to players like Roddick and Hewitt (courtesy of being a player in Sampras era instead of Fed's, I'm sure he'd be called another weak era clown if he were Fed's punching bag instead of Pete's).

Goran was a dangerous opponent and a terrific grasscourter at his best but was also a huge headcase who could implode at any given moment.

pc1 said:
Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.
Click to expand...

Winning % and number of titles matter little when it comes to slam performances, as I said for me it was the same as Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, a solid win but nothing special.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
zagor said:
Chang wasn't feared by the best if they were in decent form and no he certainly wasn't capable of beating anyone at their best, he was a lesser version of Hewitt who wouldn't sniff #1 if he was the same generation as Fed (Roger doesn't go on walkabout when CC season arrives), the guy's vastly overrated in comparison to players like Roddick and Hewitt (courtesy of being a player in Sampras era instead of Fed's, I'm sure he'd be called another weak era clown if he were Fed's punching bag instead of Pete's).

Goran was a dangerous opponent and a terrific grasscourter at his best but was also a huge headcase who could implode at any given moment.



Winning % and number of titles matter little when it comes to slam performances, as I said for me it was the same as Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, a solid win but nothing special.
Click to expand...

I understand your thinking. I may disagree a bit with Chang but overall I agree.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
TMF said:
THere's a great gap at the AO. Fed has 4 titles to Pete's 2 titles.

Fed has 21 MS to 11 for Sampras.
Click to expand...

If we discount clay there is not a huge variance between Fed and Sampras.

16 slams to 14 (7 Wimbledons apiece, 5 US Opens apiece), 19 slam finals to 18, 6 YECs to 5, 5 YE No 1's to 6.

We might give Fed a very slight edge but it would be debatable who is greater. The reason Fed is considered greater than Sampras is the fact that he is also great on clay.
 
jorel

jorel

Hall of Fame
jorel said:
chang cheated ;)
Click to expand...
I’m joking Of course

im referring to the lendl match at the FO…

he didn’t do anything to break the rules

where as today,,,,guys bounce the ball 50 times and take up to a minute between points….which is a clear violation even if the ump doesn’t call it
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
zagor said:
Winning % and number of titles matter little when it comes to slam performances, as I said for me it was the same as Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, a solid win but nothing special.
Click to expand...

Lendl was still number 3 in the world when he played against Sampras at the 1990 US Open. A few weeks before that, Lendl was world number 1. Lendl was also the reigning Australian Open champion. Oh, and then there's the small fact of Lendl having reached the previous 8 US Open finals in a row from 1982 to 1989.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
jorel said:
I’m joking Of course

im referring to the lendl match at the FO…

he didn’t do anything to break the rules

where as today,,,,guys bounce the ball 50 times and take up to a minute between points….which is a clear violation even if the ump doesn’t call it
Click to expand...

I figured you meant that. Hingis did the same to Graf at the French in 1999 if I remember. I don't think doing that endeared Hingis to the crowd that day.

Some people today complained about Azarenka today for what she did.
http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus13/sto...ane-stephens-face-li-na-australian-open-final
 
Last edited:
W

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Blocker said:
But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?
Click to expand...

How much did sampras beat the field by? A little or a lot?

And maybe the field was weak?

I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Pete's kryptonite, pete's dominance as compared to other greats (federer, borg etc).
 
Q

qindarka

Rookie
Mustard said:
Lendl was still number 3 in the world when he played against Sampras at the 1990 US Open. A few weeks before that, Lendl was world number 1. Lendl was also the reigning Australian Open champion. Oh, and then there's the small fact of Lendl having reached the previous 8 US Open finals in a row from 1982 to 1989.
Click to expand...

While Sampras was still ranked highly and the 4 time defending champion at Wimbledon 2001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Is Sampras vs Becker the questionable Greatest Rivalry at the Year End Tournament?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
Subway Tennis
Subway Tennis
P
Pete Sampras to play Queens
Replies
14
Views
3K
Gugafan_Redux
G
N
Year end Top 5 players at same tournaments.. 1980-2010
Replies
21
Views
3K
Nadal_Power
N
T
The GUSPOAT
Replies
9
Views
2K
kiki
kiki
M
What if Federer had pulled a Sampras and retired at end of 2012?
2
Replies
87
Views
2K
PK6
P
Top