Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

monfed said:

Roddick= American , took over from Pete.
Hewitt = Australian,one of the mentally toughest players of all time.

Two biggest rivals of Fed(heck Hewitt owned Fed at one point) both got shellacked with a aggregate H2H of 39-11. Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

Roddick, a minor US champion ( for US standarts).At most, he equates Chang or Tanner

Hewitt, a very minor aussie champ ( for Oz standarts) .At most, in the same sentence as Stolle or Mal Anderson.

borg number one said:

Imagine if tennis was as big in the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia these days as it was back in say 1950-1990. Federer may have fewer majors and the same goes for Nadal. You'd have countries with rich histories producing many tough players, which is somewhat different than brand new countries on the scene having tennis gain a foothold. There are more "tennis playing countries" these days, but there are offsets as well. That's something that many simply gloss over.

With the greater popularity of tennis post 2003 (due largely to the Federer/Nadal rivalry among other things relative to say 1999 or so, why aren't there more great players following behind those guys? Where are all the great players inspired by Nadal in Spain? More juniors and pros from there right? Well, why will there likely not be another Nadal from there anytime soon? How about Switzerland? More players playing there now, inspired by Federer. How many great players will come out of Switzerland in the next decade? More players, more greats, right? No, there are many other factors. More players does not automatically translate into more great players or even greater players. Depth at the top is important and there is something about great players facing off and basically sharpening their skills in the process (a very tough top 10/top 10 even in 1950 or 1960).

Some things are tougher now, but somethings are easier. Just look at these factors: time between points, sitting during changeovers, coaching during matches, challenging calls, tougher travel, central air/heat, sports medicine. What the guys were doing in say 1950 was not easy by ANY stretch of the imagination. In fact, in many ways, they had it significantly harder than the players today.

Click to expand...

I don't want to waste too much time in this silly thread, but the bolded portion is simply absurd. Talk of what countries are producing "top players" is irrelevant. Any significant increase in size of a pool of players is going to result in a better field in general along with better top players. This is only an expectation, of course, but it is a very strong one given a big increase. Anyway, read the literature on the subject if you're interested, as I'm not going through it for you. The most ridiculous assumption on this board is that you can tell with your eyes how good top players from an era were compared to other eras when you only saw them play against their respective fields.

kiki said:

To be able to compare one needs a wide range and vision and be able to relatiise concepts.You cannot translate the same metrics of the, say, 1950´s or 60´s, even the 70´s and 80´s ( where WCT and Masters were head and shoulders above AO ) to the tennis played from 1990 onwards.

By the same taken, somebody could easily claim that, because of the vast technology and means, the US army of the XXI century is the greatest of all time.It is not if we use the correct focus.I am not saying that it is not, but we need to put things in context.

people still litens to the classical music and classical rock great compositors of bands.or admires the classic painters and reads the classic writters, from Shakespeare to Garcia Marquez.

Greatness should be a concept that stays and is not easiliy beaten up by the need to assert superiority of one context over the other.

Click to expand...

Agreed. You have different priorities, many changes in conditions, and of course you have different players when you compare eras. You and I are on the same page here. Let's look at Nascar as a example though I know the bare minimum about that racing sport. Dale Earnhardt Sr., Richard Petty, and A.J. Foyt are legendary drivers. Now, try telling Nascar fans that say Jimmie Johnson is a much greater driver because it's so much tougher to compete now. I mean, look how he's driving more quickly and faster with the latest cars..he's greater right? Wrong. Not necessarily at all. Tennis players may be driving "faster cars" these days, but that does not automatically render them "greater". There are way too many 3.5's out there hitting with the latest frames and thinking that a 5.0 could take out Tilden, Gonzalez, etc..

NadalDramaQueen said:

I don't want to waste too much time in this silly thread, but the bolded portion is simply absurd. Talk of what countries are producing "top players" is irrelevant. Any significant increase in size of a pool of players is going to result in a better field in general along with better top players. This is only an expectation, of course, but it is a very strong one given a big increase. Anyway, read the literature on the subject if you're interested, as I'm not going through it for you. The most ridiculous assumption on this board is that you can tell with your eyes how good top players from an era were compared to other eras when you only saw them play against each other.

Click to expand...

No, I do think there's much to be said for a history of producing great players. There is accumulated knowledge, resources, networks, etc. You don't just turn on a switch and get all that. Also, I agree that we should all be very wary of having certainty when trying to compare across eras. There are huge limits to doing so. As to the bolded portion, how about Spain, Switzerland, and Serbia..more players in those countries now right? Will they produce more great players in the next decade compared to the last decade? If so, why not?

borg number one said:

Agreed. You have different priorities, many changes in conditions, and of course you have different players when you compare eras. You and I are on the same page here. Let's look at Nascar as a example though I know the bare minimum about that racing sport. Dale Earnhardt Sr., Richard Petty, and A.J. Foyt are legendary drivers. Now, try telling Nascar fans that say Jimmie Johnson is a much greater driver because it's so much tougher to compete now. I mean, look how he's driving more quickly and faster with the latest cars..he's greater right? Wrong. Not necessarily at all. Tennis players may be driving "faster cars" these days, but that does not automatically render them "greater". There are way too many 3.5's out there hitting with the latest frames and thinking that a 5.0 could take out Tilden, Gonzalez, etc..

Click to expand...

You do realize, don't you, that you're talking to a poster that considers the 2000s a weak era and suggests Federer's Slams don't mean anything?

borg number one said:

No, I do think there's much to be said for a history of producing great players. There is accumulated knowledge, resources, networks, etc. You don't just turn on a switch and get all that. Also, I agree that we should all be very wary of having certainty when trying to compare across eras. There are huge limits top doing so. As to the bolded portion, how about Spain, Switzerland, and Serbia..more players in those countries now right? Will they produce more great players in the next decade compared to the last decade? If so, why not?

Click to expand...

Damn true, and again the " need to kill the father " that Freud describes so well is the need of many youngsters to reassert themshelves in the adult or pre adult world.

borg number one said:

No, I do think there's much to be said for a history of producing great players. There is accumulated knowledge, resources, networks, etc. You don't just turn on a switch and get all that. Also, I agree that we should all be very wary of having certainty when trying to compare across eras. There are huge limits top doing so.

Click to expand...

I do understand that point. I only meant that the notion tends to be true (amazingly so) in the face of so many external factors such as the ones you mention. All the complications tend to work together to fit the expected outcome. It really is only amazing at first, but it is quite logical when you spend some time with it.

I have no issue with you or your list, by the way. I tend to be more annoyed with dismissive posters who don't understand the limits of their perception.

borg number one said:

No, I do think there's much to be said for a history of producing great players. There is accumulated knowledge, resources, networks, etc. You don't just turn on a switch and get all that. Also, I agree that we should all be very wary of having certainty when trying to compare across eras. There are huge limits top doing so. As to the bolded portion, how about Spain, Switzerland, and Serbia..more players in those countries now right? Will they produce more great players in the next decade compared to the last decade? If so, why not?

Click to expand...

You train a group of 10 people to play Tennis. You give the same training to a group of 1000. Pick the best player from the group of 10 and the best player from the group of 1000. Who is more likely to win among the two?

Eragon said:

You do realize, don't you, that you're talking to a poster that considers the 2000s a weak era and suggests Federer's Slams don't mean anything?

Click to expand...

You are so biassed you are wrong.I never said federer titles mean nothing and if you had read some of my former posts, you would know I consider him an all time great and, certainly, the only current player that i can watch without failing slept in 30 minutes ( if lucky).

All I said, and not me but many posters , all of them posters who learned and developed their taste for the game in the Golden Era, is that the level of competitiveness atop in the slot of time fed dominated ( that is, between Sampras retirement and Nadal consolidation) is certainly one of the weakest eras and, clearly, the weakest since open tennis began back in 68.And it is not, probably, Roger´s fault at all.I am positively sure he hates having been destined to live through those years.

NonP said:

Well, I thought it was obvious that I disagreed. I do agree that one shouldn't put too much stock in individual H2Hs, but when you're comparing 2 players with comparable achievements I definitely think the H2H is a valid metric to consider, especially when one is so dominant against the other (which, again, doesn't always show up in the ranking points).

I'd like to elaborate on this more because it's not too different from the oft-misunderstood Fedal H2H, but for time constraints I'll save that discussion for another time.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying h2h should not be considered, I'm only saying h2h is double-counting when the two players involved are the most likely to win the event, since the loser is anyways deprived of the title by the winner.

NonP said:

I brought up the net %s simply because that's the best way to measure success at the net.

Click to expand...

no, net% may be the best way to measure success at the net , but not the quality of net play ..see below

NonP said:

And I can buy that the big game is tougher today, but not by that much.

Click to expand...

again disagree

NonP said:

Again let's return to the Fedal example. I focus on this one because it's generally and (rightly) agreed that Nadal is one of the best passers ever, and also because it's often claimed that this makes it a virtual suicide strategy, especially for Fed, to attack the net against him.

But that second claim simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As you know Nadal has often struggled precisely against players who like to attack, and more on point Fed's success rate at the net against Rafa is actually quite good (hat tip to krosero):



As you can see Fed generally wins over 50% of his net points against Rafa, and even 60+% isn't rare. That's a pretty darn good % by any historical standards! (Not sure if this was a sign of the times, but in a recent discussion this poster tried to tell me that those %s in the 50s were actually poor, when a Mac or Edberg wouldn't be much worse off with such numbers. In fact my guess is that their averages were about the same.)

OK, but the comparison doesn't hold because Fed comes in off easy approaches, right? Fair enough, so let's throw out extreme cases like '06 Rome (arguably Fed's best match ever on clay) and '12 IW with only 13 approaches. But then how do you explain such "normal" performances like his winning 36 out of 59 approaches at '05 RG--61% on clay(!)--or 42/75 for 56% at '08 Wim, or 43/60 for a whopping 72% at the '09 AO? The # of approaches here isn't too far off what a Becker or Pete used to average off clay, and again the %s are good by anyone's standard.

Granted this doesn't prove that Fed came in with similarly difficult approaches, but does that really matter? I mean, how can one argue that the likes of Mac, Edberg, Becker, Pete and Rafter, generally considered more natural net players than Fed, cannot at least match this and more? Maybe they'd do even better than Fed himself managed with easier forays to the net!

Click to expand...

1. again, you are placing too much stock on the net success %s. jmac was in mid-50s % at the net in the USO 84 SF vs connors and he was volleying as well as anyone possibly has , in that match ( that is including a serve % of more than 60%, which wasn't that common for mac , even more so over a long match )

2. coming back to the fedal example, forget the %s for a second, you know when you watched the RG 2008 final that fed's approaches and net play burnt him *completely* in that match. I don't need a 18/42 at the net stat to tell me that , do I ?

3. coming to 08 wimbledon, do you really recall that match well ? Well, I do ... federer came in on quite a few poor approaches and got burnt on many occasions, flubbed some easy volleys as well . He did get some free points off strong/powerful serves/FHs, but that's it.

pity for fed though that a pretty good approach shot at one of the most crucial moments resulted in that amazing passing shot from nadal to give nadal a MP ( 4th set TB )


4. one more thing, atleast at Wimbledon, the errors forced by the serve when the SnVer came to the net were not being counted as net approaches, which IMO is not correct. Part of the reason for the error being forced is the SnVer being at the net. I'm not talking about aces or service winners here . I'm talking about when the returner got a fair chunk of the racquet at the ball.

This obviously impacts the success of the former generations at the net far more since they SnVed far more.

see examples of the net stats of the fed-sampras match in wimbledon 2001, sampras-agassi match in wimbledon 99 etc etc.

I could link to this if you don't have those stats.

5. the # of net approaches isn't far off from sampras'/becker's off clay ? well, how about that those matches you were mentioning were the lengthier ones ? Taking no of net approaches/total no of points in the match would give a better measure

6. attacking at the net vs rafa is suicidal strategy ? well, I wouldn't say so.

I'd put it as unless you come in behind good approach shots and or playing very well at the net, it is suicide. same vs agassi , hewitt, connors, borg, lendl ( off grass ) , even federer himself.

NonP said:

I don't know if I've told you this before, but the more I learn and study tennis history the more I'm convinced that the game has changed remarkably little, as shown by these S&V/net/attacking/big game examples.

Click to expand...

remarkably little ? bad choice of words I'd say. There will always be similarities. Top players of every generation will always have those x-factors that would make them stand out in any generation , yes. But many things change over time.

Would you see players outside the top 20 pass from way behind the baseline with ease as they do now ? This is a point you are completely ignoring. Its not just the elite ones I'm talking about. Of course the top 20 players of today on an average are capable of passing significantly better on an average than in the previous generations .

Just to throw out another example, the I/O FH was considered low% play up until the early 80s and now it is an essential part of the weaponry of most players.

kiki said:

Roddick, a minor US champion ( for US standarts).At most, he equates Chang or Tanner

Click to expand...

roddick was a more dangerous player than chang, by far and won a slam in a full field , unlike tanner.

kiki said:

Hewitt, a very minor aussie champ ( for Oz standarts) .At most, in the same sentence as Stolle or Mal Anderson.

Click to expand...

hewitt's far better than both of them and its not even close.

kiki said:

the level of competitiveness atop in the slot of time fed dominated ( that is, between Sampras retirement and Nadal consolidation) is certainly one of the weakest eras and, clearly, the weakest since open tennis began back in 68..

Click to expand...

Prove it. Or don't ever say "weak era" again.

NadalDramaQueen said:

I do understand that point. I only meant that the notion tends to be true (amazingly so) in the face of so many external factors such as the ones you mention. All the complications tend to work together to fit the expected outcome. It really is only amazing at first, but it is quite logical when you spend some time with it.

I have no issue with you or your list, by the way. I tend to be more annoyed with dismissive posters who don't understand the limits of their perception.

Click to expand...

This is much art as science. Maybe more art than science. This entire topic is all very subjective and somewhat objective in my opinion. One can argue against any players in terms of the "greatest question" and you can argue for many players as well. I embrace significant uncertainty but that's fine in my book..look , Tilden, Lacoste, Budge, Hoad, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and Nadal are among the greatest players to ever step onto a tennis court and let's enjoy each great player as he comes along. We can all agree with that and in many ways, that's enough certainty for me.

abmk said:

roddick was a more dangerous player than chang, by far and won a slam in a full field , unlike tanner.



hewitt's far better than both of them and its not even close.

Click to expand...

Tanner beat Vilas and Roddick beat Ferrero.up to you...

Hewitt, at most, has one fully credible win, over Sampras at the US Open.His Wimbledon final against Nalbandian is, more or less, as " great" a win as Mac beating Lewis in the same event, in 83.

Stolle won two majors, beating all time greats Newcombe (USO) and Roche (FO).Like Roddick, he also lost three Wimbledon finals.

Eragon said:

You train a group of 10 people to play Tennis. You give the same training to a group of 1000. Pick the best player from the group of 10 and the best player from the group of 1000. Who is more likely to win?

Click to expand...

It can depend even with a very skewed ratio of 10:1000. Look at just Switzerland and Sweden. How did Federer and Borg come from those "small pools"? One sees that problem with assuming that greater numbers automatically translate to greater players with the example of Switzerland, Serbia, and Spain currently. How many players will come from those three countries combined that will be as great as Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic? One great player maybe? Why not if they have perhaps twice or three times as many players in total these days versus the junior days of those greats. It's simple not automatic and with statistics for example, if you have a truly random sample from say 1000, it approximates a truly random sample from a much, much greater pool. All time greats are born and they are also made. They just come along once in a while and just throwing more players out there simply cannot overcome the notion that all time greats are born and not just "made".

NonP said:

If the ace % is any guide the unreturned-serve % is probably not much different. Remember, the % of points won by aces is nearly identical between the AO and the USO, and as I like to point out the % of unreturned serves has almost certainly increased since the '90s, which, much like the % of service games won, doesn't support the "surface slowdown" talking points.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've done stats for multiple matches, but if you had, you'd immediately notice that the no of errors forced by the serve is always significantly more than the no of aces.

what was the gap b/w AO and USO , ace % for those years, 0.7% ?

that'd increase quite a bit more , if you included errors forced by the serve to get the total % of won off the serve alone.

NonP said:

And again I return to my main point: if players are holding serve and winning more free points than possibly ever per these stats, then what does it matter whether the surfaces are slower? And you can't point to the racquets as the main culprit, either, because 1) again whatever advantages they afford the returner are somehow offset by the server's own advantages, and 2) the net stats today do not show such a big divergence from those of previous eras (or at least the last couple decades). Then what's the problem?

Click to expand...

yes, it matters, because those service games are being won more from the baseline through rallies and not because of the conditions aiding the serve that much.

NonP said:

That's why I say people are missing the big picture when they focus so much on the courts/racquets. Despite all the complaints the fundamentals of tennis haven't changed all that much. What have really changed are the players, and these changes began long before the so-called surface slowdown/racquet revolution.

Click to expand...

I agree that the focus on courts/racquets is more than what it should be and the focus on coaches/players themselves is less than what it should be. But you IMO you are stretching in the opposite direction.

Eragon said:

Prove it. Or don't ever say "weak era" again.

Click to expand...

If you just bring up the records and the name of the " competitive" players of that slot of time, you will have the answer why ( not just me but most experienced posters) this is considered to be weak, and it is not Federer ´s fault.

When a Tommy Hass or a Bagdhatis is considered a threat to win a major, something is wrong.I never considered Barazutti or Higueras to be a potential slam winner, you know...

kiki said:

Tanner beat Vilas and Roddick beat Ferrero.up to you...

Hewitt, at most, has one fully credible win, over Sampras at the US Open.His Wimbledon final against Nalbandian is, more or less, as " great" a win as Mac beating Lewis in the same event, in 83.

Click to expand...

roddick beat two in-form players in USO 03 - nalbandian ( who had beaten federer in the 4th round ) and ferrero ( who had beaten hewitt and agassi back to back )

tanner won the AO in a depleted field. vilas was decent at the AO on grass, but that's about it. overall field doesn't even come close.

lewis was a one slam wonder. the comparision with nalbandian who was a legit top 10 player for a long time is laughable. hewitt also beat henman in wimbledon 02 , something you ignore.


he also wallopped kafelnikov in the USO 2001 SF , giving him only 4 games.

In the year ending masters , hewitt beat :

2001: agassi, rafter, ferrero
2002 : federer, safin, ferrero

kiki said:

Stolle won two majors, beating all time greats Newcombe (USO) and Roche (FO).Like Roddick, he also lost three Wimbledon finals.

Click to expand...

stolle beat newk and roche before they came into their own, well before their prime time, in amateur fields. He'd have to be lucky to win a major in a full field, let alone two.

NonP,

the point about wimbledon 01 vs wimbledon 02, I'd need some time to reply to. Will do so soon .

kiki said:

If you just bring up the records and the name of the " competitive" players of that slot of time, you will have the answer why ( not just me but most experienced posters) this is considered to be weak, and it is not Federer ´s fault.

When a Tommy Hass or a Bagdhatis is considered a threat to win a major, something is wrong.I never considered Barazutti or Higueras to be a potential slam winner, you know...

Click to expand...

haas/baghdatis when playing well are far better than barazutti or higueras, its not even close.

federer has played plenty of excellent players, plenty of very good players playing excellently. you know sh*t about this era because you haven't watched much and don't bother to follow it either .

weak era is when someone likes kodes wins 3 majors, three, not one. weak era is when stolle wins 2 majors ...etc etc

abmk said:

haas/baghdatis when playing better are far better than barazutti or higueras, its not even close.

federer has played plenty of excellent players, plenty of very good players playing excellently. you know sh*t about this era because you haven't watched much and don't bother to follow it either .

weak era is when someone likes kodes wins 3 majors, three, not one. weak era is when stolle wins 2 majors ...etc etc

Click to expand...

Madrid 1975, one of the hardest cc specialists fields ever assembled: Borg,Vilas,Panatta,Orantes,Nastase,Dibbs,Ramirez and Kodes.Who won the final and took the title.

So winning a Wimbledon title with Borg,Connors and Nastase is an easy task?

krosero said:

A couple of things to keep in mind about Johnston: he missed some years due to World War I; and he would have several US Championships if not for Tilden.

Johnston won only 3 "Slam" titles (a term not used back then; there were other majors back then like the WHCC, which he won): but the war intervened just as he started winning them. He won the USO in 1915, and lost a five-set final there the next year. He would have had excellent chances to win in 1917 and 1918 but had to miss those years.

And Wimbledon was not even held for four years during the war so there was no possibility of even going there (he did win it after the war).

When the US Championships resumed in 1919, Johnston won it, beating Tilden in the final. The war was over and practically all the great champions of the day traveled to the US championships that year; some felt that the 1919 tournament had the best field ever assembled. Whether or not true, we can say at least that Johnston came out on top when all the best players of his day entered the draw.

I've seen articles from 1919, or shortly thereafter, stating that Johnston's level of play was possibly the highest that had ever been achieved in the sport (and in particular that his Western forehand was something on a level never seen before). That was not stated as a fact: but even to entertain the idea shows that Johnston had achieved an extremely high level of play, at the very least.

The only reason Johnston didn't keep winning was Tilden. In the winter of 1919-20 Tilden improved his backhand, and he edged ahead of Johnston as a player. Tilden won their 1920 US final in five sets and never lost to him in an important match again, though Johnston could keep pushing him to five.

Johnston's singular misfortune, even more than the war, was that he was a fellow American in Tilden's generation. If he had been Aussie or English or French he would have snagged some other "Slam" titles and would not look so "little" in the historical record; but as Americans, he and Tilden rarely played abroad and their main event of the year was the US Championships. So Tilden overshadowed him.

But they were the two best players in the world. That's why they met in so many of those finals: not because Americans generally chose to concentrate on the US Championships and Johnston just happened to be the second-best American around for Tilden to face, which I guess is how Johnston is remembered these days.

In fact he was the second best player in the world, not just the second-best American. He won Wimbledon and the WHCC major in 1923, and rarely lost in Davis Cup. He beat Lacoste at the WHCC in '23 and at the US Championships in '24. He also beat Lacoste and Borotra in Davis Cup in '25 and '26, after those men had already won Wimbledon.

He never beat Cochet, that I know of.

Anyway I disagree with downgrading Tilden's place just because Johnston is viewed as some kind of minor player or something: but I'm not going to argue with your ranking him 8th. Tilden did play so long ago that where you rank him really comes down to how you view past/present comparisons. It depends on what you value. I can see him being regarded as a GOAT contender. I can also see him ranked much lower.

Click to expand...

krosero, Thanks for the explaining words about Tilden and Johnston.

As far as I know Johnston had the edge against Tilden if we consider all of their encounters. At least he won several lesser tournaments against Tilden.

Eragon said:

Forget that, if Nadal had decided to pursue Football instead of Tennis (and he probably would have if not for Tio Toni), Federer could potentially be sitting on 23 Slams. No such luxury, because Tennis is a Global Colossus unlike back in the "Grannie" 60s.

Click to expand...

True, no split fields and 3 round slams for Fed to enjoy. :lol:

borg number one said:

Kiki, I know! I know! The top 10 is so tough in tennis man. I really like the attributes of a tier system. I could easily bring in Budge and Tilden in the top 10 and of course it's very debatable as to exact placement in my estimation. Yet, to continue with 11-25:

11. Tilden
12. Budge
13. Hoad
14. Lacoste
15. Kramer
16. Lacoste
17. Newcombe
18. Sedgman
19. Agassi
20. Cochet
21. Wilander
22. Becker
23. Edberg
24. Ellsworth Vines
25. Emerson

Click to expand...

borg number one, Vines at 24 is too low. Remember that he dominated Perry as a pro and that he was arguably No.1 in 1931, 1932 and from 1934 to 1938.

monfed said:

Having Tilden below Lendl looks completely out of place, seems like not a lot of thought has gone into your list. Maybe you should've just stuck with an open era and pre-open era list,that would've given your list a little more credibility.
And placing Laver above Federer is absurd since the former was 5'8 and all the champions since 1980 are 6' and above which means Laver wouldn't win squat in the 90s let alone in this era of extreme physicality. GOAT is someone who should be able to win across all eras. This is one of the biggest reasons why Fed is the consensus GOAT because if he was put in a time capsule, he'd win in any era with his game.(case in point is pre-prime Fed beating Sampras at his own game in Wimby 2001.)

As far as placing Borg at 1, well that's your bias kicking in which is ok by me,everyone chooses their fav player as #1,you're no different. Quite frankly you're nothing more than a nostalgic fanboi albeit with grey hair.

Click to expand...

monfed, As GOAT can also be valued who has the best record. Laver, along with Rosewall and Gonzalez has a record ahead of your idol...

BobbyOne said:

monfed, As GOAT can also be valued who has the best record. Laver, along with Rosewall and Gonzalez has a record ahead of your idol...

Click to expand...

BobbyOne, have you seen the other poll about which major tournament is the most prestigious?

Virtually everyone has said Wimbledon. And yet you state that a man who lost in five Wimbledon finals, against five different opponents, is greater than Federer and a GOAT contender!

I request you stop your bias about Rosewall please.

Eragon said:

Yep. Today's era is about 10 times stronger than back in the 60s when the sport was mainly limited to a handful of countries and "Majors" (LOL!) could be won with just 3 matches in a draw of 8 (SUPERLOL!). I still wouldn't say "1 Slam today is worth 10 in the 60s" because there are only so many Slams each year and new ones don't materialize out of thin air like you seem to believe. But it's not your fault, we should blame the guy that gave you a computer when you should be learning math and alphabets.

Click to expand...

Eragon, why so nasty towards one of the best experts of TT?

This era 10 times stronger than the 1960?????

In the 1960s there were many countries participating.

Did you realize that Hoad had a stronger playing arm than Nadal?

Did you realize that Emerson had a better condition than most of the modern players?

kiki said:

Rankings, as you said, are very subjective.What if we group players in homogeneous slots of, say 20 years and make them play the WTF/Masters for those eras?:

1900-1920: Wilding,Doherty,Brookes,Johnston,Gore,Mc Laughlin,Sears,Max Decugis
1920-1940: Tilden,Budge,Perry,Lacoste,Cochet,Crawford,Vines and Von Cramm or Borotra
1940-1960: Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Kramer,Trabert,Schroeder,Sedgman,Riggs
1960-1980:Laver,Borg,Newcombe,Connors,Emerson,Nastase,Vilas and Santana or Ashe
1980-2000: Sampras,Mac,Lendl,Agassi,Wilander,Courier,Becker and Edberg
2000-2013: Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray,Hewitt,Ivanisevic,Safin,Roddick

I´d make the winners play a play off on a medium to fast indoor court, such as Supreme court.I´d have Wilding,Tilden,Gonzales,Laver,Sampras and Federer as direct qualifiers plus Rosewall and Borg as the best of the second classified players.Just a game.

Click to expand...

kiki, Interesting list. I would include Nüsslein instead of Borotra.

Why not ranking a player in two categories? F. i. Rosewall deserves a place also in the 1960-1980 part.

borg number one said:

Imagine if tennis was as big in the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia these days as it was back in say 1950-1990. Federer may have fewer majors and the same goes for Nadal. You'd have countries with rich histories producing many tough players, which is somewhat different than brand new countries on the scene having tennis gain a foothold. There are more "tennis playing countries" these days, but there are offsets as well. That's something that many simply gloss over.

With the greater popularity of tennis post 2003 (due largely to the Federer/Nadal rivalry among other things relative to say 1999 or so, why aren't there more great players following behind those guys? Where are all the great players inspired by Nadal in Spain? More juniors and pros from there right? Well, why will there likely not be another Nadal from there anytime soon? How about Switzerland? More players playing there now, inspired by Federer. How many great players will come out of Switzerland in the next decade? More players, more greats, right? No, there are many other factors. More players does not automatically translate into more great players or even greater players. Depth at the top is important and there is something about great players facing off and basically sharpening their skills in the process (a very tough top 10/top 10 even in 1950 or 1960).

Some things are tougher now, but somethings are easier. Just look at these factors: time between points, sitting during changeovers, coaching during matches, challenging calls, tougher travel, central air/heat, sports medicine. What the guys were doing in say 1950 was not easy by ANY stretch of the imagination. In fact, in many ways, they had it significantly harder than the players today.

Click to expand...

borg number one, Till 1970 there also was no tiebreak (with the exception of Newport pro event). Many very long matches.

BobbyOne said:

Eragon, why so nasty towards one of the best experts of TT?

This era 10 times stronger than the 1960?????

In the 1960s there were many countries participating.

Did you realize that Hoad had a stronger playing arm than Nadal?

Did you realize that Emerson had a better condition than most of the modern players?

Click to expand...

Thanks Bobbyone for your words.

Don´t be upset by Eragon/former TMF

You get it don´t you?

BobbyOne said:

kiki, Interesting list. I would include Nüsslein instead of Borotra.

Why not ranking a player in two categories? F. i. Rosewall deserves a place also in the 1960-1980 part.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be a better idea.Of course, one can argue that some players from one era are better than some of the other era, so it is a very relative list.It helps, however, to distinguish tough and weak eras.The 50´s, 70´s and 80´s are the best eras.The 30´s and 90´s and, maybe from 2010 onwards are medium competitive eras.The 60´s ( due to pro-am split), the 20´s, the 40´s 8 due to WWII) and the 2000´s are the weak eras.Only worse the first two decades, with only 5-6 really ompetitive players ( who deserve being highly regarded,IMO)

Eragon said:

You train a group of 10 people to play Tennis. You give the same training to a group of 1000. Pick the best player from the group of 10 and the best player from the group of 1000. Who is more likely to win among the two?

Click to expand...

Your example of 10 vs. 1000 is wrong.

monfed said:

True, no split fields and 3 round slams for Fed to enjoy. :lol:

Click to expand...

It's harder to win an eight man field with Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno than a 132 man field with a Baghdatis as final opponent!

Phoenix1983 said:

BobbyOne, have you seen the other poll about which major tournament is the most prestigious?

Virtually everyone has said Wimbledon. And yet you state that a man who lost in five Wimbledon finals, against five different opponents, is greater than Federer and a GOAT contender!

I request you stop your bias about Rosewall please.

Click to expand...

I request you stop your nonsense about Rosewall/Wimbledon!

kiki said:

Madrid 1975, one of the hardest cc specialists fields ever assembled: Borg,Vilas,Panatta,Orantes,Nastase,Dibbs,Ramirez and Kodes.Who won the final and took the title.

So winning a Wimbledon title with Borg,Connors and Nastase is an easy task?

Click to expand...

when the hell will you get this through your thick head ?

wimbledon 73 field was a JOKE, repeat JOKE of a field.

that was borg's first wimbledon FFS. nastase being the flake he was bombed out. connors was still not at his peak.

81 players boycotted it overall, including 13 of the top 16 players.

easily the worst wimbledon of the open era

see this years field at dubai , for example, a 500 event

it had federer, djokovic, del potro, tsonga , berdych.

a better field than wimbledon 73.

madrid 75 was a good win, but there've been far more impressive performances in masters events like those. kodes only beat two of those CCers, not all of them

BobbyOne said:

borg number one, Till 1970 there also was no tiebreak (with the exception of Newport pro event). Many very long matches.

Click to expand...

Yes, great point BobbyOne. That's a big one. So brutal!

I also see your point regarding Vines. He was a great player and a great athlete from all accounts. I learned about him from this forum almost exclusively. Really, so many names can be moved around depending on what you see/focus on in my opinion. I put Lacoste on my list twice, leaving off Perry by mistake initially. See my second list above. I can see how one could argue that say Vines should be ahead of Perry for example. This is a great Vines thread that Moose Malloy by the way.


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=120080&highlight=ellsworth+vines

kiki said:

Thanks Bobbyone for your words.

Don´t be upset by Eragon/former TMF

You get it don´t you?

Click to expand...

kiki, I was not aware about this. But at least I can confirm that Eragon reaches the heights of TMF easily...

abmk said:

when the hell will you get this through your thick head ?

wimbledon 73 field was a JOKE, repeat JOKE of a field.

that was borg's first wimbledon FFS. nastase being the flake he was bombed out. connors was still not at his peak.

81 players boycotted it overall, including 13 of the top 16 players.

easily the worst wimbledon of the open era

see this years field at dubai , for example, a 500 event

it had federer, djokovic, del potro, tsonga , berdych.

a better field than wimbledon 73.

madrid 75 was a good win, but there've been far more impressive performances in masters events like those. kodes only beat two of those CCers, not all of them

Click to expand...

That Dubai thing sucks in comparison with the mayestatic Kodes win at 1975 Madrid.

kiki said:

Yes, it would be a better idea.Of course, one can argue that some players from one era are better than some of the other era, so it is a very relative list.It helps, however, to distinguish tough and weak eras.The 50´s, 70´s and 80´s are the best eras.The 30´s and 90´s and, maybe from 2010 onwards are medium competitive eras.The 60´s ( due to pro-am split), the 20´s, the 40´s 8 due to WWII) and the 2000´s are the weak eras.Only worse the first two decades, with only 5-6 really ompetitive players ( who deserve being highly regarded,IMO)

Click to expand...

I would not say the 1960s were weak era. The pros had Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno...

kiki said:

That Dubai thing sucks in comparison with the mayestatic Kodes win at 1975 Madrid.

Click to expand...

still a better field than wimbledon 73 clearly.

but kodes' madrid 75 pales in comparision to :

djokovic montreal 2007 : federer, nadal ,roddick
nalbandian madrid 2007 : federer, djokovic, nadal
korda grand slam cup 93 : sampras, stich
federer cincy 09 : djokovic, murray
nadal hamburg 08 : federer, djokovic

etc etc

that is whom they beat, not the whole field btw .

So THIS is the "Anyone but Federer" forum. :lol:

BobbyOne said:

It's harder to win an eight man field with Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Gimeno than a 132 man field with a Baghdatis as final opponent!

Click to expand...

you do realise that federer has won 6 of the year ending masters, that consists of only the top players ? more than anyone else in the open era ?

spin it whatever way ... federer's record is better than any other player, including laver, gonzalez and yes, your beloved rosewall.

monfed said:

So THIS is the "Anyone but Federer" forum. :lol:

Click to expand...

No not at all, he's considered with all other tennis greats here. Plus, don't worry, he'll fit right in with this forum as a former pro in about 3 years or so. By then, if posters try and discount Federer and other "past greats" too severely it'll be the posters in this forum that will rightly point out his attributes as well. You won't get that kind of perspective and fairness as much in the GPP section once Federer does retire by the way and many Federer fans will be thoroughly amazed as they find themselves making the same arguments that "former pro player" posters posit all the time...Federer could still be great if he played today...he would adapt to technology...Nadal did not play in a weak era compared to the modern era, Federer would not be crushed 1 and 2 by the great Igor Clutch, the surfaces were different, strings were different, racquets were different, etc, etc...I like the General forum as well as this one, but suffice it to say, the posters here tend to be much better informed in terms of grasping all the factors you have to consider when comparing across eras especially. There are fine posters in that section as well, but many more that are ignorant and/or have a very negative agenda somehow against many players.

abmk said:

you do realise that federer has won 6 of the year ending masters, that consists of only the top players ? more than anyone else in the open era ?

spin it whatever way ... federer's record is better than any other player, including laver, gonzalez and yes, your beloved rosewall.

Click to expand...

Bobbyone point remains true.Look at the 1971 and 1972 WCT fields that Rosewall had to overcome to win those back to back titles.

BobbyOne said:

krosero, Thanks for the explaining words about Tilden and Johnston.

As far as I know Johnston had the edge against Tilden if we consider all of their encounters. At least he won several lesser tournaments against Tilden.

Click to expand...

I have a little summary from the New York Times of all their matches up to May 1922.


Those last two matches were on hard courts, which Johnston grew up on in California, so he may have had some advantage there.

Johnston won the first match in five sets as part of an East-West series, and he took the second one in four sets in the final of the Pacific Coast Championships a week later.

A little bit from the Times about the 5-setter:

NadalDramaQueen said:

I do understand that point. I only meant that the notion tends to be true (amazingly so) in the face of so many external factors such as the ones you mention. All the complications tend to work together to fit the expected outcome. It really is only amazing at first, but it is quite logical when you spend some time with it.

Click to expand...

You might want to know what you're talking about before you pretend to be "logical." Yes, it's to be expected that an increase in population would lead to a stronger field of talent, provided that other relevant variables remain more or less the same. But of course these variables don't stay the same in the real world, and there isn't a single controlled experiment out there that can begin to simulate the complex roles all these variables play in player development. Nor is there a scientific way to gauge which player is "better."

abmk said:

I'm not saying h2h should not be considered, I'm only saying h2h is double-counting when the two players involved are the most likely to win the event, since the loser is anyways deprived of the title by the winner.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. I do see what you're saying, I just disagree. Again ranking points or tournament finishes don't say anything about how a certain player fared against another or even against a certain field, hence my argument that H2Hs count in their own ways that have little to do with titles. The reason why I haven't elaborated on this further is because I want to focus on the surface/racquet/coaching/net/inter-era issues.

no, net% may be the best way to measure success at the net , but not the quality of net play ..see below

Click to expand...

I've already addressed the quality part, and will again in more depth below. And my only point here was that the net % is the only quantifiable/objective way to measure success at the net, not that it is the end-all measure of net play.

1. again, you are placing too much stock on the net success %s. jmac was in mid-50s % at the net in the USO 84 SF vs connors and he was volleying as well as anyone possibly has , in that match ( that is including a serve % of more than 60%, which wasn't that common for mac , even more so over a long match )

Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the net success %s of even a Mac or Edberg were often mediocre, and in fact I alluded to this and acknowledged the limitations in my previous post.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Again, let's assume that Fed's %s are pretty high because he's had the advantage of relatively easy approaches. Then imagine, again for the sake of argument, the likes of Mac, Edberg, Pete and Rafter doing the same, off the exact same approaches. Isn't it safe to think that these guys would do at least as well at the net against Rafa, or anyone else? Then let's picture them attacking with more authority, which would naturally bring down their %s. But how much? I think you'll agree that all the way down to 30-40% is too low to pass the laugh test, given how much difficulty even the Big Four of Rafa, Fed, Djoko and Murray have had against journeymen like Kendrick, Suzuki and Petzschner or part-time S&Vers like Haas and Fish. Which leaves us with... around 50% as a conservative estimate, about the same as Mac's own % in the '84 USO SF! What a coincidence!

And speaking of serve %s, you might have seen me point out that this and just about every other service stat have seen an uptick since the '90s. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the serve %s like I did the %s of service games won, but from what I've seen players today are serving more 1st serves and holding serve with more ease than perhaps ever. People usually ignore this service part of the equation when they parrot the familiar talking points about how much the modern racquet has shifted the game in favor of the returner. And I'm pretty sure Mac would likewise benefit and serve higher %s today. (By what degree I can't say. My comparison of the '90s and the '00s showed marginal differences, but unfortunately the '80s stats aren't readily available. My guess is that Mac's benefits would be greater still, since the %s of unreturned serves often show a rather stark contrast between the '80s and the '90s/'00s.)

2. coming back to the fedal example, forget the %s for a second, you know when you watched the RG 2008 final that fed's approaches and net play burnt him *completely* in that match. I don't need a 18/42 at the net stat to tell me that , do I ?

Click to expand...

Yeah, but 43% isn't a great success rate by any standards. Not sure what your point is here. I never claimed or implied that the numbers tell the whole story.

3. coming to 08 wimbledon, do you really recall that match well ? Well, I do ... federer came in on quite a few poor approaches and got burnt on many occasions, flubbed some easy volleys as well . He did get some free points off strong/powerful serves/FHs, but that's it.

pity for fed though that a pretty good approach shot at one of the most crucial moments resulted in that amazing passing shot from nadal to give nadal a MP ( 4th set TB )

Click to expand...

I do too, and it's probably the most memorable match I remember watching in full. I was glued to my TV all day. (NBC by some miracle stuck with the whole match, through all the rain delays.)

And yes, Fed did have some questionable forays to the net, but despite that he still won 42/75 or 56% of his net points, against one of the all-time great passers in Rafa! That says something about the viability of net-rushing in this day and age, no?

4. one more thing, atleast at Wimbledon, the errors forced by the serve when the SnVer came to the net were not being counted as net approaches, which IMO is not correct. Part of the reason for the error being forced is the SnVer being at the net. I'm not talking about aces or service winners here . I'm talking about when the returner got a fair chunk of the racquet at the ball.

This obviously impacts the success of the former generations at the net far more since they SnVed far more.

see examples of the net stats of the fed-sampras match in wimbledon 2001, sampras-agassi match in wimbledon 99 etc etc.

I could link to this if you don't have those stats.

Click to expand...

I've seen the stats, and also I've noticed that Wimby in recent years has been rather generous on the F/UFE ratio. But this isn't very relevant to our discussion, because I meant to exclude grass anyway (I misspoke earlier--see below) and I believe most stats taken by krosero, Moose and slice serve ace take this into account.

5. the # of net approaches isn't far off from sampras'/becker's off clay ? well, how about that those matches you were mentioning were the lengthier ones ? Taking no of net approaches/total no of points in the match would give a better measure

Click to expand...

My bad, I should've said grass (which of course was the S&Ver's paradise in the twosome's heyday). But my main point stands: Fed's # of approaches often isn't too far off Pete/Becker's, especially on HCs.

Here, a few examples, starting with Becker:

- 1989 FO SF, 5 sets, 43/70 net points won (61%), 70 approaches out of 172 total service points (41%)
- 1989 USO F, 4 sets, 55/104 (53%), 104/143 (73%)
- 1991 AO F, 4 sets, 23/48 (48%), 48/122 (39%)

Of course these net approaches didn't always happen on service points, but adding in the opponent's total would give a more incomplete picture, hence the middle ground.

And some of Pete's numbers:

- 1990 USO SF, 4 sets, 40/61 (66%), 61/108 (56%) [as an aside Mac won 60/104 or 58% of his net points and approached 104 out of 116 service points for a whopping 90%]
- 1990 USO F, 3 sets, 39/62 (63%), 62/93 (67%)
- 1992 FO QF, 3 sets, 12/19 (63%), 19/95 (20%, almost half less than Agassi's 37%!)
- 1995 AO F, 4 sets, 35/63 (56%), 63/139 (45%)
- 1995 USO F, 4 sets, 43/59 (73%), 59/121 (49%)
- 1995 DC F against Chesnokov, 5 sets, 32/49 (65%) at 5-6 in the 4th, 153 total service points
- 1996 YEC F, 5 sets, 74/99 approaches (75%) at 3-4 in the 5th

I excluded Pete's post-'97 matches as they indeed confirm the common knowledge that he came in more late in his career, but here's a fun bonus:

- 2002 USO F, 4 sets, 60/105 (57%), 105/152 (69%)

So not only did Pete approach the net more at this reportedly 1st USO with slowed-down DecoTurf, he actually went on to win the whole thing! Must've been mighty harder having to volley on this green sandpaper! (I know, I know. Insufficient sample.)

As you can see these numbers aren't that different from some of Fed's own, sometimes even lower in total net approaches. And my response to your point #1 explains why this is telling.

6. attacking at the net vs rafa is suicidal strategy ? well, I wouldn't say so.

I'd put it as unless you come in behind good approach shots and or playing very well at the net, it is suicide. same vs agassi , hewitt, connors, borg, lendl ( off grass ) , even federer himself.

Click to expand...

Of course that's true against just about every great baseliner. Anyway I'm glad we agree that the common wisdom about Rafa being this indestructible kryptonite against net-rushers is overblown.

remarkably little ? bad choice of words I'd say. There will always be similarities. Top players of every generation will always have those x-factors that would make them stand out in any generation , yes. But many things change over time.

Would you see players outside the top 20 pass from way behind the baseline with ease as they do now ? This is a point you are completely ignoring. Its not just the elite ones I'm talking about. Of course the top 20 players of today on an average are capable of passing significantly better on an average than in the previous generations .

Just to throw out another example, the I/O FH was considered low% play up until the early 80s and now it is an essential part of the weaponry of most players.

Click to expand...

Now we're talking degrees. I was thinking on a more macro level, like how the windshield-wiper FH is touted as a modern stroke when you can find pictures/videos of Tilden and Wills hitting just that. Ditto the open stance (another favorite trope), which was already being used regularly in the late '80s/early '90s, well before the supposed surface slowdown/racquet revolution began in earnest.

Of course one could go forever with this. Back in Kramer's heyday there were familiar complaints about how tennis had become boring due to the quick points and few rallies. I'd say the sport has turned out quite successful since then. And for all the unprecedented physicality of today's game, which the youngsters like to claim as an indisputable fact with logic on their side, the career progressions of top players have been eerily similar across generations. (Of course the standard retort is that today's advanced medicine/nutrition offsets whatever additional demands on the body, but that renders this whole discussion moot, which the same youngsters are too slow to grasp.)

But I digress. The I-O FH may be in vogue now, and Lendl is often thought to be the one who jump-started it, but we know a predecessor like Borg used the shot quite often. Also I've read in this very forum that Sydney Howard Smith from pre-Tilden days was THE originator of the shot. Maybe it caught fire just like today but we don't yet know about it? In any case what matters is that these so-called modern shots aren't so modern.

For another example, people were/are sounding the death knells of the Continental/Eastern grip (not to mention the 1HBH!) simply because it's rarer. Well, I've read enough old articles to know that they were singing the same tune about this or that grip from time immemorial. History has proven these predictions false, and we still have and use the same old grips which have been around from the game's very beginning. This is what I mean when I say the fundamentals of tennis have changed very little. There might have been some minor changes in grip, arm positioning, footwork and whatnot, but basic tennis mechanics has remained remarkably constant.

And I expect the current "death" of S&V/net play will suffer a similar fate. The big game may be rarer today, but as I've just explained I doubt that's because it's no longer viable. Once a charismatic top exponent or two come along you'll most likely see a surge in juniors wanting to emulate their heroes. And the game of tennis will be moving foward, going through its cycles again, back to square one.

As to your point about players outside the top 20, yeah I can buy that, and FYI I do think depth at the lower levels has improved overall. The reason why I've mostly ignored this side of the issue is because 1) I'm mainly interested in the very top players and 2) I don't have that many stats handy to do an adequate comparison of the lower-tier players.

abmk said:

I'm not sure if you've done stats for multiple matches, but if you had, you'd immediately notice that the no of errors forced by the serve is always significantly more than the no of aces.

Click to expand...

As you may well know these stats are hard to come by. How do you expect to compare these stats from two major events over several years when we don't even know about most individual matches? The %s of unreturned serves should be a close enough barometer, but we're not exactly inundated with these stats, either.

what was the gap b/w AO and USO , ace % for those years, 0.7% ?

that'd increase quite a bit more , if you included errors forced by the serve to get the total % of won off the serve alone.

Click to expand...

It was 0.5%, but remember, per the break %s the '08 USO played unusually fast, and data for '09 were missing. If '09 was just like the previous years the gap between the AO and the USO would be even smaller. We're talking at most 0.3-0.4% here.

yes, it matters, because those service games are being won more from the baseline through rallies and not because of the conditions aiding the serve that much.

Click to expand...

If you've got more stats I'll be interested to see them. I just don't think they'll be much different from the ones we have now.

Just in case we're not clear, I don't claim to know which surface is faster than which. For all I know the USO may well be faster than the AO, or even vice versa. I just don't think that's very relevant when the stats strongly indicate that whatever differences between the two are minor in the grand scheme of things. That's the big point I'm trying to make.

abmk said:

NonP,

the point about wimbledon 01 vs wimbledon 02, I'd need some time to reply to. Will do so soon .

Click to expand...

OK.

krosero said:

I have a little summary from the New York Times of all their matches up to May 1922.

In their most important meetings to date, Tilden and Johnston are now even with five victories apiece. In 1919, Tilden won in the East-West matches at Cincinnati and at the Newport invitational tourney, while Johnston won in the national clay court championships at Chicago, and the national championship at Forest Hills. In 1920, Johnston won in the Queen’s championship in London, and Tilden won at Forest Hills and in the East-West matches at Philadelphia. Last year Tilden won in the national championship at Philadelphia and this year Johnston has twice beaten Tilden at Berkeley, California.​

Those last two matches were on hard courts, which Johnston grew up on in California, so he may have had some advantage there.

Johnston won the first match in five sets as part of an East-West series, and he took the second one in four sets in the final of the Pacific Coast Championships a week later.

A little bit from the Times about the 5-setter:

In the knowledge that Tilden and Johnston would oppose each other and in the expectation of a thrilling duel, tennis fans seized upon every point of advantage about the courts long before the time for starting the match had come around. It was the first opportunity a coast gallery had of seeing the two in action against each other. They expected fireworks, and they received them in full measure. Johnston, realizing that the responsibility of upholding the honors of the West rested solely upon his shoulders, played with grim determination from the start. His game was machinelike in its perfection of control. His execution of his ground strokes, always admirable, was surpassingly good and his forehand drives tore through Tilden’s court with whirlwind force.

That famous forehand of the former champion’s equalled anything Tilden, with all his versatility of stroke, could offer from back court, while, in volleying, Johnston, as usual, was more than a match for the champion. Yet Tilden, too, played beautifully, mixing his ground strokes with marvelous effectiveness, chopping and slicing and driving in such manner that only such a wonderful court-coverer as Johnston could have met him on equal ground. Both men made almost miraculous gets. Both displayed supremely good headwork in their attack and honors were even in the matching of wits and in the efforts of the each to outguess the other. Johnston was a trifle the steadier and the more forceful in the closing stages of the fifth set. He seemed, by a small margin, to surpass the champion in physical condition, though such errors as the latter made in the critical stages of the fifth set were attributable more to Johnston’s forcing shots than to any faltering on Tilden’s part.​

Click to expand...

Krosero, thanks for the brilliant account of Tilden vs. Johnston. Without all the video and audio capabilities we'd enjoy later, writers had to be so descriptive. You feel like you're right there by the court watching a great match. How doe one rank Tilden versus greats 50-70 years later? It's very difficult in my opinion. How Tilden and company could hit with racquets like these I have no idea, with the huge wood grip, extreme weight, etc. The balls would have bounced so differently as well and as you pointed out, they were often playing on fast grass courts with tough bounces. Can you imagine playtesting this frame? lol..Thanks.

What if we combine singles and doubles?

Few would dispute that Cochet,Borotra,Mac,Hoad,Newcombe,Roche,Rosewall,Kramer,Emerson,Edberg or Gonzales or Ilie Nastase or maybe Tony Trabert would be their favourite top ten if both, singles and doubs are added up.

Connors and Gerulaitis had some good results on doubles too.Stolle, too.

kiki said:

Like Pierre Trudeau & wife?

Click to expand...

I think that my New Zealand cousins (Lobbs) were more impressed with my wedding photos than they would have been with Pierre Trudeau's.

My personal standards are closer to Glenn Gould than Trudeau.

Trudeau's son is now leader of the Liberals and favoured to be next P.M.
He has recently become controversial for recommending the legalization of pot. Silly move.