Rankings of Greats by tennis experts

pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
no, the main argument is Agassi won Wimbledon, Lendl did not .... not that I necessarily agree with it ....

Again, agassi's edge on the BH is quite a bit more than lendl's edge on the FH ...and again just as lendl's serve trumps agassi's by quite a bit, agassi's return trumps lendl's by quite a bit ....

peak to peak, I'd give clear edge to lendl on clay, carpet
slight edge to lendl at flushing
edge to agassi on rebound ace, grass
Click to expand...
Good post. I know I'm responding years late but I wanted to toss out something that occurred about Agassi and your opinion on it. I think on paper Agassi, with his incredible stroking ability on both sides is comparable or superior to many of the all time greats. He had a very good although not great serve and he was fast enough although he wasn't as quick as greats of recent years like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to gave a few names.

My thought is this, on paper with Agassi's super strokes on both sides, great return, very good serve and just plain machine-like power groundstrokes that he should be competitive with perhaps any player that ever lived on any surface. Could it be that we often tend to rank him on what he should have been? He was great but I think he should have done so much more.
 
T

thrust

Legend
pc1 said:
Good post. I know I'm responding years late but I wanted to toss out something that occurred about Agassi and your opinion on it. I think on paper Agassi, with his incredible stroking ability on both sides is comparable or superior to many of the all time greats. He had a very good although not great serve and he was fast enough although he wasn't as quick as greats of recent years like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to gave a few names.

My thought is this, on paper with Agassi's super strokes on both sides, great return, very good serve and just plain machine-like power groundstrokes that he should be competitive with perhaps any player that ever lived on any surface. Could it be that we often tend to rank him on what he should have been? He was great but I think he should have done so much more.
Click to expand...
I agree that Agassi is often ranked on what he should or possibly could have been. Fact IS Andre has 8 slams, Pete-14, Nadal-15, Novak-12. IMO, Agassi is somewhat overrated.
 
deacsyoga

deacsyoga

Banned
pc1 said:
My thought is this, on paper with Agassi's super strokes on both sides, great return, very good serve and just plain machine-like power groundstrokes that he should be competitive with perhaps any player that ever lived on any surface. Could it be that we often tend to rank him on what he should have been? He was great but I think he should have done so much more.
Click to expand...

On paper maybe but we already know from the evidence that exists this is almost certainly not the case. Agassi is a combined 0-6 vs Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open. A combined 0-9 at Wimbledon/U.S Open/YEC semis and finals (excluding RR non elimination matches). We know factually peak to peak he isnt competitive with Sampras on any faster surface really, as he doesnt get far enough to play Sampras anytime he isnt playing well. So there is no way he is competitive with any player that ever lived on every surface.

As talented as Agassi was a closer breakdown of his career shows he is only truly elite in a historical sense on hard courts, although being in an era where hard courts is the dominant surface that is still significant. On grass, clay, carpet, he did very well to become a major champion on each, but even in his own era he is barely in the bottom end of the elite group.

Limpinhitter said:
Counting major titles is a very superficial analysis of greatness.
Click to expand...

I dont entirely agree. It is perhaps a flawed way to measure exact quality, but it is the most objective data available, and it also the only way to exlude personal bias and agendas which nearly all fans have for and against certain players. And especialy when comparing players of the same era, it is almost irrefutable.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
deacsyoga said:
On paper maybe but we already know from the evidence that exists this is almost certainly not the case. Agassi is a combined 0-6 vs Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open. A combined 0-9 at Wimbledon/U.S Open/YEC semis and finals (excluding RR non elimination matches). We know factually peak to peak he isnt competitive with Sampras on any faster surface really, as he doesnt get far enough to play Sampras anytime he isnt playing well. So there is no way he is competitive with any player that ever lived on every surface.

As talented as Agassi was a closer breakdown of his career shows he is only truly elite in a historical sense on hard courts, although being in an era where hard courts is the dominant surface that is still significant. On grass, clay, carpet, he did very well to become a major champion on each, but even in his own era he is barely in the bottom end of the elite group.



I dont entirely agree. It is perhaps a flawed way to measure exact quality, but it is the most objective data available, and it also the only way to exlude personal bias and agendas which nearly all fans have for and against certain players. And especialy when comparing players of the same era, it is almost irrefutable.
Click to expand...
I believe you misinterpreted what I meant. I believe Agassi was very strong on all surfaces at his best. He had all the strokes. Perhaps he wasn't as fast as some but he was fast enough. I believe for example Agassi's former brother in law Pancho Gonzalez would beat him the majority of the time on grass but it wouldn't mean that Agassi would not be there with a chance to win and a danger to upset the great Gonzalez. I think Agassi could be very tough on red clay against almost any great clay player with the exception of Nadal and Borg. And even then I could see him winning if they are off their game. On hard surface Agassi would be tough against Ivan Lendl but I think Lendl at his best would win the majority if it was played at Flushing Meadow.

Agassi could be a bit of a head case. I don't think he mentally was nearly as strong as Sampras. I didn't say he was going to be the favorite in all matches on all surfaces but he did win all four majors on every surface but he was not going to be wipe out without a chance of winning against most greats. The 1993 Wimbledon is a perfect example. Sampras won the match but in five sets on a surface which may have been Sampras' best surface. Sampras won 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4.

For pure stroking technique you would be hard pressed to find anyone better than Agassi.
 
deacsyoga

deacsyoga

Banned
pc1 said:
I believe you misinterpreted what I meant. I believe Agassi was very strong on all surfaces at his best. He had all the strokes. Perhaps he wasn't as fast as some but he was fast enough. I believe for example Agassi's former brother in law Pancho Gonzalez would beat him the majority of the time on grass but it wouldn't mean that Agassi would not be there with a chance to win and a danger to upset the great Gonzalez. I think Agassi could be very tough on red clay against almost any great clay player with the exception of Nadal and Borg. And even then I could see him winning if they are off their game. On hard surface Agassi would be tough against Ivan Lendl but I think Lendl at his best would win the majority if it was played at Flushing Meadow.

Agassi could be a bit of a head case. I don't think he mentally was nearly as strong as Sampras. I didn't say he was going to be the favorite in all matches on all surfaces but he did win all four majors on every surface but he was not going to be wipe out without a chance of winning against most greats. The 1993 Wimbledon is a perfect example. Sampras won the match but in five sets on a surface which may have been Sampras' best surface. Sampras won 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4.

For pure stroking technique you would be hard pressed to find anyone better than Agassi.
Click to expand...

I think I mostly get what you mean, but I still dont entirely agree. I agree his pure ball striking talent you would think that should be the case. Just as someone who followed his career (and btw was a huge Agassi fan back in the day, the 95 U.S Open final defeat was my most crushing result ever at the time) and appreciated how talented he was, and how well he could play at his best, I still dont entirely agree.

Even at his best on clay he wasnt as formidable as people like Courier, Muster, Bruguera at their best in his own era. I have a hard time following his career and even his best performances on clay to see him being a real tough out for everyone bar Nadal and Borg on clay. Federer and Djokovic for instance I would see beating Agassi pretty much almost every match on clay, even during his rare hot spells on the surface. On grass he was pretty far below Sampras even when playing at his top generally speaking, and his best was less unplayable than Ivanisevic, Krajicek, oldish Becker even at their best. On carpet he generally wasnt that formidable despite doing well to win a YEC early in his career and make another final there.

Things just dont always play out exactly how it seems they should potentially. Maybe if he were coached better or by someone better than Bollitieri when he was younger it would be different, I dont know. The fact his serve is just good, far from exceptional, combined with his speed and ability to play defense being again just good far from exceptional, is a tough combination to go around, even with the best ball striking talents. Especialy when joined with not having much net skills, and not having the mental toughness of most of the greats either.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
deacsyoga said:
I think I mostly get what you mean, but I still dont entirely agree. I agree his pure ball striking talent you would think that should be the case. Just as someone who followed his career (and btw was a huge Agassi fan back in the day, the 95 U.S Open final defeat was my most crushing result ever at the time) and appreciated how talented he was, and how well he could play at his best, I still dont entirely agree.

Even at his best on clay he wasnt as formidable as people like Courier, Muster, Bruguera at their best in his own era. I have a hard time following his career and even his best performances on clay to see him being a real tough out for everyone bar Nadal and Borg on clay. Federer and Djokovic for instance I would see beating Agassi pretty much almost every match on clay, even during his rare hot spells on the surface. On grass he was pretty far below Sampras even when playing at his top generally speaking, and his best was less unplayable than Ivanisevic, Krajicek, oldish Becker even at their best. On carpet he generally wasnt that formidable despite doing well to win a YEC early in his career and make another final there.

Things just dont always play out exactly how it seems they should potentially. Maybe if he were coached better or by someone better than Bollitieri when he was younger it would be different, I dont know. The fact his serve is just good, far from exceptional, combined with his speed and ability to play defense being again just good far from exceptional, is a tough combination to go around, even with the best ball striking talents. Especialy when joined with not having much net skills, and not having the mental toughness of most of the greats either.
Click to expand...
Actually a good question is what player would be competitive on all surfaces against the player famous for being the all time great on that surface? For example for argument's sake "Let's say Let's say Agassi is the all time number one on slow hard court for the Australian, Nadal the all time great on red clay, Sampras (I know Federer won more Wimbledons but I'm picking Sampras for a different name since I'm picking Federer for the US Open Hard court) the all time great on grass and Federer for the US Open hard court. What player could stand in there with at least a decent chance at beating all of them? You can pick one year like McEnroe in 1984, Hoad in 1959, Tilden in 1925, Laver in 1967 or Federer in 2006 for example.

Edit-I haven't done any in depth study on who is the best necessarily on each surface, I was throwing out some names to use for the example for the best on a surface. I knew a number of them were super on that surface.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Actually a good question is what player would be competitive on all surfaces against the player famous for being the all time great on that surface? For example for argument's sake "Let's say Let's say Agassi is the all time number one on slow hard court for the Australian, Nadal the all time great on red clay, Sampras (I know Federer won more Wimbledons but I'm picking Sampras for a different name since I'm picking Federer for the US Open Hard court) the all time great on grass and Federer for the US Open hard court. What player could stand in there with at least a decent chance at beating all of them? You can pick one year like McEnroe in 1984, Hoad in 1959, Tilden in 1925, Laver in 1967 or Federer in 2006 for example.

Edit-I haven't done any in depth study on who is the best necessarily on each surface, I was throwing out some names to use for the example for the best on a surface. I knew a number of them were super on that surface.
Click to expand...
If you turn back the clock to the fifties and earlier, most of the great players were great on all surfaces, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson won important titles on clay as well as grass.
Even Gonzales and Sedgman had some important runner-up finishes at Roland Garros, twice each.

Somewhere along the line, all-round ability was sacrificed.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
If you turn back the clock to the fifties and earlier, most of the great players were great on all surfaces, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Segura, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson won important titles on clay as well as grass.
Even Gonzales and Sedgman had some important runner-up finishes at Roland Garros, twice each.

Somewhere along the line, all-round ability was sacrificed.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking a guy like a healthy peak Hoad would stand a decent shot against any player on any surface on his day also. I remember Soederling overpowering Nadal at the French one year with his serve and powerful groundstrokes. Hoad certainly at his best would possibly be able to do that. On grass of course he would have a shot against anyone and on hard court also.

Just imagine a healthy peak level Hoad who has explosive power and has a good chance to go into the zone playing Nadal. Let's say Hoad can play at top level 35% of the time for a full match. Actually we would have the excitement of a possible upset of Nadal.

I'm not necessarily saying I have the peak Hoad would beat Nadal but some player of that type, if there is such a player. Some might argue Ellsworth Vines was that type.

Arthur Ashe said that Pancho Gonzalez would be in every match because of his overpowering serve. Perhaps Gonzalez may be chosen. Who knows? It could be the obvious choices in the all-time greats like Federer.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Richard Evans, on Twitter, offered his own top-of-my-head Top 15, which went like this

1 Fed 2 Hoad 3 Navratilova 4Laver 5 Rosewall 6 McEnroe 7 Seles 8Borg 9 Graf 10 Hingis 11Sampras 12 Kramer 13 Agassi 14 Court 15 Connors
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Richard Evans, on Twitter, offered his own top-of-my-head Top 15, which went like this

1 Fed 2 Hoad 3 Navratilova 4Laver 5 Rosewall 6 McEnroe 7 Seles 8Borg 9 Graf 10 Hingis 11Sampras 12 Kramer 13 Agassi 14 Court 15 Connors
Click to expand...

So, essentially Evans list is,

Men
1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Women
1) Navratilova
2) Seles
3) Graf
4) Hingis
5) Court

Interesting choices, although I would add Gonzales.
 
T

thrust

Legend
Well, IMHO, Evans is wrong as accomplishments should count more than occasional brilliance. Besides Pancho and Ken have considerable H-H advantages over Hoad.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Well, IMHO, Evans is wrong as accomplishments should count more than occasional brilliance. Besides Pancho and Ken have considerable H-H advantages over Hoad.
Click to expand...
No, I think that most genuine experts regard level of play as the paramount indicator of tennis achievement.

I think that in terms of height of tennis play Hoad's achievement was the greatest, according to his contemporaries (including both Gonzales and Rosewall).

Hoad holds a lifetime hth advantage over Gonzales on grass, which is what I use as a test of greatness in tennis.

Of course, Rosewall is at a lifetime hth disadvantage against Gonzales on grass.

Rosewall may have lost more world series than any other pro player, in 1957, 1959, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970. He skipped 1961, or might have

lost that one as well. He won twice, in 1963 and 1964.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
So, essentially Evans list is,

Men
1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Women
1) Navratilova
2) Seles
3) Graf
4) Hingis
5) Court

Interesting choices, although I would add Gonzales.
Click to expand...
Hingis over Court? NONSENSE! Hingis NEVER won the FO, Court won the French 5 out of 10 played. Court was also superior on grass as was the Williams Sisters, BJK and others. Hoad at #2 is also nonsense as he won far fewer pro major tournaments than either Rosewall and Gonzalez.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
So, essentially Evans list is,

Men
1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Women
1) Navratilova
2) Seles
3) Graf
4) Hingis
5) Court

Interesting choices, although I would add Gonzales.
Click to expand...
Mac ahead of Borg!
Unusual and rather interesting.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
Hingis over Court? NONSENSE! Hingis NEVER won the FO, Court won the French 5 out of 10 played. Court was also superior on grass as was the Williams Sisters, BJK and others. Hoad at #2 is also nonsense as he won far fewer pro major tournaments than either Rosewall and Gonzalez.
Click to expand...
Well, winning numbers of tournaments is not the only way to measure greatness.....it is not a criterion which I use at all.

Agree with you about Court.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
So, essentially Evans list is,

Men
1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Women
1) Navratilova
2) Seles
3) Graf
4) Hingis
5) Court

I would personally agree that the top 8 men should be in the top 10...so that is a high degree of commonality I have with Evans. I would leave out Agassi and Connors, and replace them with Gonzales, Budge, Vines, Tilden, and, on grass, Sedgman and Newcombe.

Evans appears to use a combined grass/clay/rubber ranking, I accept only grass.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter said:
Counting major titles is a very superficial analysis of greatness.
Click to expand...
Just found a new source of info on rating. A 1980 interview with Hoad, where he starts by giving out his all-time ranking with the top two players Emerson and

Borg in terms of major tournaments and events (like Davis Cup) won.

Then Hoad states "the only way to really assess players is to play them", a point which I have been repeating on these threads for quite some time.

He picks Gonzales as the best he ever played against. And claims that Laver would probably dominate Borg in a hypothetical head-to-head series.

Very interesting.
 
Drob

Drob

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
So, essentially Evans list is,

Men
1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Women
1) Navratilova
2) Seles
3) Graf
4) Hingis
5) Court

Interesting choices, although I would add Gonzales.
Click to expand...


Who is richard evans?
 
Drob

Drob

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Famous tennis writer and tennis media commentator.
Click to expand...


Oh, History of the Open Era. I read it not that long ago. He still writes. He was a foreign correspondent as well as a tennis writer. He was the PR guy for the men's tennis council or whatever it was called in the 1970-early 80's. The short-term memory is failing.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I have heard from Carlo Giovanni Colussi with respect to the 1953 rankings by Tennis de France magazine, published and edited by Philippe Chatrier.

Carlo found the following information, great research by him. Thanks again.

The rankings were published in Tennis de France, No. 10, Feb. 1954, created by Chatrier and his editorial team, as follows,

1) Hoad.....won 10 tournaments, Davis Cup won two singles matches, was 2-0 against Trabert, 6-0 against Rosewall
2) Trabert.....won U.S. Championships singles, 13 other tournaments
3) Rosewall...won Australian and French, Davis Cup deciding singles match, two other tournaments
4) Seixas.....won Wimbledon, runner-up at Forest Hills
5) Drobny.....won Italian
6) Patty
7) Rose
8) Larsen
9) Nielsen...runner-up at Wimbledon
10) Davidson

Hoad set an all-time record as the youngest player ever to achieve a world number one ranking, at 19 years 38 days.

This record still stands today as an all-time record.
 
Last edited:
T

thrust

Legend
Dan Lobb said:
I have heard from Carlo Giovanni Colussi with respect to the 1953 rankings by Tennis de France magazine, published and edited by Philippe Chatrier.

Carlo found the following information, great research by him. Thanks again.

The rankings were published in Tennis de France, No. 10, Feb. 1954, created by Chatrier and his editorial team, as follows,

1) Hoad.....won 10 tournaments, Davis Cup won two singles matches, was 2-0 against Trabert, 6-0 against Rosewall
2) Trabert.....won U.S. Championships singles
3) Rosewall...won Australian and French, Davis Cup deciding singles match
4) Seixas.....won Wimbledon, runner-up at Forest Hills
5) Drobny.....won Italian
6) Patty
7) Rose
8) Larsen
9) Nielsen...runner-up at Wimbledon
10) Davidson

Hoad set an all-time record as the youngest player ever to achieve a world number one ranking, at 19 years 38 days.

This record still stands today as an all-time record.
Click to expand...
In today's game I doubt that a player who won two slams that year would be ranked lower than a player who won 0 slams. In 53 Ken won the Australian while Hoad did not reach the quarters. Ken won the French, Lew lost in the quarters. At Wimbledon, both reached the quarters. At the US Ken reached the semis, losing to the champion, Lew lost in the quarters. Also, it is hard for me to believe that Ken was 0-6 vs Hoad in 53. What important tournaments did Lew win in 53?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
In today's game I doubt that a player who won two slams that year would be ranked lower than a player who won 0 slams. In 53 Ken won the Australian while Hoad did not reach the quarters. Ken won the French, Lew lost in the quarters. At Wimbledon, both reached the quarters. At the US Ken reached the semis, losing to the champion, Lew lost in the quarters. Also, it is hard for me to believe that Ken was 0-6 vs Hoad in 53. What important tournaments did Lew win in 53?
Click to expand...
But in those days. Davis Cup was the biggest event in tennis.

Hoad won 10 tournaments, beating Rosewall 6-0. I will get you the details.

Hoad was 2-0 over Trabert.

A no-brainer world No. 1 for 1953.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
thrust said:
In today's game I doubt that a player who won two slams that year would be ranked lower than a player who won 0 slams. In 53 Ken won the Australian while Hoad did not reach the quarters. Ken won the French, Lew lost in the quarters. At Wimbledon, both reached the quarters. At the US Ken reached the semis, losing to the champion, Lew lost in the quarters. Also, it is hard for me to believe that Ken was 0-6 vs Hoad in 53. What important tournaments did Lew win in 53?
Click to expand...
Okay, I may have double-counted a tournament win. I have 9 tournaments won by Hoad in 1953, 6 to 0 over Rosewall, 2 to 0 over Trabert.

1) Queensland Ch. (Nov. 7)
2) Central Slopes Ch. (April 6)
3) Rapallo (July 19) df. Rosewall
4) Australian Hardcourts Ch. (March 14) df. Rosewall (Rosewall held 6 match points)
5) Queens Club (June 20) df. Rosewall
6) Eastern Grasscourts Ch. (Aug, 9) df. Rosewall
7) N.S.W. Ch. (Nov. 21) df. Rosewall, Trabert
8) Victorian Ch. (Dec. 5) df. Rosewall
9) USA/Australia match event......df. Patty

10) Davis Cup (Dec. 30)....df. Trabert Seixas

No, I get 10 here. Ten events, in those days any tennis event was called "tournament". The Davis Cup was called a "tournament", so ten tournaments we have

here.

Several of those tournaments were significant. The NSW was a 64 player event, best-of-five sets throughout (Hoad beat Trabert in the semi in four sets,

Rosewall in the final in four sets), the Eastern Grasscourt was 64 players, semi's and final best-of-five sets. But I guess the Davis Cup is outside the public

conscience today, but it was the number one event of 1953.

Is this a number one year? Looks like it. Rosewall won 4 tournaments plus Davis Cup. Trabert won 14 tournaments including the U.S. Ch.
 
Last edited:
U

urban

Legend
There were of course other more important paper rankings for the amateur world rankings in those days. Lance Tingay of the Daily Telegraph, the most influential, had Trabert as Nr. 1 in 1953. Going by numbers of tournaments won, Michel Sutter has Drobny and Trabert with 12, Seixas with 11, Larsen, Mulloy and Patty with 9 each, Hoad and Morea with 6, and a bit behind Rosewall, Rose and others with 3 each. Sutter has the Sydney win of Hoad March 15, but over Bromwich, not Rosewall. The Eastern Grass court at South Orange was indeed an important amateur event, like Cincinnati, Newport and LA South-West Pacifik (which Rosewall won in 1953). Maybe the most consistent amateur in 1953 over the year and all surfaces was Seixas with Wim win and 2 futher slam finals and 11 overall wins.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Lance Tingay only covered two-thirds of the season, to the end of the U.S. Chmp. in early September. Chatrier covered the whole year. And in 1954, Tingay

acknowledged that the fall season showed that Hoad was "the best player in the world" without a doubt, calling it "axiomatic". So it looks like Tingay accepted

the Chatrier rankings.

I counted 14 for Trabert in Tennisarchives, which usually gets reliable scores. Some of those were minor, of course.

Hoad beat Rosewall in the semi at Sydney on clay, Rosewall held six match points but could not close, I was highlighting the Hoad/Rosewall matches to satisfy

Thrust, can't satisfy everyone at once.

The NSW was a 64 player event with best-of-five sets throughout the tournament, together with the Italian, the only tournaments that year apart from the

majors which had 5-setters throughout. Hoad beat both Trabert and Rosewall in four-set matches to win.

Hoad was 6-0 over Rosewall on the year, 2-0 over Trabert....in a close race, the H2H is significant.

Seixas had his best year, but was outclassed in the Davis Cup, the most important event of those days.

I like the Chatrier rankings because it was a team ranking, not the whims of one writer.

Sure, Tingay was more widely read in the English-speaking world, Chatrier and Tennis de France was in French.

The Chatrier team rankings were discussed over a three page article in Tennis de France, it was not just a short blurb in a newspaper, but a lengthy journal

analysis.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
juan guzman said:
Pc1.

I guess Lance Tingay compiled the list you mentiones before the Borg era?.The great Lance adored Borg.

To conmemorate the 25th anniversary of the ATP TOUR in 1997 ,a panel of 100 current and past players ,journalists and tournament directors voted for the top 25 players of the past 25 years.

Top 10.

Sampras 779 points
Borg 754
Mcenroe 721
Connors 634
lendl 493
Becker 446
Edberg 372
Laver 360
Wilander 209
Nastase 185
Click to expand...
Tingay listed only three players in his top ten from the post-WWII era, Laver, Gonzales, and Hoad.

This list was from 1973. No Kramer, no Rosewall, no Sedgman, no Trabert, no Emerson, no Santana, no Newcombe, no Nastase, no Smith....but he included

seven players from pre-WWII, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Cochet, Wilding, Doherty, Renshaw. (Three English players, three American players, one N.Z. player, two

Australians, one French).
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
The top5 1953 pros were all better than the best 1953 amateur. So it’s not a super great result to be 1953 top amateur, whoever he was
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
The top5 1953 pros were all better than the best 1953 amateur. So it’s not a super great result to be 1953 top amateur, whoever he was
Click to expand...
Hey, it was good enough to hold down a world record. It got the job done.

You think that Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert were below Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, and two other pros,

probably McGregor and Budge? Not sure about 4 and 5, I would rate the top 3 amateurs above the 4 and 5 pros. Those top 3 amateurs experienced their

maturity in 1953, a big breakout year for all three. Just in time to hang on to the Davis Cup for Australia.

McGregor did not have a great 1952, although winning in Australia, he lost to Drobny at RG and Wimbledon, and lost in round 1 at Forest Hills.
 
Last edited:
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Hey, it was good enough to hold down a world record. It got the job done.

You think that Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert were below Kramer, Gonzales, Segura, and two other pros,

probably McGregor and Budge? Not sure about 4 and 5, I would rate the top 3 amateurs above the 4 and 5 pros. Those top 3 amateurs experienced their

maturity in 1953, a big breakout year for all three. Just in time to hang on to the Davis Cup for Australia.

McGregor did not have a great 1952, although winning in Australia, he lost to Drobny at RG and Wimbledon, and lost in round 1 at Forest Hills.
Click to expand...
McGregor was number 2/3 amateur in 1952.
Won good tournaments, beaten Trabert in Davis Cup and Sedgman in the Australian.
We usually think that in the pro tour, players improve, so I would say McGregor was above all 1953 amateur players. Pails beat McGregor 8-3 in their European Tour H2H.
So I would rank Pails above McGregor.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
McGregor was number 2/3 amateur in 1952.
Won good tournaments, beaten Trabert in Davis Cup and Sedgman in the Australian.
We usually think that in the pro tour, players improve, so I would say McGregor was above all 1953 amateur players. Pails beat McGregor 8-3 in their European Tour H2H.
So I would rank Pails above McGregor.
Click to expand...
Yes, but ALL players improve in open competition, so if you are trying to compare amateur/pro players, you are right away in a make-believe world, and you

have to consider what they would have done in an open world. I think that Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall look good in open competition in 1953.

And only Sedgman really looks good in the 1953 pros, the rest were off form or out of condition or out of playing sharpness or past prime.

Kramer was lucky that Sedgman injured his serving shoulder. Not a good year for the pros. They do not look good that year.

For 1953, in a deciding Davis Cup match, I pick Hoad over any other player, amateur or pro. His fall season was the best showing of the year.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Yes, but ALL players improve in open competition, so if you are trying to compare amateur/pro players, you are right away in a make-believe world, and you

have to consider what they would have done in an open world. I think that Hoad, Trabert, Rosewall look good in open competition in 1953.

And only Sedgman really looks good in the 1953 pros, the rest were off form or out of condition or out of playing sharpness or past prime.

Kramer was lucky that Sedgman injured his serving shoulder. Not a good year for the pros. They do not look good that year.

For 1953, in a deciding Davis Cup match, I pick Hoad over any other player, amateur or pro.
Click to expand...
Segura beat Sedgman 10-4 in the European Tour. Sedgman himself at the end of the year says he’s number 3 pro behind Kramer and Segura.
And in an Open environment, you can bet Pancho Gonzales is up there, probably at number one.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Segura beat Sedgman 10-4 in the European Tour. Sedgman himself at the end of the year says he’s number 3 pro behind Kramer and Segura.
And in an Open environment, you can bet Pancho Gonzales is up there, probably at number one.
Click to expand...
No one knows who wins a deciding Davis Cup match in 1953 with a hypothetical open tennis, it never happened....for the 1953 that actually was, with most pros

sitting around out of shape, I pick Hoad.

Sedgman looked dominant in the big tournaments in 1953.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
No one knows who wins a deciding Davis Cup match in 1953 with a hypothetical open tennis, it never happened....for the 1953 that actually was, with most pros

sitting around out of shape, I pick Hoad.

Sedgman looked dominant in the big tournaments in 1953.
Click to expand...
No one knows, but Trabert in 1956, so way better than himself in 1953, it’s still behind Gonzales, Sedgman and Segura.

Sedgman won Wembley, the only good tournament he played. He lost to Segura in Scarboroug and overall he lost 2 matches out of 3 vs Segura. Not a good score.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
No one knows, but Trabert in 1956, so way better than himself in 1953, it’s still behind Gonzales, Sedgman and Segura.

Sedgman won Wembley, the only good tournament he played. He lost to Segura in Scarboroug and overall he lost 2 matches out of 3 vs Segura. Not a good score.
Click to expand...
Funny you should bring up 1956...in an interview from 1956 once available on Youtube, Trabert claimed that the highest level of tennis he ever played was in

that 1953 Davis Cup match with Hoad, and Trabert had been playing half a year against Gonzales at the time. Sedgman won two tournaments right

after Wembley at Paris and somewhere else. But Wembley was the big one of the year.

I am happy to see you have awakened, I was trying to get some info from you, can't quite recall what it was.

Ah, yes. Which newspaper did you get the info about Hoad's last tournament win in 1971?
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Segura beat Sedgman 10-4 in the European Tour. Sedgman himself at the end of the year says he’s number 3 pro behind Kramer and Segura.
And in an Open environment, you can bet Pancho Gonzales is up there, probably at number one.
Click to expand...
Just as a technical matter, there were no world rankings for the pros in the early fifties, Tingay did not rank the pros, the USPLTA gave a pro ranking, but it was

only for professional play within the U.S. and did not consider pro play outside America.

So...no world rankings for the pros, only the amateurs. So the world record only considers world rankings of amateurs at that era.

It looks like there is no basis for the claim that Gonzales was ranked world No. 1 for eight years.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
Funny you should bring up 1956...in an interview from 1956 once available on Youtube, Trabert claimed that the highest level of tennis he ever played was in

that 1953 Davis Cup match with Hoad, and Trabert had been playing half a year against Gonzales at the time. Sedgman won two tournaments right

after Wembley at Paris and somewhere else. But Wembley was the big one of the year.

I am happy to see you have awakened, I was trying to get some info from you, can't quite recall what it was.

Ah, yes. Which newspaper did you get the info about Hoad's last tournament win in 1971?
Click to expand...
Sedgman won in Paris and Segura won in Lyon. Not big tournaments.
Sedgman was 6-14 (and one tie) against Segura in 1953, not a very good score.
Not sure what was Trabert best amateur match, for sure 1955 was his best season and in 1956 he was still behind the other three.
I think you can find some info re Hoad last tournament on ABC.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
Sedgman won in Paris and Segura won in Lyon. Not big tournaments.
Sedgman was 6-14 (and one tie) against Segura in 1953, not a very good score.
Not sure what was Trabert best amateur match, for sure 1955 was his best season and in 1956 he was still behind the other three.
I think you can find some info re Hoad last tournament on ABC.
Click to expand...
What is "ABC"? Never heard of it, except the TV network, but I assume that is not what you meant.

The point about Trabert's best match was that Trabert himself evaluated the highest level of play of any of his matches to be that DC match against Hoad in

1953. He did not feel that the pro level, including his many matches against Gonzales, provided a better level of play.

Sedgman won in Paris right after Wembley. Two big ones, with Wembley the biggest of the year for the pros.

The actual rankings for 1953 are only for the amateurs, the pros had no world rankings, only the USPLTA rankings which were for play in America only.

There is apparently no support for the claim that Gonzales was ranked world No. 1 eight times.
 
N

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Dan Lobb said:
What is "ABC"? Never heard of it, except the TV network, but I assume that is not what you meant.

The point about Trabert's best match was that Trabert himself evaluated the highest level of play of any of his matches to be that DC match against Hoad in

1953. He did not feel that the pro level, including his many matches against Gonzales, provided a better level of play.

Sedgman won in Paris right after Wembley. Two big ones, with Wembley the biggest of the year for the pros.

The actual rankings for 1953 are only for the amateurs, the pros had no world rankings, only the USPLTA rankings which were for play in America only.

There is apparently no support for the claim that Gonzales was ranked world No. 1 eight times.
Click to expand...
www.abc.es

Hemeroteca, periódicos ABC de la historia - Archivo ABC

Todos los periódicos de la historia en la hemeroteca de ABC. El medio más antiguo de España pone a tu alcanze todos sus periódicos para que conozcas la historia de España de primera mano.
www.abc.es www.abc.es

I would like to listen to that interview.
Who knows, maybe Trabert meant his 1954 Davis Cup match against Hoad, the one he won and when he won the Davis Cup.
You should post a link and share....

Maybe he didn’t feel the pro level. Fact is in 1955 he dominated the field and in 1956 he was dominated and beaten by three players.

Maybe there were no official ranks, but Gonzales was the best player in the world for many years, official rankings or not.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
NoMercy said:
www.abc.es

Hemeroteca, periódicos ABC de la historia - Archivo ABC

Todos los periódicos de la historia en la hemeroteca de ABC. El medio más antiguo de España pone a tu alcanze todos sus periódicos para que conozcas la historia de España de primera mano.
www.abc.es www.abc.es

I would like to listen to that interview.
Who knows, maybe Trabert meant his 1954 Davis Cup match against Hoad, the one he won and when he won the Davis Cup.
You should post a link and share....

Maybe he didn’t feel the pro level. Fact is in 1955 he dominated the field and in 1956 he was dominated and beaten by three players.

Maybe there were no official ranks, but Gonzales was the best player in the world for many years, official rankings or not.
Click to expand...
I would like to listen to it, also. It was available on Youtube for a year or so, then strangely taken down. No, he was not referring to 1954, but the famous 1953

one, he actually said "1953 Davis Cup match", then the interviewer asked, "Against Hoad?' and Trabert said "yes."

In 1956 Trabert won a tour against Gonzales in South America, not all matches were on clay, and he won RG with a great final against Gonzales.

Sure, I give Gonzales 9 world No. 1's on my personal rankings (1950 (co1), 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960 (co1), 1961 (co1)), but the world record is

"was ranked 8 times world No. 1" which clearly never happened. But don't tell anyone that, they won't like it.

Thanks for the lead, I recall that it was 1971 over Santana 9-7, 6-3. Hoad's last tournament win.
 
Last edited:
F

flutzingitaway

Semi-Pro
thrust said:
Hingis over Court? NONSENSE! Hingis NEVER won the FO, Court won the French 5 out of 10 played. Court was also superior on grass as was the Williams Sisters, BJK and others. Hoad at #2 is also nonsense as he won far fewer pro major tournaments than either Rosewall and Gonzalez.
Click to expand...

Hingis over Henin on clay is even absolutely absurd. No way she can even be ranked over Seles, Sanchez Vicario, or Navratilova on clay despite her clay drubbings of a post prime ASV who was an utterly useless match up agianst the far more talented Hingis in general from 97 onwards.

I am not even sure if she would be ranked as the best clay courter to not win the French. On paper atleast Martinez and Sabaitni both probably beat her for that, and even subjectively speaking I am not sure at all she is really better than 87-92 Sabatini who went toe to toe and posted many big wins (and heartbreaking narrow RG defeats) with Graf and Seles. Hingis had great potential on clay, but her failures at the RG where she blew numerous good opportunities to win, basically every year between 97-2001, put her well down the list of clay greats. Maybe above some of the worst 2 time RG winners like Sharapova or Turner in a best case scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
1920 to 1973 Men's Winners of "Open" GS Tournaments
Replies
24
Views
1K
timnz
T
hoodjem
WORLD NO. 1 (by year)
107 108 109
Replies
5K
Views
314K
Dan Lobb
D
B
1920 to 1973 "Open" Winners (part two)
2 3 4
Replies
178
Views
6K
pc1
pc1
joe sch
  • Poll
Greatest Group of all Time (GGOAT) ?
Replies
19
Views
3K
Andres
Andres
akv89
Best of each era
Replies
4
Views
1K
kiki
kiki
Top