Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
kiki
Banned
If only achievements are cocnerned we talk about greatness; if only peak play, we mean " best player"
For achievements or greatness, the list is:
Open Era
1-Federer
2-.Sampras
3-.Borg
4-.Mc Enroe
5-.Lendl
6-.Nadal
7-.Connors
8-.Agassi
9-.Wilander
10-.Newcombe
11-.Becker
12-.Edberg
13-.Djokovic
14-.Vilas
15-.Courier
16-.Kuerten
17-.Nastase
18-.Smith
19-.Ashe
20-.Kodes
21-.Hewitt
22-.Safin
23-.Rafter
24-.Bruguera
25-.Orantes
Laver and Rosewall would be top 12 but I´ll include them in the following pre open era list:
1-.Laver
2-.Gonzales
3-.Tilden
4-.Budge
5-.Rosewall
6-.Perry
7-.Kramer and Hoad
8-.Cochet
9-.Emerson
10-.Sedgman
11-.Crawford
12-.Lacoste
13-.Wilding
14-.Vines
15-.Trabert
16-.Parker
17-.Von Cramm
18-.Santana
19-.Drobny
20-.Borotra
21-.Riggs
22-.Patty
23-.Segura/Nusslein
24-.Seixas
25-.Olmedo
I consider only from 1910´s onwards, missing the Renshaws and the Dohertys who belong to pre modern tennis
For achievements or greatness, the list is:
Open Era
1-Federer
2-.Sampras
3-.Borg
4-.Mc Enroe
5-.Lendl
6-.Nadal
7-.Connors
8-.Agassi
9-.Wilander
10-.Newcombe
11-.Becker
12-.Edberg
13-.Djokovic
14-.Vilas
15-.Courier
16-.Kuerten
17-.Nastase
18-.Smith
19-.Ashe
20-.Kodes
21-.Hewitt
22-.Safin
23-.Rafter
24-.Bruguera
25-.Orantes
Laver and Rosewall would be top 12 but I´ll include them in the following pre open era list:
1-.Laver
2-.Gonzales
3-.Tilden
4-.Budge
5-.Rosewall
6-.Perry
7-.Kramer and Hoad
8-.Cochet
9-.Emerson
10-.Sedgman
11-.Crawford
12-.Lacoste
13-.Wilding
14-.Vines
15-.Trabert
16-.Parker
17-.Von Cramm
18-.Santana
19-.Drobny
20-.Borotra
21-.Riggs
22-.Patty
23-.Segura/Nusslein
24-.Seixas
25-.Olmedo
I consider only from 1910´s onwards, missing the Renshaws and the Dohertys who belong to pre modern tennis
Last edited:
Interesting lists Kiki, but IMO Lendl and Connors will always be ahead of Mc regarding achievements (not peak play). You are selling too short Nadal as well, he is the undisputed greatest clay courter of all times, that should count for something i guess. If you are goning to include players like Safin, Orantes, Rafter and Bruguera you could give Roddick his due. The guy i at least on par with them regarding achievements.
I know someone who would be in flames when he discovers your pre open era list :twisted: IMO you should move Rosewall a few places up behind only Laver and Gonzalez. Kramer and Hoad tied?? No way
Right, no way.
Hoad played at a significantly higher level than Kramer, who was basically a plodder who wore down his opponents in marathon best-of-a-hundred series.
Remember what Gonzales said about Kramer,
"Kramer was not a natural athlete. He wasn't too fast or too quick. But he had the knack of winning."
Kramer had the knack of letting his more gifted opponents race around, make brilliant shots, and get injured on the cruddy portable carpet the pros used in high school gyms.
Brilliant strategy.
Kramer was arguably the best of the world for 5 years, Hoad was at best number 1 for 1 year. Pretty easy choice if you ask me. What Hoad would have done with less injuries and another mindset is another subject. For actual greatness is a no contest
kiki
Banned
Factor in WCT and Masters ( as well as pro majors in the pre open days).How do you value a WCT title or a Masters win in the 70´s and most 80´s? well ahead the AO in many cases.Mac won 8 indoor non slam majors, Lendl won 7 and Connors won 3.
Hoad dominated shortly but his two years of dominance were overwhelming.
kiki, I can't agree that you put Budge ahead of Rosewall.
kiki, Hoad never dominated.
kiki
Banned
deleted post
kiki
Banned
Wasn´t called te Blond Hurricane for nothing...
kiki
Banned
Tilden never won RG and Rosewall never won W.In fact, Budge could rank second...
kiki
Banned
during Decugis golden days?
forzamilan90
Legend
Decugis played earlier than that, no?
kiki, old jester, You know exactly why Rosewall did not win Wimbledon.
Budge has an amateur GS but Muscles has a pro GS which values more.
rosewallGOAT
Banned
There is no way McEnroe or even Lendl are over Nadal in achievements by any measure.
kiki
Banned
yes, and the name is indoors...
Pete M, Not the worst list...
kiki
Banned
Rosewall at 3¡¡¡
kiki
Banned
I´d have Rosewall atop with Laver.But, you know, there are factors that downgrade when correctly pownded.
In Federer case, it is dominating a weak era.In Rosewall´s, it is not that he has no Wimbledon title ( he couldn´t play it during his prime years), but the fact that he was mean...noneless, his peers aknowledged him as POCKETS¡¡¡
In Federer case, it is dominating a weak era.In Rosewall´s, it is not that he has no Wimbledon title ( he couldn´t play it during his prime years), but the fact that he was mean...noneless, his peers aknowledged him as POCKETS¡¡¡
You are right: Muscles should jump ahead a few places...
kiki, Be glad that you don't know which epithets other people have found for you... But to be serious: What has Rosewall's character to do with his ranking place?
And you should know that Ken's colleagues respected Muscles to a high degree.
kiki
Banned
Well, never been called mean before ( but worse things, yes indeed, specially from the fed fanatics on boards)
I joked, it ha snothing to do with Rosewall´s game.He is one of the greatest
players ever, no need to keep on constantly ranking people, leave it at that.
Rosewall wa shonest, humble and gracious.But he was reputed as a mean guy even by his best colleagues...it must be true.
Wilding, Lacoste, Crawford
Not disputing your list at all. No reason to. Just be interested in your thoughts on the relative merits of Wilding, Lacoste and Crawford. My own view would be to reverse Wilding and Crawford's position. I know that Crawford was only 1 set from the Grand Slam in 1933. But Wilding actually acheived the pre-mid-1920's Grand Slam in 1913 (different majors pre-mid-1920's). Plus Crawford's position I suspect was based mainly on that 1933 year, whereas Wilding had 5 really good seasons from 1910 to 1914 and could be regarded by some as the most achieved Clay courter prior to Rosewall 50 years later (maybe Drobny achieved more a bit earlier than Rosewall). But each to their own.....
Not disputing your list at all. No reason to. Just be interested in your thoughts on the relative merits of Wilding, Lacoste and Crawford. My own view would be to reverse Wilding and Crawford's position. I know that Crawford was only 1 set from the Grand Slam in 1933. But Wilding actually acheived the pre-mid-1920's Grand Slam in 1913 (different majors pre-mid-1920's). Plus Crawford's position I suspect was based mainly on that 1933 year, whereas Wilding had 5 really good seasons from 1910 to 1914 and could be regarded by some as the most achieved Clay courter prior to Rosewall 50 years later (maybe Drobny achieved more a bit earlier than Rosewall). But each to their own.....
Last edited:
Eheheh. Thank you
I have to agree this kind of exercises are always open to debate and critics.
You have to look at who they beat.
Hoad was number one in 1958 and 1959 by most standards, and played against a much stronger field than Kramer ever faced. (Remember Tom Brown? How about Yvon Petra?)
The point is that Kramer did not achieve the level of brilliance of Hoad, or Gonzales, or Sedgman, or Budge, or Vines, etc. etc.
He could outlast them in a best-of-a-hundred series.
A pro grand slam without a clay event is not a pro slam, or any slam.
At least we can say that Rosewall never showed bad behaviour. He was always friendly to spectators, gave many autographs (as I experienced myself), was not a primadonna, even not when clearly the best player in the early 1960s.
In comparison Pancho Gonzalez was sometimes really mean and aggressive and intimitated opponents and umpires...
Dan, did you realize that Rosewall kept majors on three different surfaces (clay, wood and grass) at the same time (in 1962/63). He and Nadal are the only men in history to achieve that.
Don't belittle Rosewall's and Laver's pro slams!
Right, I forgot that it was not until 1963 that the pros abandoned Roland Garros for Stad Coubertin.
But Stad Coubertin was not on clay, so I do not see a pro slam for Rosewall that year.
Also, there was no Kooyong event in 1963, so no possibility of a slam.
1962 there was no Forest Hills event, so no slam for Rosewall.
I am having trouble following your claims, Bobby.
I have received a comment from PC1.
Yes, PC1, I agree that it is unfair to label Kramer as a "plodder", as if he were a Solomon or Ferrer.
I meant it only in relation to such players as Vines, Budge, Gonzales, Sedgman, Hoad, Laver, and others who showed an exceptional level of brilliance.
Gonzales claimed that Kramer was not a natural athlete, was not quick or fast.
This must mean something.
Kramer's record in major tournaments against top competition was not great, and he skipped some major events where Gonzales was playing.
But he could wear these guys down with his relentless consistency over a hundred match series.
He was a fierce competitor, the most implacable fighter ever.
He had an excellent combat record in WWII.
Last edited:
Laver had no chance to win on clay in 1967 in Paris, and no chance to win at Kooyong in the late 1960's, when the pros were banned from major facilities in Australia.
Laver defeated Newcombe in the Roland Garros pro final in 1968, and defeated Newcombe in the Longwood final in 1968.
Rosewall defeated Newcombe in the Wembley final in 1968.
No chance for a pro slam in 1968.
But no chance to play anything major in Australia that year.
Dan, Your obsession of clay is remarkable. Many experts claim that Rosewall and Laver won a Pro GS.
Kooyong is your special love. It does not count to any GS...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Rosewall's doesn't count so much as Laver's which included the Wimbledon pro, even Federer has won 3 majors a year multiple times
Rosewall's doesn't count so much as Laver's which included the Wimbledon pro, even Federer has won 3 majors a year multiple times
NatF, Just another of your pro-Federer, contra-Rosewall posts. In Federer's time there are four majors, in Rosewall's pro time only three!
Winning all three pro majors meant more than winning three majors in open era. Only two men have realized the Pro GS: Rosewall and Laver.
Last edited:
"Obsession"? Hardly.
The whole point of a grand slam is that it includes winning the top Australian event, whatever that is (and there were no important Australian pro events after the pros were banned in 1963),
PLUS the world championship on clay (Roland Garros, pro or amateur), PLUS the top grasscourt events (Forest Hills pro, Wimbledon pro)
Obviously, there was rarely any chance for the top pros to do this, so it makes no sense to talk about a pro slam.
Actually, winning the major pro tours against an elite field stands as a greater accomplishment than winning a modern slam against a collection of average to good players.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting idea.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
Federer 2009/10
abmk
Bionic Poster
not enough information for BobbyOne. :twisted:
Be clear : RG 2009, Wimbledon 2009, AO 2010.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Winning 3 majors is winning 3 majors, I don't see the difference. Laver's was actually 4 majors so Rosewall's 'pro slam' doesn't compare.
With regard to pro majors vs open-era majors, and other measuring units to compare eras, there was a thread a few years ago where some crucial things were revealed that should always be kept in mind. See for example post #11 by John123.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3731460#post3731460
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3731460#post3731460
NatF
Bionic Poster
I agree with John's argument, some of these old timers are deceitful with crediting their idols with overblown achievements
The problem with the old pro era is deciding on the appropriate "measuring unit".
Some tournaments which are touted as "majors" were not really major major, and I would even include in that list the 1951 US Pro at Forest Hills, because Kramer dropped out before the final.
The absence of only one or two pros could damage the importance of a top tournament, simply because there were usually only a few top pros at any one time.
I would suggest picking a rotating choice of top event for each year, each one the peak event of the pro calendar, featuring the top two or more contenders.
There is usually one event each year where the top guy emerges and plays the best tennis of the year with all the chips down.
1948--- US Pro (Kramer)
1949--- Wembley (Kramer)
1950--- Philadelphia (Gonzales)
1951--- Philadelphia (Kramer)
1952--- Wembley (Gonzales)
1953--- Wembley (Sedgman)
1954--- MSG (Gonzales)
1955--- Slazenger (Gonzales)
1956--- Wembley (Gonzales)
1957--- Forest Hills (Gonzales)
1958--- Kooyong (Hoad)
1959--- Forest Hills (Hoad)
1960--- Kooyong (Hoad)
1961--- Wembley (Rosewall)
1962--- Wembley (Rosewall)
1963--- Forest Hills (Rosewall)
1964--- Wembley (Laver)
1965--- Longwood (Rosewall)
1966--- Longwood (Laver)
1967--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1968--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1969--- Wimbledon (Laver)
1970--- Wimbledon (Newcombe)
1971--- Wimbledon (Newcombe)
1972--- Wimbledon (Smith)
1973--- Forest Hills (Newcombe)
After 1973, you could simply go with the Wimbledon champ.
These were essentially the world championship events, and the rest of the tennis season were merely gravy on the potatoes.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I agree with John's argument, some of these old timers are deceitful with crediting their idols with overblown achievements
agreed and that deceit is worse than the ignorance shown by those who are ignorant about the past.
Nadal Power: Federer did not keep three SUCCESSIVE majors on three different surfaces (lost US Open 2009). Only Nadal and Rosewall achieved that great feat. Maybe I have not formulated correctly previously.
Last edited:
Yo are really a little devil: You seem to have a devilish pleasure to blame me. It's a SHAME.
NatF: winning three pro majors meant you have won a Pro GS, winning three majors nowadays means you don't have won the GS.
Following your logic there would not have been a pro GS apart from 1967...
Dan, Kooyong was never the No.1 event.
US Open 1972 was clearly above Wimbledon 1972.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yes but winning 3 majors in the 60's is no harder than winning 3 in today's era, that's the point. Rosewall's achievement is inferior to Laver's 1967 and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as if they're equitable.
Similar threads
