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

[cknobman]

Tennis Channel: puff piece with no academic or historical integrity. In other words, the fantasy filled sandbox for fanboys.

A. Tennis Channel is the best source for tennis news, matches, commentary, analysis, and general coverage there is on TV.

B. If you actually watched the 100 Greatest episode you will know that the placement of the list was decided by a huge panel of voters that was made up of some of the most respected tennis players, reporters, analysts, coaches, and commentators in the history of the sport. This list included Laver, Navratalova, Billie Jean King, etc....

 

[fezer]

the end of the list is much more interesting in my eyes.
who's in and who's not!

muster and noah were, of course, decent players with outstanding qualities.
muster wwas a clay machine and had a astonishing comeback after a very serious injury.
noah was always enjoyable to watch.
but after all they are oneslamwonders...
why are they IN and players like ivanisevic and stich are OUT?

michael stich for example has a wimbledon title (>rg) and a yec title (neither muster nor noah), stich made a final of a grand-slam-tourney on all surfaces (muster and noah didnt reach another), stich is an olympic gold medallist, won titles an all surfaces, davis-cup-champion... what else do you need?

goran ivanisevic is also a wimbledon champion and made 3 additional finals

muster and noah are "only" rg-champions and never made another final. im not sure if noah even reached one more semi, they never had a say at the usopen or the masters, yec. noah may have a usopen doubles title. muster has a nice collection of stuttgart, st.pölten and palermo titles and never won a single match at wimbledon.

 

[mattosgrant]

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.

I so agree women and men need to be seperate. Putting them together creates too much controversy and the comparision is too unfair altogether. When you see best all time swimmer and track athletes you never see the women and men mixed. So it made no sense to do it here either.

While I know it is very far from a sure thing, it would be interesting how people compared Djokovic to Federer if both have roughly 17 slams. Djokovic is very different from Nadal in that his other stats are far and away better than Nadal's (well shaping up to be) and they will likely compare well to Federer's for the most part. That is one reason i said I would rank Djokovic equal to Nadal (and arguably above already) with 12 majors and a RG, and clearly above him with 13 and a RG.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

A. Tennis Channel is the best source for tennis news, matches, commentary, analysis, and general coverage there is on TV.

B. If you actually watched the 100 Greatest episode you will know that the placement of the list was decided by a huge panel of voters that was made up of some of the most respected tennis players, reporters, analysts, coaches, and commentators in the history of the sport. This list included Laver, Navratalova, Billie Jean King, etc....

A channel where those paid to give opinions--only to change numerous times (ex. McEnroe) or ignore the status of the greatest tennis achievement is no academic source, but pure, soft entertainment not to be taken seriously. As mattosgrant noted yesterday:

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!~

 

[mattosgrant]

This list included Laver, Navratalova, Billie Jean King, etc....

Billie Jean King and Navratilova would NEVER rank Gonzales as the 22nd best mens tennis player of all time (I know that for a fact as both gushed over him and his place in history during the Wimbledon coverage of 95 and 96, calling him arguably the best over, relatively soon after his death). So even if those two were somehow amongst the voters (which I have yet to see any proof or statement on) they were obviously overrun by idiots of some sort.

 

[cknobman]

Billie Jean King and Navratilova would NEVER rank Gonzales as the 22nd best mens tennis player of all time (I know that for a fact as both gushed over him and his place in history during the Wimbledon coverage of 95 and 96, calling him arguably the best over, relatively soon after his death). So even if those two were somehow amongst the voters (which I have yet to see any proof or statement on) they were obviously overrun by idiots of some sort.

So neither of you actually watched it then. You are making blind assumptions and statements.

Yes your are right, because you said so!!

Love the logic.

 

[NGM]

Billie Jean King and Navratilova would NEVER rank Gonzales as the 22nd best mens tennis player of all time (I know that for a fact as both gushed over him and his place in history during the Wimbledon coverage of 95 and 96, calling him arguably the best over, relatively soon after his death). So even if those two were somehow amongst the voters (which I have yet to see any proof or statement on) they were obviously overrun by idiots of some sort.

I don't know about Pancho very much but I saw in Wikipedia that he failed to win both French Open pro and amateur. Was he not very good on clay or he just had bad luck?

 

[mattosgrant]

I don't know about Pancho very much but I saw in Wikipedia that he failed to win both French Open pro and amateur. Was he not very good on clay or he just had bad luck?

He only played in amateur a year and half as a top player (and even then nowhere near prime level). He wasnt the best on clay for sure though.

 

[NGM]

He only played in amateur a year and half as a top player (and even then nowhere near prime level). He wasnt the best on clay for sure though.

I assume tennis was played mostly on grass back then but still clay was a common surface either. So if Gonzales was not good enough on clay, it would be a big holes in his career just very much like his fellow countryman Pete Sampras.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic and Murray move up, and anyone they displace moves down. Federer also moves down on account of his worsening h2h's.

 

[AngryBirds]

Djokovic and Murray move up, and anyone they displace moves down. Federer also moves down on account of his worsening h2h's.

Fed should be wayy down, but not because of the H2H with Nadal. I put at him #6 behind Navratilova, Court, Graf, Serena, Laver and Gonzales.

 

[NatF]

Fed should be wayy down, but not because of the H2H with Nadal. I put at him #6 behind Navratilova, Court, Graf, Serena, Laver and Gonzales.

Federer is historically greater than Court. Don't necessarily disagree with the rest.

 

[TMF]

A. Tennis Channel is the best source for tennis news, matches, commentary, analysis, and general coverage there is on TV.

B. If you actually watched the 100 Greatest episode you will know that the placement of the list was decided by a huge panel of voters that was made up of some of the most respected tennis players, reporters, analysts, coaches, and commentators in the history of the sport. This list included Laver, Navratalova, Billie Jean King, etc....

What I've learned from this forum is some posters believe they are tennis experts but the carefully selected tennis experts by TTC are ignorant. These historians, coaches, ex-players know nothing about tennis simply because they didn't have some of the poster's favorite player(e.g. Serena, Sampras, Laver) at #1. LOL

 

[TMF]

Djokovic and Murray move up, and anyone they displace moves down. Federer also moves down on account of his worsening h2h's.

I don't see how one can lose some achievements/legacy after adding another slam, 2 more slam finals, breaking 186 weeks at #1 and about 15 additional single titles. The only direction he's moving is further ahead of the retired players except the current players like Nole and Nadal.

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic and Murray move up, and anyone they displace moves down. Federer also moves down on account of his worsening h2h's.

Murray? Why is he even in the conversation? Sorry, but I'm SMH over that; isn't even in the top 50! Where was he when the telecast went off a couple years ago; and NOW?

 

[cknobman]

Fed should be wayy down, but not because of the H2H with Nadal. I put at him #6 behind Navratilova, Court, Graf, Serena, Laver and Gonzales.

Your list would put him at #7

But IMO it is so very hard to compare pre Open to Open tennis. When amateurs compete it makes things quite different.
Also women and men should be completely separate lists.

 

[AngryBirds]

Your list would put him at #7

But IMO it is so very hard to compare pre Open to Open tennis. When amateurs compete it makes things quite different.
Also women and men should be completely separate lists.

Number 7 it is. You just stated the exact reason why greatest of all time list is pointless. It is very hard to compare eras. I guess we have to ask the OP why he takes such silly list so seriously in the first place.

 

[Fiero425]

Number 7 it is. You just stated the exact reason why greatest of all time list is pointless. It is very hard to compare eras. I guess we have to ask the OP why he takes such silly list so seriously in the first place.

Well there is that one thing you can compare; H2H! Roger's losing record to his #1 rival is unprecedented in the OPEN era! Laver had trouble with Rosewall and Hoad, but that was a long time ago! No other #1 in memory has been handled so well by their rival, but still excel in all the other records and numbers! Initially he even had Murray dominating for a while, but that at least has turned around! I use to rationalize that most of Rafa's victories over Roger was on clay, but that isn't it! His one-handed backhand has a lot difficulties dealing with those high bounces! It's his own fault being stubborn, thinking he can rally out there with the kiddies and not attack more; even with encouragement from his newest coach Stefan Edberg! Hard to have any sympathy for him if he won't listen to common sense! I know it's easy to say attack, attack, attack, but he "ain't" winning it from the baseline either! Might as well put pressure on Nadal and not let him get into a groove! Others have come around and are now beating Ndal routinely; everybody but Roger! So far he hasn't been able to get there, but sooner or later it'll happen and it'll be "must see TV!" Looking forward to it!

 

[jm1980]

Do the knowledge and stop trolling.

I have one doubt: can you do the needful and not prepone this discussion about GOATness to before Fed and Djoker are retired?

I love Indian English

 

[Fiero425]

I have one doubt: can you do the needful and not prepone this discussion about GOATness to before Fed and Djoker are retired?

I love Indian English

Unfortunately for "us" historians, we have been premature because they obliterated the records so quickly and with so much ease! It used to take a whole career like Agassi, Connors, and McEnroe to achieve half of what Nole, Rafa, and Roger have done; and they're still going! Nole will end up with the Masters' record after all is said and done, Rafa will be in 2nd place for the foreseeable future, and of course Roger has claimed all the other #'s so treasured and extending them all the time being The GOAT!

 

[mattosgrant]

I assume tennis was played mostly on grass back then but still clay was a common surface either. So if Gonzales was not good enough on clay, it would be a big holes in his career just very much like his fellow countryman Pete Sampras.

Gonzales was definitely better on clay than Sampras. Much better. Not as good as Laver or Federer.

 

[mattosgrant]

Djokovic and Murray move up, and anyone they displace moves down. Federer also moves down on account of his worsening h2h's.

I actually think if they redo the list in 3 or 4 years time Serena will be placed 1st (assuming they still mix men and women) and Federer might be dropped below Laver for the exact reason you said. Then again I was considering Nadal possibly being ranked above Laver by then (undeservedly, but you know they are biased to recent/current players). The one thing I am sure of is Federer will be ranked over Nadal, unless he makes a push and wins another few slams (a group such as that would rank Nadal higher than Fed with both having 17 slams, again rightly or wrongly), regardless how they choose to rank both vs Laver.

 

[Fiero425]

I actually think if they redo the list in 3 or 4 years time Serena will be placed 1st (assuming they still mix men and women) and Federer might be dropped below Laver for the exact reason you said. Then again I was considering Nadal possibly being ranked above Laver by then (undeservedly, but you know they are biased to recent/current players). The one thing I am sure of is Federer will be ranked over Nadal, unless he makes a push and wins another few slams (a group such as that would rank Nadal higher than Fed with both having 17 slams, again rightly or wrongly), regardless how they choose to rank both vs Laver.

With Nadal's deficiencies, health issues, and inability to defend any title off clay disqualifies him for all time of being even considered to "GOAT-dom!" He works too hard to win any and every match against nobodies and never-weres! He got what he wanted; dominance on clay for a time, won 9 FO's, and rounded out his record with at least 1 or 2 of the other majors! No other #1 was so imbalanced in their record over the years with many glaring absences along the way! Even Borg who is considered a "Tennis Gawd" won equally on grass and clay; and that was without current technology! I would barely put Nadal in my all time top 10; even if separated from the ladies! Laver won 2 cal. yr. GS's and that was with majors not available to him from '63 to late '68 due to pros exempted! I'm told Tilden, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were the best of their eras so I'd put them above Rafa as well! For years before Federer made his mark, we tried to anoint Sampras as the GOAT, but unfortunately he barely had a sniff of a FO in '96! He successfully beat 2 past milti-champs in Courier and Bruguera, but missed out in the semi's, going out to eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov! I already vented about Martina Navratilova deserving to be in the top 3 due to 59 majors in the Open era, winning the "Box SET" and continuing to compete close to 50; taking her last major at '06 USO with one of the Bryan bros! ;-)

 

[Midaso240]

Obviously the likes of Djokovic,Murray should go up. S Williams should not be in the top 100

 

[mattosgrant]

With Nadal's deficiencies, health issues, and inability to defend any title off clay disqualifies him for all time of being even considered to "GOAT-dom!" He works too hard to win any and every match against nobodies and never-weres! He got what he wanted; dominance on clay for a time, won 9 FO's, and rounded out his record with at least 1 or 2 of the other majors! No other #1 was so imbalanced in their record over the years with many glaring absences along the way! Even Borg who is considered a "Tennis Gawd" won equally on grass and clay; and that was without current technology! I would barely put Nadal in my all time top 10; even if separated from the ladies! Laver won 2 cal. yr. GS's and that was with majors not available to him from '63 to late '68 due to pros exempted! I'm told Tilden, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were the best of their eras so I'd put them above Rafa as well! For years before Federer made his mark, we tried to anoint Sampras as the GOAT, but unfortunately he barely had a sniff of a FO in '96! He successfully beat 2 past milti-champs in Courier and Bruguera, but missed out in the semi's, going out to eventual champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov! I already vented about Martina Navratilova deserving to be in the top 3 due to 59 majors in the Open era, winning the "Box SET" and continuing to compete close to 50; taking her last major at '06 USO with one of the Bryan bros! ;-)

Again I am saying how THEY (Tennis Channel) would rank. It doesnt mean it is correct. I dont think Federer should be ranked #1 by them but he is, and it isnt surprising since he is current and people like Laver and Navratilova are not.

If Nadal had 17 slams like Federer, most, and particularly a stupid group like Tennis Channel would rank him above Federer due to the H2H. It doesnt mean it is right or makes sense, but it it is what would happen. I give Nadal 10% chance at most to reach 17 slams or more though (and only 55% to win 1 more French) so it is moot anyway.

Meanwhile Serena once she reaches 22 or 23 slams, let alone the 25+ she is likely to end up with will be ranked as the top player (man or women) by a group like Tennis Channel. Again rightly or wrongly.

Meanwhile when these things happen TMF will suddenly throw the same flawed group he is praising as some gospel today (only since they put Federer 1st and put Serena lower when she had only 13 slams) in the thrash bin suddenly.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Again I am saying how THEY (Tennis Channel) would rank. It doesnt mean it is correct. I dont think Federer should be ranked #1 by them but he is, and it isnt surprising since he is current and people like Laver and Navratilova are not.

Which renders a cable channel no better or historically accurate as a fangirl magazine--a puff piece for those living in the moment without the clarity of historic achievements.

If Nadal had 17 slams like Federer, most, and particularly a stupid group like Tennis Channel would rank him above Federer due to the H2H. It doesnt mean it is right or makes sense, but it it is what would happen. I give Nadal 10% chance at most to reach 17 slams or more though (and only 55% to win 1 more French) so it is moot anyway.

Interesting.

Meanwhile Serena once she reaches 22 or 23 slams, let alone the 25+ she is likely to end up with will be ranked as the top player (man or women) by a group like Tennis Channel.

Meanwhile when these things happen TMF will suddenly throw the same flawed group he is praising as some gospel today (only since they put Federer 1st and put Serena lower when she had only 13 slams) in the thrash bin suddenly.

Of course--that has been the history of that kind of individual all along: use poor, contradictory references like a cable channel, or user-edited nonsense online, as long as it accomplishes three things: place an undeserved GOAT crown on Federer (despite never reaching the zenith of the sport with the Grand Slam), trash Laver's superior career and damn Serena--as you say, rating her as if this was several years in the past. Such intellectual bankruptcy is the reason members of that ilk are so easily brushed aside.

 

[AngieB]

Agreed--they are not; Serena left them in the dust last year, and continued to build on that. Meanwhile, Federer is no #1 of any list without the Grand Slam; as it is clear, he did not have the ability to reach that master's level of tennis.

Nor will he ever. 23-10 took care of that.

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[AngieB]

Just for historical reference, this outdated list the OP posted, which has much discussed many times over dozens of threads, is the same inaccurate list #MrWiki has pedaled (and continues to pedal) in this forum. A 3 year old cable channel's sanctioned list of greats.

Now that #Serena is on the cusp of reaching the pennacle of the sport (#CYGS), #MrWiki will make an extra effort to post this list, embracing its historically inaccuracy as symbol of his continued hatred.

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Just for historical reference, this outdated list the OP posted, which has much discussed many times over dozens of threads, is the same inaccurate list #MrWiki has pedaled (and continues to pedal) in this forum. A 3 year old cable channel's sanctioned list of greats.

Now that #Serena is on the cusp of reaching the pennacle of the sport (#CYGS), #MrWiki will make an extra effort to post this list, embracing its historically inaccuracy as symbol of his continued hatred.

#GrannyIlluminati​

That is a guarantee; if certain members cannot continue spewing acid at the truly superior players, then they must be sleeping on "the job." ...and we know that never happens, considering the volume of hate/revisionist history posts.

 

[hoodjem]

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

Oink oink!

 

[Man of steel]

Obviously the likes of Djokovic,Murray should go up. S Williams should not be in the top 100

How is this clown still in this forum. Didn't you promise to leave this forum forever if serena won AO this year.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

How is this clown still in this forum. Didn't you promise to leave this forum forever if serena won AO this year.

Yes, and last year, I believe he also promised (in typical extremist fashion) to eat a part of his anatomy if Serena won another major. If he cannot keep such simple promises, he cannot be taken seriously regarding anything else.

 

[AngieB]

Oink oink!

If the shoe fits...

#GrannyIllumiNaughty​

 

[Midaso240]

How is this clown still in this forum. Didn't you promise to leave this forum forever if serena won AO this year.

LOL,it's just my opinion. Each to their own,no one will have the same top 100. For me,S Williams does NOT belong anywhere near the top 1000,let alone top 100 players of all time...