100 Greatest of All Time - who goes up, who goes down on the list?

Lists like these will always be biased. Comparing different players from different era's is completely impossible.

And putting men and women together on a GOAT-list is of course reason enough not to take the one in the OP not at all seriously.
 
AngryBirds said:
Graf, Navlatilova, Evert and Court all are above Fed in slam count, so why is Fed number 1? The only explanation is that the list is made by a total Fed fanboy.
Click to expand...

Do the knowledge and stop trolling.


100 Greatest of All Time
In order to put together this list of the top 100 greatest players of all time, tennis channel reach out to an international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives. Participants held from 6 continents and include the International Tennis Hall of Fame. As you can see, the criteria being use to evaluate each legend is base on performance at Grand Slam events, ATP and WTA tournaments, and of course, Federation and Davis Cup results. Records held and broken will also be factor, as well as any other intangibles.
Click to expand...


PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
 
You havent even listed who these "experts" are. Given the kinds of experts who would ever rank Emerson 11 spots above Pancho Gonzales and rate Pancho Gonzales as 22nd best mens player of all time I would guess something like:

-Luke Jensen
-Murphy Jensen
-Chris Fowler
-Robin Roberts
-Mark Petchey
-Tim Ryan
 
The absolutely highest I would even consider Nadal being is 4th behind Laver, Gonzales, and Federer. Federer I might even put 3rd (although I am fine with any order of those other 3).

I imagine if they did the list today they would put Nadal as 2nd highest male behind Federer though, and if he ever reached 17 slams they would put him 1st (note I wouldnt put him over Fed at that point, let alone 1st which I dont even have Fed personally). All due to current player/recency bias which to some people in all their fantasizing believe applies to everyone BUT their own favorite player (be that Federer, Serena, Nadal, Graf etc....)
 
mattosgrant said:
You havent even listed who these "experts" are.
Click to expand...

It is a cable channel. It holds as much historic value as Access Hollywood.

That is the last resort for a player who did not possess the ability to win the Grand Slam, yet false accolades and trivia lists are tossed his way.



Dedans Penthouse said:
.
Bwahahahahahaha…..you #1 poster!!!

It's the new dance craze
sweeping every single college
fanbois all say 'hey'!
let's all get down and'
"DO THE KNOWLEDGE!"

Click to expand...

Indeed......
 
mattosgrant said:
I would have Nadal behind Laver, Gonzales, Federer, and Sampras (probably in that order, but with a big gap between the first 3 and Sampras). I would definitely not put Rosewall above Nadal. Not sure on Tilden, hard to judge someone from that long ago. So probably 5th.
Click to expand...
One can make a case that Rosewall won 31 titles above Masters 1000 equivalent level. He has a strong case for being in the elite.

8 Slams + 3 Australian Pro's + 1 LA Masters Pro + 1 Madison Square Garden Pro + 15 Pro. Majors + 1 World Pro. Tour (1963) + 2 WCT Finals = 31 Important Titles
 
Last edited:
timnz said:
One can make a case that Rosewall won 31 titles above Masters 1000 level. He has a strong case for being in the elite.

8 Slams + 3 Australian Pro's + 1 LA Masters Pro + 1 Madison Square Garden Pro + 15 Pro. Majors + 1 World Pro. Tour (1963) + 2 WCT Finals = 31 Important Titles
Click to expand...

Yes, but his peers and people who played before him have spoken out against his actual playing level and peak playing abilities too much for me to ignore. When someone as qualified as Jack Kramer rates him below Bobby Riggs, and Rod Laver ranked him 6th best of the Open Era sometime in the 80s, and well below someone like Lew Hoad........

Honestly given that 8th just above people like Lendl, Connors, Djokovic is best case for him IMO.
 
mattosgrant said:
When someone as qualified as Jack Kramer rates him below Bobby Riggs.
Click to expand...

Riggs is definitely one of the greats and no shame being rated below him, highly underrated probably because of the whole Battle of the Sexes made him into a caricature.

Literally
1101730910_400.jpg
 
Last edited:
mattosgrant said:
Yes, but his peers and people who played before him have spoken out against his actual playing level and peak playing abilities too much for me to ignore. When someone as qualified as Jack Kramer rates him below Bobby Riggs, and Rod Laver ranked him 6th best of the Open Era sometime in the 80s, and well below someone like Lew Hoad........

Honestly given that 8th just above people like Lendl, Connors, Djokovic is best case for him IMO.
Click to expand...
It depends on how players are rated. On their peak level or on career achievements? It is clear that Laver must have rated on peak level, because Hoad's career achievements don't come anywhere near Rosewall's on any objective count. I tend to rate players on achivements. I believe it reduces the subjective factor that way.
 
I believe they should be rated on a combination of both- achievements and overall level of play. In Rosewall's case I am not going to ignore his own peers who rank him that low (I am not going to rank him as low as them though) and put him top 5 all time. Top 7 or 8 maybe, but that is the max. Top 10 for sure, atleast before Djokovic solidifies himself without question there.

Even his "achievements" are subjective. Basically crediting him for pro slams, when we have no way of knowing how many Open Era slams those really translate too. In terms of time at #1, there are only two years he was considered true #1 in those official non ranking days really, which is less than even Nadal whose lack of dominance at #1 is well documented. So it is hard to ignore the subjective elements with him when evaluating his achievements are very subjective in nature to begin with. What is clear and objective is he wasnt #1 a long time like Gonzales or Laver, he didnt win the Open Era Grand Slam like Laver did, etc...
 
HipRotation said:
Riggs is definitely one of the greats and no shame being rated below him, highly underrated probably because of the whole Battle of the Sexes made him into a caricature.

Literally
1101730910_400.jpg
Click to expand...

Sure, but nobody would think of ranking Nadal or Borg for instance below Riggs. Nobody. So that someone with Kramer's knowledge would, makes me think he belongs below guys like that for sure.
 
mattosgrant said:
I believe they should be rated on a combination of both- achievements and overall level of play. In Rosewall's case I am not going to ignore his own peers who rank him that low (I am not going to rank him as low as them though) and put him top 5 all time. Top 7 or 8 maybe, but that is the max. Top 10 for sure, atleast before Djokovic solidifies himself without question there.

Even his "achievements" are subjective. Basically crediting him for pro slams, when we have no way of knowing how many Open Era slams those really translate too. In terms of time at #1, there are only two years he was considered true #1 in those official non ranking days really, which is less than even Nadal whose lack of dominance at #1 is well documented. So it is hard to ignore the subjective elements with him when evaluating his achievements are very subjective in nature to begin with. What is clear and objective is he wasnt #1 a long time like Gonzales or Laver, he didnt win the Open Era Grand Slam like Laver did, etc...
Click to expand...
Someone can achieve a lot whilst not being number 1 - you only have to look at Nadal's career to establish that. The fact is that Rosewall won these top level Pro. titles. Just because they don't exactly match Open era titles doesn't take away from the fact that there still represent solid achievement. The first 3 rounds of slams these days (since they widened the number of seeds players) are generally (though not always) just a warm up to the serious last 4 rounds, for the top players.
 
You can rank Rosewall wherever you want. However I wouldnt rank him higher than 8th, definitely not above people like Nadal or Borg ever. The vast majority of people wouldnt either, both experts and casual fans alike. As I already referenced his own peers, some of those personal friends of his, are even harsher. So feel free to rank him as you wish, but I definitely dont agree and the majority are with me on this.
 
timnz said:
Someone can achieve a lot whilst not being number 1 - you only have to look at Nadal's career to establish that. The fact is that Rosewall won these top level Pro. titles. Just because they don't exactly match Open era titles doesn't take away from the fact that there still represent solid achievement. The first 3 rounds of slams these days (since they widened the number of seeds players) are generally (though not always) just a warm up to the serious last 4 rounds, for the top players.
Click to expand...

The fact is he was #1 even less time than Nadal (who has a dissapointing amount of time at #1 himself, but a historic amount at #2 with that). The fact is his pro slams as his main achievement, not backed with much time as the worlds best, has value, but it also leaves his achievements as very subjective in value, moreso than either Gonzales or Laver. Thus to say subjective elements by his own peers on his actual abilities as a player compared to theirs should be totally discounted, when everything about his place in history- achievements as well, are largely subjective in their nature, is silly.
 
mattosgrant said:
The fact is he was #1 even less time than Nadal (who has a dissapointing amount of time at #1 himself, but a historic amount at #2 with that). The fact is his pro slams as his main achievement, not backed with much time as the worlds best, has value, but it also leaves his achievements as very subjective in value, moreso than either Gonzales or Laver. Thus to say subjective elements by his own peers on his actual abilities as a player compared to theirs should be totally discounted, when everything about his place in history- achievements as well, are largely subjective in their nature, is silly.
Click to expand...

You have to be the #1 for a long time to be in the conversation for the best. If you're #1 much less than both your older and younger rivals then that puts serious doubts on your level of play. Especially when most of your big titles are Pro Majors which had arguable value.
 
NatF said:
You have to be the #1 for a long time to be in the conversation for the best. If you're #1 much less than both your older and younger rivals then that puts serious doubts on your level of play. Especially when most of your big titles are Pro Majors which had arguable value.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it is why I dont rate him over any of Laver, Gonzales, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, probably Tilden, Borg. I am not even sure if he belongs above Connors, Lendl, Kramer, or not either. Djokovic perhaps too now or soon. 8th at the absolute highest though.

Nadal is the one of those who also wasnt #1 a super long time for a GOAT, but in many ways I find what Nadal did, cutting into Federer's dominance to take #1 in 2008 and keeping that dominance in the first 5 months of 2009, cutting into Novak's to take #1 in 2013, being clear #1 in 2010, to be more impressive than ugh, twhat Rosewall did, which was ONLY being the #1 guy when Gonzales finally aged/faded enough and before Laver turned/settled into the pros. He had a brief time at #1 between them, NEVER before or after.

If you look at the Federer era as 2004-2009, the Nadal era as 2008-2010, and the Djokovic era as 2011-ongoing, Nadal had atleast a year as the best in all the eras. Rosewall only did between Gonzales and Laver, and that is all.
 
NatF said:
You have to be the #1 for a long time to be in the conversation for the best. If you're #1 much less than both your older and younger rivals then that puts serious doubts on your level of play. Especially when most of your big titles are Pro Majors which had arguable value.
Click to expand...
And yet Nadal is in the conversation for being the best player of all time with 141 weeks (he should be in the conversation in my opinion, but the fact that he had relatively few weeks as number 1 doesn't exclude him)
 
mattosgrant said:
The fact is he was #1 even less time than Nadal (who has a dissapointing amount of time at #1 himself, but a historic amount at #2 with that). The fact is his pro slams as his main achievement, not backed with much time as the worlds best, has value, but it also leaves his achievements as very subjective in value, moreso than either Gonzales or Laver. Thus to say subjective elements by his own peers on his actual abilities as a player compared to theirs should be totally discounted, when everything about his place in history- achievements as well, are largely subjective in their nature, is silly.
Click to expand...
Rosewall had two uncontestable years at number 1 - 1962, 1963 but he also had 1960, 1961, 1964 and 1970 when he was at least in the discussion for being number 1. IN 1965 and 1966 he was clearly number 2. Seems a decent amount to me.
 
timnz said:
And yet Nadal is in the conversation for being the best player of all time with 141 weeks (he should be in the conversation in my opinion, but the fact that he had relatively few weeks as number 1 doesn't exclude him)
Click to expand...

I don't think Nadal should be in the conversation for best of all time either to be fair.
 
TheMusicLover said:
Lists like these will always be biased. Comparing different players from different era's is completely impossible.

And putting men and women together on a GOAT-list is of course reason enough not to take the one in the OP not at all seriously.
Click to expand...

So true.

I wouldn't rate Agassi above guys like John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Bill Tilden, Ivan Lendl and Ken Rosewall. Lendl couldn't win Wimbledon because of grass greats like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg (there was also Cash), but others could've completed career GS (I'm talking about those who didn't) if they treated Aussie Open more seriously, especially when it was still played on grass.
 
timnz said:
Rosewall had two uncontestable years at number 1 - 1962, 1963 but he also had 1960, 1961, 1964 and 1970 when he was at least in the discussion for being number 1. IN 1965 and 1966 he was clearly number 2. Seems a decent amount to me.
Click to expand...

No he was not the #1 any of those years. Gonzales was considered #1 in 1960 and 1961, and Laver was clearly #1 in 1964. 1970 was not Rosewall either. His only 2 years at #1 were 1962 and 1963, between Gonzales and Laver. Also dont even try linking the wikipedia list as I will just laugh it off, as already know it is utter crap full of a whole bunch of inaccuracies, and which I have heard that 5555 freak poster is the head moderator of, which already renders it 100% useless. Had there been an Open Era then and Laver not had to go through a period adjusting to the "pro" game, then Rosewall might never have been #1.
 
NatF said:
I don't think Nadal should be in the conversation for best of all time either to be fair.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Neither of them should be in that talk at all. Nadal's max rank should be about 4th or 5th, and Rosewall's 7th or 8th. Those should be their max ranks, not even neccessarily their ranking.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
It is a cable channel. It holds as much historic value as Access Hollywood.

That is the last resort for a player who did not possess the ability to win the Grand Slam, yet false accolades and trivia lists are tossed his way.
Click to expand...

Keep saying that to yourself if it helps you sleep well at night.


100 Greatest of All Time
In order to put together this list of the top 100 greatest players of all time, tennis channel reach out to an international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives. Participants held from 6 continents and include the International Tennis Hall of Fame. As you can see, the criteria being use to evaluate each legend is base on performance at Grand Slam events, ATP and WTA tournaments, and of course, Federation and Davis Cup results. Records held and broken will also be factor, as well as any other intangibles.
Click to expand...
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
No legitimate source recognizes a cable channel, but if you need to keep finding BS lists that validate your hollow claim of Federer being a GOAT, go right ahead. Meanwhile, history recognizes the Grand slam as the summit of tennis achievement--something Federer was incapable of reaching.
Click to expand...
Stop making up story because you're getting pathetic everyday.

I gave you the link and it's clearly said that they are tennis experts from all continent that determines the greatest list based on those 7 criteria.

Nobody cares about your single goat criteria(Grand Slam is a must to be goat).
 
and everyone else has already told you they don't take a list that has Emerson 11 spots above Gonzales, and Gonzales's 22nd best mens player in history seriously. No true "expert" would ever do that, which just proves it was not experts (whose names they curiously don't state) who picked those lists at all.

If they come out with a new list and Serena is #1 (as she likely will be), you will be throwing this group of esteemed experts under the bus faster than you say kaput!~
 
TMF said:
Stop making up story because you're getting pathetic everyday.

I gave you the link and it's clearly said that they are tennis experts from all continent that determines the greatest list based on those 7 criteria.

Nobody cares about your single goat criteria(Grand Slam is a must to be goat).
Click to expand...

No one cares about a cable channel that serves as your cheerleader routine for Federer. You have been constantly ridiculed for linking to that garbage (where commentators and ex-pros change opinions with the speed of light), much like your incessant Wikipedia copy+paste jobs (the polar opposite of academic integrity), so you can shake your pom-poms on a Federer fan site where you will be protected from reality.
 
mattosgrant said:
and everyone else has already told you they don't take a list that has Emerson 11 spots above Gonzales, and Gonzales's 22nd best mens player in history seriously. No true "expert" would ever do that, which just proves it was not experts (whose names they curiously don't state) who picked those lists at all.

If they come out with a new list and Serena is #1 (as she likely will be), you will be throwing this group of esteemed experts under the bus faster than you say kaput!~
Click to expand...

Exactly. He's been at it this year already; with each Serena majors title, and numerous sources referring to her as a GOAT, he tried to change goal posts (much like he tried--and failed to do when Seen passed Federer, Evert and Martina at the 2014 USO). Or, his transparent "Kvitova be am bestest grass court player" when no one in his right mind would ever place a player who never defended her Wimbledon title as the best of anything. He was also basing it on Madrid...having nothing to do with Wimbledon.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
No one cares about a cable channel that serves as your cheerleader routine for Federer. You have been constantly ridiculed for linking to that garbage (where commentators and ex-pros change opinions with the speed of light), much like your incessant Wikipedia copy+paste jobs (the polar opposite of academic integrity), so you can shake your pom-poms on a Federer fan site where you will be protected from reality.
Click to expand...
And I supposed you think the mass care about you and mattosgrant opinion ? Get real.

Nobody knows you and they don't want to either. TC select these experts because of their background experience and knowledge !
 
It seems this silly list include both male and female, then there is no way Fed can be above Navratilova who has 59 GRAND SLAM titles or Evert or Graf for that matter. Even if we ignore the females, the list is still silly putting the likes of Gonzales and Rosewall way below Emerson(LOL).
 
Is Rosewall below Emerson too? I didnt notice that but even if I dont think Rosewall is a top 5 all time, that is still flat out ridiculous. Anyone knowledgable would have Emerson barely top 30 at best. That just proves this was not done by a group of experts, hence why their names arent even released.
 
Gotta have separate lists for men and women. As amazing as Serena is, from an objective standpoint her level of tennis cannot be compared to Fed, Rafa, Djoker ect.

With separate lists Serena and Fed would be # 1 of thier lists. Djoker has entered the top 10. Can't see Djoker catching Fed. That door was open briefly but closed in 2012-14. Might catch Rafa, too soon to tell. I have Rafa ahead of Pete.
 
VexlanderPrime said:
With separate lists Serena and Fed would be # 1 of thier lists. Djoker has entered the top 10.
Click to expand...

Shhh, dont let TMF here you say that. I wonder who will become the new authority of reason for TMF once the next Tennis Channel list comes out and Serena is ranked #1 by them (not only #1 women but #1 over his beloved Federer).

Can't see Djoker catching Fed. That door was open briefly but closed in 2012-14.
Click to expand...

It probably should be as such, but with tennis getting older and the feeble up and coming generations that keep coming through, dont rule it out yet.

Might catch Rafa, too soon to tell.
Click to expand...

Very, very possible.

I have Rafa ahead of Pete.
Click to expand...

I dont, but see the rational. I have them right next to each other either way. Both 4th and 5th probably.
 
AngryBirds said:
It seems this silly list include both male and female, then there is no way Fed can be above Navratilova who has 59 GRAND SLAM titles or Evert or Graf for that matter. Even if we ignore the females, the list is still silly putting the likes of Gonzales and Rosewall way below Emerson(LOL).
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying for years! It was a total joke to have her #4 IIRC with 59 majors and untold records still under her name! No one comes close! She'd have more singles championships if she hadn't spent so much time in the middle of the night playing dubs and MxD! :p :rolleyes: o_O
 
Well while I agree that Martina is great, keep in mind Margaret Court has 62 combined singles, doubles, and mixed slams to Martina's 59, 24 in singles to Martina's 18 (and would have more even if everyone played all 4 slams then most likely), and was only put at #8. So it is not like Martina was that hard done by.

Meanwhile her great rival and virtual equal Evert got #9 to her #4.
 
mattosgrant said:
Well while I agree that Martina is great, keep in mind Margaret Court has 62 combined singles, doubles, and mixed slams to Martina's 59, 24 in singles to Martina's 18 (and would have more even if everyone played all 4 slams then most likely), and was only put at #8. So it is not like Martina was that hard done by.

Meanwhile her great rival and virtual equal Evert got #9 to her #4.
Click to expand...

Oh I know about Court's record, but I take into consideration few people went "down under" due to how long it took to get there and if the USTA paid for it, you were committed to staying for a couple months! It was truly "home field" for MC who had a decidedly psychological advantage over her brethren like Evonne Goolagong! Eleven singles' AO, most of them in the pre-Open era is just hard for me to count! I'm thinking more of the OPEN era; otherwise we'd be talking about true greats like Tilden, Perry, Gonzales, and others who weren't allowed to play until '68 as pros! Martina's 59 is a lot more impressive; esp. able to play with different partners! She could win with anyone; Court couldn't say that, always playing with her regular partner like Virginia Wade til the end! :rolleyes: ;)
 
Well Navratilova was mostly just with Shriver. She had a few other partners at the beginning and end, but the bulk of her dominance and success in womens doubles was Shriver. Court also was able to retire at 33, and Navratilova played into her 50s to get those stats, and still didnt catch Court.

Also the Australian Open factor you are absolutely right on. The Open Era factor is a non factor for women though, means nothing.
 
mattosgrant said:
Well Navratilova was mostly just with Shriver. She had a few other partners at the beginning and end, but the bulk of her dominance and success in womens doubles was Shriver. Court also was able to retire at 33, and Navratilova played into her 50s to get those stats, and still didnt catch Court.

Also the Australian Open factor you are absolutely right on. The Open Era factor is a non factor for women though, means nothing.
Click to expand...

Congrats! Thanks for the banter; you made my blog/manifesto! I like to reference this info wherever I am in the world! It's good! Take care:

- http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2015/...howComment=1439432335083#c5752045095518255624 -
 
Federer still where he is, I'm not sure he will be unseated for decades, if ever.
When someone does better than W-W-W-F-W-W-W-F-W-W, gets >17 GS, and gets >237 consecutive #1 weeks (and I mean all three of these, because until then you can still argue for Roger), then that person might have a hope.
Until then, it's #RF4Lyfe folks.

I also don't agree with ranking the women and the men together, they're not far off being entirely different sports at the professional level.

Djokovic has moved up for sure.

As for Nadal, I'd have him a little ahead of Sampras, with Laver probably still #2 because CYGS.
 
Firstservingman said:
Federer still where he is, I'm not sure he will be unseated for decades, if ever.
When someone does better than W-W-W-F-W-W-W-F-W-W, gets >17 GS, and gets >237 consecutive #1 weeks (and I mean all three of these, because until then you can still argue for Roger), then that person might have a hope.
Until then, it's #RF4Lyfe folks.

I also don't agree with ranking the women and the men together, they're not far off being entirely different sports at the professional level.

Djokovic has moved up for sure.

As for Nadal, I'd have him a little ahead of Sampras, with Laver probably still #2 because CYGS.
Click to expand...

Glad to see people agree Nole needs to move up! He's likely to win 3 majors again this season and the next, but is still vulnerable to losses that Roger never would have allowed! He will surpass some of those records, but I can't see him getting anywhere near 17 majors; waited too late to get better than his major rivals! He'll last longer than Rafa, but he's done already! I was one of those people that said he would "limp" out of the game due to how physical a match he would play against losers, also-rans. and never-weres! :p :( :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Tennis Channel's "100 Greatest of All Time"
7 8 9
Replies
422
Views
74K
pmerk34
P
F
ESPN's The greatest beatdowns in history (Fed, Navs and McEnroe on the list)
Replies
15
Views
2K
my_forehand
M
lambielspins
Top 10 women players of the decade list
Replies
9
Views
2K
boredone3456
boredone3456
goober
IMDB 100 worst movies of all time
2 3
Replies
111
Views
6K
heycal
H
Enceladus
2020 Indian Wells - WTA Premier Mandatory Thread
Replies
28
Views
2K
CrackedRacquet
C
Back
Top