To toss my hat into the ring...
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. McEnroe
8. Rosewall
9. Gonzalez
10. Tilden
To toss my hat into the ring...
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Connors
6. Lendl
7. McEnroe
8. Rosewall
9. Gonzalez
10. Tilden
Yeah you get a real sense of how different it was back then, yet how popular the game was. Fans did every thing they could to get into the stadiums to see matches "live", because there was no other way to watch tennis -- except for a few minutes in movie theaters, if they happened to see those highlight reels that we sometimes find on YT.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.
The link changed, not sure why, but it's here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=388910Note to krosero and others: the thread with the '92 RG QF stats disappeared for some reason. Anyone know what happened?]
There is a sound difference btween " best" and " greatest".
best is a word describing a direct relationship within two subjects while Greatest is more related to the era, entourage, legacy or other contextual factors.
I don´t know if Tilden is the best player ( i don´t think he was) but he is certainly one of the greatest: the first tennis intelectual and the guy that took tennis away from local elitist clubs and made it a mass sport.
In other words, had there been TV exposure in the 20´s, we may use the term " Golden Era" to the 20-30´s and not 70´s-80´s.
With all due respect, in my opinion the first guys to do that were the Doherty brothers and Wilding too, even if it was for a short period of time. Tilden continues this line of globalizing the sport and he deservs more credit because he had a longer career.
With all due respect, I think that The Renshaw and Doherty were part of the upper class London stablishment, and while they did a great job at popularizing the game, it never went beyond that social class borders.Tilden was comparable to Chaplin in the sense that they took their activity and put them in another global level.
(another good example would be Frank Riseley). Certainly they did less than Tilden in this chapter but in my opinion they are the pioneers.
The pioneers for a truly MASS tennis audience are the guys who brought ten million TV viewers (plus Vice-President Nixon) to the Davis Cup final in 1955.....Hoad and Trabert.
The link changed, not sure why, but it's here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=388910
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
I do have the stat ABMK is suggesting, for Federer in his GS finals. This is the percentage of points played in the match on which Federer came to net: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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think total points played is the better metric to use, NonP, because as you say yourself not all of a player's approaches occur on his own service points: so taking his total number of approaches and dividing into the total number of points that he served can give a distorted picture.
I'd still say that the effect of the much larger no of approaches of edberg/mac would be quite a bit more than their better skill at the net when compared to fed. therefore their %s would dip when compared to fed.
A slightly minor point : I'd disagree that fed struggled vs suzuki in AO 05. Its true suzuki played excellently to force federer to raise his level. But federer did raise his level. A highly entertaining match .
was giving the most glaring example of where rafa burnt federer big time at the net.
not really, so many of those were caused by powerful serves, FHs and the point at the net was for finishing the putaways. Points on which it would be a bit foolish to stay back on the baseline instead of finishing them at the net.
I will flat out say that his net play in that match was not impressive. even someone with clearly lesser skill at the net like say djokovic or berdych would have put away most of those volleys at the net.
yeah, I don't think he's invincible against net rushers or anything like that, especially off clay. Just that the approaches & net game have to be pretty good vs him.
Its just that some of the passes he makes are so downright ridiculous and at crucial moments, so it forces the other player to play closer to the lines . Also some of those shots stick in memory.
Somewhat like some of the important baseline rallies that sampras used to clinch vs agassi that could make people believe that he was agassi's equal from the baseline.
You're using the total number of points here, when you say that Federer was 9 times more aggressive than Nadal.And Becker, Pete and Fed all were generally more aggressive than their opponents, often at least twice as much. If you compare the Fedal net stats you'll see that Fed always came in more than Rafa, often two, three or even four times more (I see as high as nine in the '09 Madrid final). So using the total # of points would make his NAM significantly less than it actually was.
I hope there's no confusion here; we are both counting all types of net points, whether SV or otherwise. We've just disagreed on what number to divide by, when getting percentages.Another reason why I insist on total service points is S&V. Now as you recall I ignored grass precisely because most of both Becker's and Pete's approaches would be behind serve. But what about HCs and clay? Though we don't have stats for every single one of them I think it safe to say that Becker and Pete S&Ved more than Fed in their respective matches off grass. In other words, if one eliminated S&V points both Becker and Pete would look less aggressive and more like the '00s baseliners compared to Fed on HCs and clay!
And even on grass I doubt the gap would be that significant. See this thread with stats for the '93 Wimbledon F (& SF):
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=397600
I call attention to this match because this was one of the few in Pete's Wimby career where he had the opportunity to show off his ground game against his opponent. As you can see Moose has Pete winning 67/97 of his net points for 69%, which is quite lower than the 32/55 or 58% published in The Independent. I'm not sure whether that's because the Independent stats don't include S&V points (as was the case with some published stats, as you know) or just consist of net approaches on service points (which is unlikely, given how successful Pete was on serve), but in either case those numbers aren't that different from Fed's own in last year's final (53/68 or 78%), and in fact lower in both # of approaches and conversion %! (For the record I'm not sure how many times Fed S&Ved in last year's final, but I doubt eliminating his #s would change the equation a whole lot.)
So if anything I was being quite fair to Fed by including all the S&V points and thereby increasing Becker/Pete's NAMs. Take out the S&V factor and you'll likely see a more level playing field.
Agreed here.And that's really the big point I've been trying to make. The surfaces may well be slower today, but the fundamentals of tennis have changed very little. An aggressive net game can still be a major asset/strategy in today's game, and it doesn't do us much good to blame the surfaces for just about every ill of modern tennis when there are more important factors to consider.
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 )
CBS gave the exact figure for McEnroe for the entirety of the semifinal against Connors: he won 72 of 138 net points, just 52%.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!
Just to be clear, in this paragraph when I say "winning and missed approaches" I'm referring not to entire points but to approach shots that were, themselves, errors of one kind or another (long, wide, or netted) or clean winners. I'm referring to points that end before the player has even gotten into a position at net.1982 - Connors d. Lendl 6-3, 6-2, 4-6, 6-4
Stats from CBS:
In the first ten games of the match CBS appears to be counting both winning and missed approaches. My numbers – Lendl winning 0 of 2 approaches, Connors 8 of 12 – go up to the CBS counts of 0/4 and 10/17 if approach errors and winners are counted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course I wasn't implying that Suzuki pushed Fed as much as Rafa, Murray or even Nalby. Also I wasn't just referring to their AO match. At the Japan Open next year (when Fed was smack in the middle of his prime) Suzuki was able to steal a set and even went so far as to force a TB in the 3rd. When was the last time you saw Ferrer win a set against Fed? (That's not purely rhetorical, BTW. I really don't remember.) Or can you imagine a similarly ranked baseliner challenging peak Fed as much? That's what I meant by "difficulty." I was obviously talking in relative terms.
OK. But just for the record, remember that I was assuming Edberg/Mac would be approaching off the same approaches as Fed. In reality they'd be coming off better approach shots and finishing off with better volleys, which is why I said the 50% range is a conservative estimate. Maybe Mac's % under today's conditions would dip below the mid-50s against Connors' level of return and passing shots? Possible, but I don't think it'd dip by a whole lot.
Yes, but he still won 56% of his approaches! And you admit that even Djoko or Berdych would've done better. Then why wouldn't an all-time great volleyer like Mac or Edberg be able to at least match that, and quite possibly top it? That was my point, not that Fed's net play in that match was a model example of how to win points at the net in the modern era.
10. Robin Soderling
9. Ramesh Krishnan
8. McEnroe
7. Mary Carillo
6. Safin
5. David Foster Wallace
4. Laver
3. Conchita Martinez
2. Henri Leconte
1. David Pate
Tier 1 (in no particular order) - Pancho Gonzales, Federer, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden
Tier 2 (in no particular order) - Nadal, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Budge, (Wilding, Cochet, Jack Kramer - these last 3 guys were hard - varied between having them at 2 or 3)
Tier 3 (in no particular order) - Djokovic, Edberg, Becker, Wilander
Tier 4 (in no particular order) - Nastase, Stan Smith, Ashe, Lyleton Hewitt, Hoad (Tier one playing ability when Lew was having an 'on' day)
All 4 of these tiers represent 'great' players. It is just the various levels of greatness.
I know I left a lot of players off that deserve to be put on - it is just indicative, as I don't have the energy today to go through every great player.
This is as at now (August 2013) . I fully suspect Nadal to move up to Tier 1 by the end of his career and for Djokovic to move up to Tier 2 by the end of his.
Wow! You don't have Sampras in any of the top 4 tiers. What's the reason you place Sampras low ?
Courier isn't even tier 4 when Lleyton Hewitt is?Tier 1 (in no particular order) - Pancho Gonzales, Federer, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden
Tier 2 (in no particular order) - Nadal, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Budge, (Wilding, Cochet, Jack Kramer - these last 3 guys were hard - varied between having them at 2 or 3)
Tier 3 (in no particular order) - Djokovic, Edberg, Becker, Wilander
Tier 4 (in no particular order) - Nastase, Stan Smith, Ashe, Lyleton Hewitt, Hoad (Tier one playing ability when Lew was having an 'on' day)
All 4 of these tiers represent 'great' players. It is just the various levels of greatness.
I know I left a lot of players off that deserve to be put on - it is just indicative, as I don't have the energy today to go through every great player.
This is as at now (August 2013) . I fully suspect Nadal to move up to Tier 1 by the end of his career and for Djokovic to move up to Tier 2 by the end of his.
Tier 1 (in no particular order) - Pancho Gonzales, Federer, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden
Tier 2 (in no particular order) - Nadal, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Budge, (Wilding, Cochet, Jack Kramer - these last 3 guys were hard - varied between having them at 2 or 3)
Tier 3 (in no particular order) - Djokovic, Edberg, Becker, Wilander
Tier 4 (in no particular order) - Nastase, Stan Smith, Ashe, Lyleton Hewitt, Hoad (Tier one playing ability when Lew was having an 'on' day)
All 4 of these tiers represent 'great' players. It is just the various levels of greatness.
I know I left a lot of players off that deserve to be put on - it is just indicative, as I don't have the energy today to go through every great player.
This is as at now (August 2013) . I fully suspect Nadal to move up to Tier 1 by the end of his career and for Djokovic to move up to Tier 2 by the end of his.
For now I'll just say: don't take McEnroe's low success rate against Connors at face value; the method used to count his net points may be different from methods used for players from other eras.
CBS: Net pts at 1-0 in the 5th: Lendl was 7/8, Cash was 58/92.
No Sampras????
With this list you are not so unique.1. Federer
2. Federer
3. Federer
4. Federer
5. Federer
6. Federer
7. Federer
8. Federer
9. Federer
10. Federer
With this list you are not so unique.
Wow! You don't have Sampras in any of the top 4 tiers. What's the reason you place Sampras low ?
1. Federer
2. Federer
3. Federer
4. Federer
5. Federer
6. Federer
7. Federer
8. Federer
9. Federer
10. Federer
Courier isn't even tier 4 when Lleyton Hewitt is?
Now I have added Sampras (I was half asleep when I typed it) at Tier 1 though - Tier 1 is definitive from my point of view. I don't think any other players deserve to be in that conversation.
No Federer in your list?
Nadal should be in Tier 1. Borg cannot be placed in a higher Tier than Nadal.
I would have the same Tier 1 as you (those 7 players), but also with Nadal.
How old are you, again?
Nadal should be in Tier 1. Borg cannot be placed in a higher Tier than Nadal.
I would have the same Tier 1 as you (those 7 players), but also with Nadal.
How many Wimbledons did Nadal win?
What's that?
Two?
Get serious.
As a joke, it is not that good¡¡¡
How many Wimbledons did Nadal win?
What's that?
Two?
Get serious.
I hope Nadal has a long career, unimpeded by injuries.If you think only 2 wimbledons is that bad then why don't you tell BobbyOne that Rosewall has zero Wimbledon. Nadal should be ranked way above Rosewall, right ?
Yes, he won two, which is the same number as your precious Hoad. :twisted:
Now that the historians have begrudgingly accepted that Federer has to be ranked among the GOAT contenders, it's time that you also started accepting Nadal's resume as being worthy of the top tier.
Certainly you cannot place Borg (the most directly comparable player) in a higher tier than Nadal. Thus if Borg is Tier 1 - which is near-universally accepted - then so is Nadal.
Hoad was ineligible for Wimbledon in 1958, 1959, 1960, the three years in which he would have been favoured to win.
Nadal certainly ranks with Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Borg among all-time greatest clay-court players.
But Wimbledon? Or overall?
No way.
If you think only 2 wimbledons is that bad then why don't you tell BobbyOne that Rosewall has zero Wimbledon. Nadal should be ranked way above Rosewall, right ?
Mighty Man, How is the heat in your country now?
It's 75 degree Fahrenheit.
TMF, Try to avoid great heat. It's not good for your argumentation.