From a historical standpoint, the 1969 Grand Slam was his outstanding achievement, because of the open enviroment with all the older pros and amateurs of the 60s and a whole generation of younger stars (Newk, Roche, Ashe, Okker, etc.) contending. In the new book '40 years of US Open' (besides a fine, well illustrated book with a video of legendary US Open players), Laver stated, that he felt at age 31, that 69 would be his first and last chance to win an open Grand Slam. Maybe his best match was the 1968 Los Angeles final over Rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0. But his peak year probably was 1967, when he won 19 titles overall and all important pro titles, including the only Wimbledon pro and the other pro majors. And the pros had received fresh blood in 1967, with Stolle (Nr. 1 amateur 1966) and Ralston coming from the amateur ranks.
Best mens tennis player ever
- Thread starter anointedone
- Start date
Q&M son
Professional
Gene:
For me, 1967. Won the three majors plus MSG Pro and Wimbledon Pro and big number of other events (and was runner up in some big ones too)
In 62 won the GS plus 18 titles but the pro's weren't there (I believe he also won Davis Cup)
1969 was a great year too, but I choose 67.
Lucio.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
Yeah. I think that if we project the values of our current tennis world back into the 1980s, then one can certainly argue that Lendl was the greater or more accomplished player. (That is to say: overall titles, match wins, percentages, total majors w/ no distinction of 'importance' among the four, etc.) However, because these standards - in their current form - cannot have had any bearing on the players' (or their observers') minds at the time when they were playing, I think it is unfair to simply apply them uncritically, as some people here are oftentimes guilty of doing. In McEnroe's era, in particular, I don't believe that the Australian Open (and to a lesser extent Roland Garros) could be considered on the same level as Wimbledon or the US Open, nor do I think that the arcane statistics people like us pore over mattered very much at all in comparison w/ the significance of the top few biggest events and finishing the year with the 'No. 1' status. Therefore relative to the tennis world in which they competed, I find McEnroe's record - and in particular his singles record in majors - more impressive than Lendl's, in large part due to the striking Wimbledon ratio (3:0). I should stress, though, that I consider it a very small difference from a career standpoint, even though I do give the definite edge to McEnroe (and Connors).
Last edited:
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
I would only echo urban's comments. 1967 and 1969 are, I think, certainly Laver's two best years - and among the top five years in men's tennis history. From an 'objective' performance standpoint, 1967 should probably stand as his career peak, but historically and culturally 1969 represents Laver's greatest feat. It stands out especially insofar as an open, 'official' Grand Slam remains a singular achievement in men's tennis (whereas Laver's amateur Slam in 1962 was preceded by Budge's in 1938, and his pro Slam in 1967 by Rosewall's in 1963).
CyBorg
Legend
I prefer Lendl. Wimbledon is not special. The aura is imaginary. It is worth the same number of points as the other majors. I agree that the Australian was a lesser event in most years of the 80s.
That being said the Aussie was most definitely legitimate at least beginning with 1988, maybe even before.
And what say you about the fact that Lendl skipped the French in both 1990 and 1991? If we count up the number of majors Lendl played between 1989 and 1991, for example, we end up with nine and only one of them being on Lendl's best surface (clay). Why should Lendl not get credit for those Aussies? And his competition at these was quite solid.
The problem I think is that folks put in too much time looking at the number of majors assigned next to the player's name.
The majors don't matter in and of themselves. The years matter and how those years are aligned. The best way to compare Mac and Lendl would be to look at the quality of their best years. And Lendl comes out slightly ahead by my calculations - his peak is more consistent and far more dominant and, perhaps somewhat subjectively, I would argue that Lendl's competition was better in his peak (85-87) than Mac's (84).
But in order to look at these years one must consider the whole picture, not just majors. For example, how can one grade Mac and Lendl while completely ignoring their indoor results?
And grass/clay are equal to me. I would say Lendl was a better grass player than Mac was a clay player. Lendl wins there.
Last edited:
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
Clearly it's Magnus Larsson.
Seriously, best as in most likely to win in any situation? Sampras.
He didn't take Federer seriously enough out of the gate in their match and it was a VERY CLOSE MATCH.
Most talented? Federer. Sadly most talented doesn't always equal wins. Like Gasquet, Rios, Hicham Arazi. These guys blow my mind. As you can see, I like players with great backhands.
Seriously, best as in most likely to win in any situation? Sampras.
He didn't take Federer seriously enough out of the gate in their match and it was a VERY CLOSE MATCH.
Most talented? Federer. Sadly most talented doesn't always equal wins. Like Gasquet, Rios, Hicham Arazi. These guys blow my mind. As you can see, I like players with great backhands.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
'Greatness' is itself imaginary, so I think it makes sense that its constitutive elements (e.g., the prestige of a particular championship over and against the others) would also be imaginary. But it's important to realize that just b/c something is imaginary doesn't make it any less real! These factors weigh on the minds of the players themselves, help determine their decisions and actions in a competitive environment, and ultimately shape their self-evaluations as well as the evaluations of their peers and other observers. I know this is a bit abstract, but in my view (which is no more valuable than yours, but it is what it is) it is best to try to contextualize a player's achievements in that historical/environmental structure. So according to my own reading of the data, McEnroe looks a bit more accomplished than Lendl on those terms, though again I admit the difference is slight.
CyBorg
Legend
Mac seemed obsessed with winning the French, proving himself to be a complete player. Haunted forever by that loss.
Lendl was also obsessed and also haunted.
I see these as cancelling out. Both venues have much history. Wimbledon is older, but for these players it's not much of a difference.
And, of course, the obsession comes when one dominates one of the venues, but falls flat on his face in the other.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Did Henri Cochet win seven or eight slam championships in singles?
Wikipedia states seven on its list, but then under Cochet it lists these years:
French Singles champion: 1922, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932
Wimbledon Singles champion: 1927, 1929
U.S. Singles champion: 1928
(1922 seems to be a bit controversial.)
Who knows?
Wikipedia states seven on its list, but then under Cochet it lists these years:
French Singles champion: 1922, 1926, 1928, 1930, 1932
Wimbledon Singles champion: 1927, 1929
U.S. Singles champion: 1928
(1922 seems to be a bit controversial.)
Who knows?
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
McEnroe himself has stated that, by and large, players in his day were focused on Wimbledon, the US Open, and finishing the year No. 1. (One can of course speculate a variety of reasons why he would say this after the fact, but it remains a datum for consideration.) Moreover, even if we do include Roland Garros as a major title on equal footing with Wimbledon and the US Open in the 1970s and 1980s - which for statistical purposes I generally concede - McEnroe and Connors still come out narrowly ahead of Lendl in overall majors, seven to six. It's true that the Australian had for the most part joined the other three during Lendl's era, but since it certainly did not have that status during McEnroe's era, to be fair we must stick to the common denominator of three (max.). Of course, there are other methods one can use and I have consistently stated that it can be argued either way. Ultimately though I feel pretty confident that McEnroe would not trade in his resume for Lendl's, whereas I am not so sure about the reverse...
Also, I think McEnroe's "obsession" with his "haunting" final-round loss at RG in 1984 had more to do with the fact that it killed his dream for a Grand Slam in what would prove to be such a dominant year for him, as well as the nature of the match itself (with McEnroe so tantalizingly close to victory before his dramatic collapse - and Lendl's dramatic comeback), rather than with a desire to prove himself on clay with a French title. But we could debate that endlessly!
Last edited:
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
In the end I would give Cochet credit for eight "Slams," not because of the 1922 French Amateur (which was not a true international championship at the time - hence its omission from the Wiki tally), but because he also won the World Clay Court Championships in that year, which were then probably the most important event outside of Wimbledon and the Davis Cup and the direct antecedent to the French Championships that finally "opened" in 1925. The official record books will probably never reflect this, but I think it is historically quite defensible to credit Cochet with these eight majors, as well as Tilden with 11, including a sort of proto-"Grand Slam" in 1921.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
BTW, I've been to Wimbledon and it is special. The grounds, the buildings, it's unique crowd and the grass itself. None of it imagined. Wimbledon is our sports most storied championship. Truly amazing.
Even Nadal acknowledges this.
Even Nadal acknowledges this.
CyBorg
Legend
Again, I think you're doing the wrong thing by counting majors and I've already explained why I think so.
Another thing to consider is that Mac most definitely was not as good a player on clay than Lendl was on grass. Mac had one golden chance that he blew and when that happened I think it was apparent to most that he would never get another. Lendl, on the other hand, had consistently good results on grass from year to year, but was just not as good as the likes of Becker and Cash. The obesession there was grand and very long lasting, because the pursuit lasted so long. For Mac the pursuit was short and briefly brilliant. But that's not to his advantage.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
It seems like in most official polls, & in the opinions of many past greats, journalists, etc, Mac ranks higher than Lendl. 'Stats' can't be the only criteria used in these arguments, otherwise Lew Hoad would not be a factor in these discusssions. 'peak level of play' is probably more important to players than numbers when judging other players. this isn't baseball.
There was a Fantasy Tournament that Tennis Week conducted in 2006:
these were the points totals:
And Mac fared very well in their tournament, losing in 5 sets to Federer in the semis(Laver beat Sampras in the other semi)
I have a feeling Mac will still have an aura around him 40 years from now when people talk about him, like Lew Hoad does today. It seems like no one who saw Lew Hoad or Mac play at their best forgot it. Lendl unfortunately didn't have that kind of effect on his peers or the media.
Yet Lendl himself said the AO was 'not a real major' in '85, only 4 years before he won it. Also the AO still offered less ranking points than the other majors in '89 & '90, the years Lendl won it(this can be confirmed at atptennis)
There was a Fantasy Tournament that Tennis Week conducted in 2006:
these were the points totals:
And Mac fared very well in their tournament, losing in 5 sets to Federer in the semis(Laver beat Sampras in the other semi)
I have a feeling Mac will still have an aura around him 40 years from now when people talk about him, like Lew Hoad does today. It seems like no one who saw Lew Hoad or Mac play at their best forgot it. Lendl unfortunately didn't have that kind of effect on his peers or the media.
Yet Lendl himself said the AO was 'not a real major' in '85, only 4 years before he won it. Also the AO still offered less ranking points than the other majors in '89 & '90, the years Lendl won it(this can be confirmed at atptennis)
Last edited:
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
Right - we use different criteria which is the source of our disagreement. For me, it is most important to evaluate how a player performed relative to the standards he and his peers would have set for themselves. For you, it seems to be more important to see how a player performed relative to another set of preferred standards, chosen by yourself, and then projected into the past. I personally think this is quite faulty b/c you are judging careers according to values that are anachronistic and would have had no bearing on the data you are trying to assess. Players operate on their own terms and cannot be expected to predict what measurements 21st-century TW posters will redefine as being meaningful. (This devolves into total absurdity when dealing with players from even more distant times.) So I think an effort should be made to determine what forces would have motivated players in their respective contexts. For McEnroe and Lendl, that means, e.g., privileging certain tournaments over others. And by these more relevant and historically sensitive criteria, I believe McEnroe finishes slightly (but nevertheless clearly) ahead in the full picture.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
You are right... which only underscores my point that Australian Open titles should have little to no bearing on a serious comparison of McEnroe's career with that of Lendl or any other player.
CyBorg
Legend
Actually, for this very reason Hoad really shouldn't be a factor in these discussions. I keep reading how Hoad may have been the best player ever when he was on (in other words, his best performance may have been the greatest performance), but I don't see how that is in any way relevant. One match isn't enough. There has to be some sustained level of play.
If we go with what the media says we should crown Federer now and forget about Gonzales, Budge, Tilden, Rosewall. We definitely forget Rosewall. Aura-wise, Rosewall is nobody. Interestingly enough, chaognosis likes Rosewall quite a bit. Why?
I think that the Australian received a big boost when it moved to January, which means that I kind of agree with Lendl. Although one has to wonder whether he just said that because he kept losing there.
As for the quality of the event, look at the draws. Isn't this what should be important?
SgtJohn rates the 1986 Boca West as the fourth most important event of 1986. I'm in his camp. If the draws are quality the event should have a lot of weight.
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
I think that you evaluate players based on some kind of theology, which I find interesting in a kind of fabulist sense, but too subjective to be useful.
We all have preferred standards and I don't mind standards that differ, but standards have to be based on fact, not on mysticism. My set of standards is very specific and three-fold: peak, longevity, performance across distinct surfaces. I allow for some room for subjectivity in as far as longevity is concerned, because for a variety of reasons tennis players don't play as much as they used to.
I don't know what you mean by anachronistic values. I see an anachronistically flawed approach as one that grants equal value to majors across all eras. We see this being done quite a bit. I, however, don't see majors as the only important determinant and instead prefer a more in-depth analysis of each of the player's years, which includes consideration of non-major events. This is particularly important when we go back beyond 20 years ago.
What players deem to be important to them is irrelevant to me. That's their personal dogma. However, importance as perceived more broadly in culture and amongst players in general I see as quite valid. But these values tend to be reflected in the quality of the draws. If the event is important then the players participate.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
It's an amusing charge b/c I happen to study the history of theology and philosophy of religion as a vocation, but I would appreciate an elaboration of what role you see religion and/or god(s) playing in my analysis of tennis players - at the moment this feels like a rather empty potshot.
Again, I really don't see what "mysticism" has to do with anything I have been talking about... Is there more to this, or is it an attempt at a personal attack of some kind?
OK, so the only thing we differ on is the relative weighting of events...
Here, I think, you somewhat miss the mark. You come close to treating players as though they are unconscious natural phenomena to be studied from afar irrespective of their 'existential moments' (for lack of a better term), but players are rational actors - they make decisions, feel varying degrees of pressure, compete and perform differently PRECISELY because of what they all deem to be important. I agree that the quality of each draw is a helpful factor in ascertaining these shifting cultural values, but it is much too shallow a measure to tell the complete story. All the top players might show up at the five biggest events in a given year, for example, but this would tell you nothing whatsoever about how to compare those top five events, even if all the players themselves would unanimously agree to an existing distinction. And while these distinctions in 'importance' or 'prestige' might be 'imaginary' (in a sort of Kantian sense), they are in large part what a player must deal with in order to achieve 'greatness' both in his own mind and in the mind of his contemporaries.
I apologize if my language is a bit opaque today. My basic point is that in achieving 'greatness,' in becoming a champion, a player must contend with a lot more than just the other players in the draw. There is also the pressure caused by the venue, its cultural significance, its history, how keenly the eyes of the world are fixed on the occasion, etc. And there is nothing 'mystical' about any of this; it is a matter of empirical fact - only qualitative fact rather than quantitative. This is why responsible tennis analysis must always involve a richer investigation than one of mere statistics and draw sheets - there are interviews, magazine and newspaper articles, books, and all sorts of other accounts that help us create an accurate picture of what mattered in the tennis world and when. And thank god(s) for that, b/c otherwise all of this would be boring as ****.
Last edited:
I think, Moose is right about McEnroe. He had a certain aura, because of his unothodox style, against all technical standards, without any backswing at all, grounded in his temper and confused personality. Older generations had a faible for Cochet, who had a similar style and also had picked up his game as a ballboy.I personally have sympathy with Lendl, who was and is quite intellectual and humorous in his statements. Another factor is, that Mac has been always very present due to his tv appearances.
thalivest
Banned
I agree with your having Agassi behind Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl. Agassi is a great player of course, but I still personally feel Agassi is overrated in history given probably the most horrendous consistency of any player who has ever won even 4 majors or more, and his extreme lack of dominance for a player with so many major titles (he was never really the best player in the world since in 1999 his U.S Open title had an asterix with Sampras's WD and utter dominance over him that year). Lendl is very underrated, so is Connors, and both should be over Agassi.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
He was very good. But we are talking about greatest to ever play the game here.
Edberg, Becker, and Wilander--all make my Top-25 list.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I think this is right on: Mac still comes up a lot in polls because he is rather ever-present in the tennis world playing seniors events and commentating.
If he had completely retired and left the tennis world, then his "aura" would be diminished, and his popular ranking would be lower, IMO.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
Nevertheless, former "great talents" - and here I am thinking perhaps most notably of Vines - retained their mystique (and high ranking) without having much at all to do with tennis post-retirement. So while McEnroe's omnipresence in the media undoubtedly has something to do with this, there's more to it as well.
Uncle Emmitt
Rookie
1 federer
2 sampras
3 laver
4 emerson
5 borg
6 mcenroe
7 budge
8 gonzales
9 agassi
10 connors
2 sampras
3 laver
4 emerson
5 borg
6 mcenroe
7 budge
8 gonzales
9 agassi
10 connors
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You never saw Vines doing commentary for ESPN or the Tennis Channel? Where have you been?
(Just kidding.)
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
No, but it's a very good point that the media today is just fundamentally different - thus creating different expectations for a player's post-retirement activity. This actually helps explain to me why contemporary fans seem to have such short attention spans, being overly hasty to anoint a new GOAT, and tragically quick to forget past legends.
lambielspins
Banned
Finally someone makes a poll on this with pretty much the best valid options, rather then crazy inclusions like Becker or Agassi, and crazy exclusions of anyone born before 1980 or even 1990, LOL!
Who is at least in the discussion of being the G.O.A.T
This list I would call - every player who is at least in the discussion of being the best player of all time 25 in all:
William Renshaw
Lawrence Doherty
Wilding
Tilden
Vines
Perry
Budge
Kramer
Gonzales
Rosewall
Hoad
Laver
Emerson
Newcombe
Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
There is not surely any other player that people would call the greatest of all time - that isn't on the above list? (There may be some that people would highly rate... but no-one that is missing here that they would rate as the best ever?)
Reduced list based on common sense - I produce this based on obvious things like no-one would believe that Emerson rates higher than Laver, or Edberg or Wilander rates higher than Federer.
Tilden
Vines
Budge
Kramer
Gonzales
Rosewall
Hoad
Laver
Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Becker
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
This list I would call - every player who is at least in the discussion of being the best player of all time 25 in all:
William Renshaw
Lawrence Doherty
Wilding
Tilden
Vines
Perry
Budge
Kramer
Gonzales
Rosewall
Hoad
Laver
Emerson
Newcombe
Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
There is not surely any other player that people would call the greatest of all time - that isn't on the above list? (There may be some that people would highly rate... but no-one that is missing here that they would rate as the best ever?)
Reduced list based on common sense - I produce this based on obvious things like no-one would believe that Emerson rates higher than Laver, or Edberg or Wilander rates higher than Federer.
Tilden
Vines
Budge
Kramer
Gonzales
Rosewall
Hoad
Laver
Nastase
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Becker
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Tim,
I don't know how you did it, but you've obviously been sneaking into my hard-drive and copying my Top-25 list.
I don't know how you did it, but you've obviously been sneaking into my hard-drive and copying my Top-25 list.
I would add Vilas.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
If someone like Nastase is included on the list, then I see no justification for excluding R.F. Doherty, Larned, Brookes, Johnston, Borotra, Lacoste, Cochet, Nusslein, Riggs, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, etc., etc. In fact I think several of the players I've named have a legitimate claim to belonging among the top 10 - far more so than, say, Wilander, Becker, or Edberg (Vilas too...). But honestly I believe we can trim the list down much further if we restrict ourselves to serious contenders for the GOAT title. In my opinion the first eight players named in the poll at the top of this thread make a pretty solid "final cut"; a reasonable argument could be made for any of them.
hewittboy
Banned
Edberg and Becker both seem like underachievers in a way. Both faded past their primes in their mid 20s, which seems kind of young to do so. Edberg underachieved early in his career and often at the U.S Open before 91, while Becker people thought would be a double digit slam winner when he burst onto the scene.
Q&M son
Professional
Me too!
Take a look at the votes (you can see users).
Seems people from "Former Players" forums vote Laver, almost everybody.
Greetings.
Lucio.
Q&M son
Professional
jean pierre
Professional
Vilas of course ! He was better than Nastase.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I have Cochet, Lacoste, Sedgman, Riggs, and Trabert on my list. Second and third-10 or thereabouts. I think Sedgman was quite a player and rather underrated.
Nastase is not on my list.
Last edited:
A 5-foot-11, 170-pound left-hander, McEnroe stands as perhaps the most skilled--and controversial--of all players. Brilliant in doubles and singles, he was distinguished by shotmaking artistry, competitive fire and a volatile temper.
is the all-time overall professional leader with 154 tournament victories: a 77-77 singles-doubles split. His is third in singles titles behind Connor's 109 and Lendl's 92, second in doubles behind Tom Okker's 78. His career singles match record is 849-184.
Sampras's record
His singles win-loss record is an impressive 762-222
I can't believe you all don't mention McEnroe when he had more wins than Sampras. This info. from the tennis hall of fame web site. He won more tournaments in singles and doubles together than anybody in the open era!
He could still probably win in doubles if he had a decent partner!
Compare for yourself on www.tennisfame.com
is the all-time overall professional leader with 154 tournament victories: a 77-77 singles-doubles split. His is third in singles titles behind Connor's 109 and Lendl's 92, second in doubles behind Tom Okker's 78. His career singles match record is 849-184.
Sampras's record
His singles win-loss record is an impressive 762-222
I can't believe you all don't mention McEnroe when he had more wins than Sampras. This info. from the tennis hall of fame web site. He won more tournaments in singles and doubles together than anybody in the open era!
He could still probably win in doubles if he had a decent partner!
Compare for yourself on www.tennisfame.com
Nadalbestever
Banned
What a stupid poll. By far the best mens tennis player ever by far is Rafael Nadal. The poll should be about who is the second best mens tennis player ever.
Nadalbestever
Banned
My top 10 mens players of all time would be:
1. Rafael Nadal
2. Henri Cochet
3. Rene Lacoste
4. Jean Borotra
5. Ken Rosewall
6. Tony Trabert
7. Lew Hoad
8. Jim Courier
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Pete Sampras
1. Rafael Nadal
2. Henri Cochet
3. Rene Lacoste
4. Jean Borotra
5. Ken Rosewall
6. Tony Trabert
7. Lew Hoad
8. Jim Courier
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Pete Sampras
prosealster
Professional
^^welcome to the board, you may be right person to fill the huge void left by nadal girl when she left us...
Nadalbestever
Banned
Who is nadal girl?
