L
Liv3 For It
Guest
Lavar
Sampras
Federer
Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.
Sampras
Federer
Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.
I would add Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Borg.
And am inclined to agree with CyB above about the top-5.
Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.
I regard your new thinking and rating system as having tremendous validity. The only nit I was going to pick had to do with the versatility rating of Gonzales. But you sort of answered it at the end, here:So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:
Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4
This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.
Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.
IF elsworth Vines can be considered a contender for one great year then so can Muster
my list wouldn't include Laver because his records are overratted
Sampras would be top spot or sharing top with Federer
Borg's HC disaster stops him from matching Sampras and Fed
and Nadal is quickly rising up to join them
Muster and Lendl also on the list
as is Mac for his 84 season
I'd rate the top tier something like this:
Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer
So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:
Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4
T.
Which bridge do you live under exactly?
And please stay there
So with longevity now being a key criteria, does Connors move above McEnroe on your GOAT list?
Just wondered
i would take your criteria (make a minor adjustment to 10 for my own personal tastes) and add to it, surfaces variables
Peak play for Rosewall on clay i would rate as 9 out of 10
and Laver peak clay would be 8
somone like Sampras who could be a 10 on Grass would obviously not even be a 5 on clay
Borg who would be a 10 on clay, would not be a 7 on hard
Federer is tough to rate
talent wise you can give him 10 across the board, but you factor in his mental weakness and you have to take off at least 2 points on his weaker surfaces
Nadal would be a 10 on clay and only a 7 on grass
longevity is a nice adition but in my opinion its meaningless
peak play, matters most, and anyone who can be consistently good for an entire year is good enough in my opinion
I regard your new thinking and rating system as having tremendous validity. The only nit I was going to pick had to do with the versatility rating of Gonzales. But you sort of answered it at the end, here:
Over the years, I've gotten tired of reading all about who's the GOAT.
At least I know who the LAMB is (the Loser After Many Blowouts). It's Vince Spadea---he holds the record of 21 straight first-round ATP losses. (No wonder he doesn't like to sign autographs---they're of little value.)
I'd rate the top tier something like this:
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4
Tilden was winning some matches against a peak Don Budge when Tilden was in his late 40's (yes, I know Budge was winning the majority of them but still to even win some is just mind bogling). Could you imagine Connors winning some matches against 1999 Agassi when he was 47 ? Tilden then went on in his early 50's to push Bobby Riggs to 5 sets in the late 1940's (Boddy was ranked either number 1 or 2 in the world at the time)! That even outstrips Rosewall in terms of Longevity. Imagine a peak Tilden, no wonder he could go match after match without even losing a game.
I'm sorry, but this is unintelligible.
The point of this was not to reduce the discussion to numbers, but to clarify the thinking process through numbers. The numbers do not take place of a reasonable discussion. They are a starting point to a discussion.
I don't why Nadal is even being brought up.
reducing it to numbers simplfies things
Nadal was brought up because he's potentially going to own your boy's record in a month
Rafa has earned his place at this table
i Rate peak play as the most important stat
and in that case Rafa 2008/2006 on clay is just as good as Borg at his best
maybe better, who knows
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4
Attention deficit disorder?
oh grow up, or rather act your age not your shoe size
dont always expect people to agree with you
granted.
its all subjective
but this is BS
Borg couldn't wipe his ass on HC's, hell he couldn't even win the US OPEN on clay
and yet he gets 4/4 on versitility and Rog gets 3.5?
Pete couldn't make a clay slam final, and on slow HCs was at a ditinct disadvantage gets a whole 3?
Borg's peak play was still on show in 1981, Mac surpassed him, so to give Borg 4/4 for peak play you have to give MAc it, but Pete was better then Mac- (cite wimbledon 1999 final) so your numbers are just all wrong imo
The next 4 years will obviously prove Nadal is the true GOAT. The GOAT must dominate on all surfaces. That is why Graf is the female GOAT, she was utterly dominant on all surfaces which no other women can say. Nadal will prove the same thing in the coming years, he is already starting to do this.
Resurrected for interest from a perspective of four years on.I'd rate the top tier something like this:
Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer
I've been thinking a bit about the criteria for ranking these guys and I've made a slight modification as to the notion of longevity. I've mentioned this as a factor, but wasn't really sure how to talk about it. Now I have a bit of a clearer idea and it manifested from the issue of the 'decline of Federer'.
I think what truly matters in longevity isn't how many years you play well in relation to the other guy, because these standards vary from era to era. Rosewall played somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20-25 years competitively, but is this realizable today? Perhaps not.
What truly matters in this respect I think is two things. A truly impressive longevity is when an elite player from one generation makes adjustments and remains an elite player in the following generation. This is what Federer is struggling with right now. The top two players on my list both aced this department. Rosewall perhaps even three generations. Laver probably most impressive - the pro/amateur split years, followed by the open era years, effectively competing against new blood like Newcombe and Smith.
Borg failed in this respect. Budge kind of did too, but with a much better excuse. Gonzales excelled - Sampras to some extent too, but against much less impressive opposition (let's face it, his toughest opponent in those latter years was a guy even older than he was).
So I'm gaining a new appreciation to the longevity factor and I think it is extremely important, because what is tested is the player's ability to adjust to highly complex phenomena, having to somehow maintain a competitive spirit in light of a lot of younger, hungry opponents aiming to dethrone him. Federer has been criticized for failing the test (so far).
So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:
Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4
This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.
It's also not hard and fast. Tilden rates third because of an outside factor - he didn't play enough against Cochet and Lacoste, so it's more difficult to rate him above Rosewall. Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.
Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.
sorry its not trolling just because i don't subscribe to the Laver worship
one fake Grand slam when the best players were pro 62
and one when the best players were in retirment homes 69 does not a GOAT make
he's not worthy of any GOAT discussion
Thomas Muster however is
Tilden was winning some matches against a peak Don Budge when Tilden was in his late 40's (yes, I know Budge was winning the majority of them but still to even win some is just mind bogling). Could you imagine Connors winning some matches against 1999 Agassi when he was 47 ? Tilden then went on in his early 50's to push Bobby Riggs to 5 sets in the late 1940's (Boddy was ranked either number 1 or 2 in the world at the time)! That even outstrips Rosewall in terms of Longevity. Imagine a peak Tilden, no wonder he could go match after match without even losing a game.
1. Laver
2. Gonzalez
3. Federer
4. Samparas
5. Emerson
6. Lendel
7. Borg
8. McEnroe
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Tie Becker, Edberg, Agassi
Tilden might be around 4 or 5 but the quality of mens tennis was not that deep in those years.....
Nadal.....its to early....and his Roid use is an issue for me....
Federer and Gonzales get 3.5/4, because they have a weakness relative to their excellence elsewhere.
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
The very definition of trolling: trying to stir up trouble with absurd positions.tennis-hero, And you are not a hero with your absurd theories: Muster better than Laver???
Lavar
Sampras
Federer
Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.
Please note that the original quotatation, to which much of this is a response, was written in May 2009 before Fed won the FO.Defining versatility as as a weakness relative to one’s own excellence elsewhere is problematic from the start. By that definition, a player who is phenomenally good on one surface and "only" very good on others, would become more versatile by becoming a bit less good on his best surface. Nadal's versatility would grow if you take away some of his clay titles to make it a bit more even with the other surfaces.
I don’t understand why Borg is given a 4/4 versatility (implying equal excellence on hard courts relative to himself on clay and grass), but Federer is given only 3.5.
Federer has 10 titles on clay, which include 1 RG and 6 Master’s series tournaments (2 of them against Nadal). And he is a 4-time finalist at RG and has another 7 Masters runnerups on clay. Most of them lost against the clay goat.
Borg has 3 titles on outdoor hardcourts (2 in Las Vegas and 1 in Montreal). And he was a 3-time finalist at the USO on hard courts, and one time in Toronto. That’s it.
So if this makes him a full 4/4 in versatility, surely Federer’s record on clay does too, being a lot better.
Borg was a very early bloomer relative to Federer, and he retired at or near the peak of his powers. Now, even if you include the 3 or 4 years that Federer spent in the process of hatching out of his pupa, Federer has a higher career percentage on clay than Borg has on hard courts. That’s pretty revealing in itself. And if you consider only his post-hatching years, then his record on clay has to be a lot better than Borg on hard courts.
Federer may actually be one of the top 2 or 3 most versatile players in the open era after Laver. Dismissing his clay ability as a weakness relative to himself in other surfaces, would be exactly the same as dismissing Borg’s grass ability if he had had to contend with a guy like Sampras during his best years and kept losing all his Wimbledon finals to Pete. That’s exactly what happened to Federer on clay. His “weakness” on clay during his career is a weakness relative only to Nadal, but that's a hell of a high bar to measure weakness.
I also don't understand why Federer is given the same very low mark in longevity as Borg. Certainly his longevity is better than that. His most recent slam title is less than a year old, and he started winning them almost 10 years ago.
I am also not sure about Gonzalez's weakness on clay. He seems to have won about 19 tournaments on that surface. How that makes it weaker that Borg's 3 tournaments on hard courts is not very clear to me. But I don't know much about the Gonzalez career, so I'll leave that to be assessed by more knowledgeable folks.