Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Flash O'Groove, Mar 5, 2013.
No, altough I hope Djokovic reconsiders his sport priorities and starts playing for the team he supports....I'd take the Nadal at goal
No, I would not be satisfied There are so many flaws in their list.
Flaws is not the right word, but agree/disagree is the right word. At least the list are from an unbiased source(the tennis channel), unlike on this forum you can't take any list seriously due to the love for Laver, Rosewall, Kodes, etc....
Can I see the original list? I don't think that the tennis channel is a more unbiased source than any other one.
Visit this thread
I separated the male and female players.
These experts are unbiased and we should appreciate for their time/effort. Anonymous posters on the public tennis forum are in no position to criticize them.
Ah okay, good from you to remind me my university days: "Remember Flash, always trust self-proclaimed experts and never use your critical sense: it's the way knowledge is obtained."
I see I strongly underrated the amateur slams. These are truly as worthy as the open era slams, far superior to the pro slams.
TMF You know I am the only one pro Kodes here...not even old timers, as you call em are pro Kodes
Laver has certainly admirers but also many belittlers
I don't know many Laver belittlers. Almost everyone rates him as number 1 or 2 as far as I've seen. Rightfully so.
Mighty Federer, You forgot a certain TMF...
Mighty Federer, Are we living in a dictatorship?? Everbody can criticize anybody.
People who rank Pancho Gonzalez at place 22 are NOT experts!
NatF, I agree.
I was hoping I'd get my first, "I agree" from you. Incidently I rate Rosewall up there too. That he won matches in 5 decades (?) is quite astonding. His longevity to me seems like one of his strongest qualities.
NatF, I'm glad I was able to give you some joy.
It's fine you rank Rosewall very high.
Yes, Muscles reached his first SF at the tender age of 14 years and 5 months (not in a junior event!) and his last final as a grandpa of 47 years (1949; 1982)
Henri Cochet and René Lacoste probably in 2nd tier in terms of big achievements (slams). Just like Tilden, way too early for me to seriously consider them against the ultimate tennis contenders, but they are probably 2nd tier.
Finally! I found some Lew Hoad videos, dude's tough to find.
Definitely not IMO. Kuerten has more slams (IMO there is a big difference between 3 and 2 slams in a sense in that there seems to be alot of players with either 1 or 2 slams, and it is big to penetrate that), many more Masters, has also won a WTF, has also ended a year #1. Hewitt has one extra WTF and one extra year end #1 but IMO still not enough. It is probably true that Hewitt is better and achieved more than Kuerten did on all surfaces except clay, but Kuerten's clay court career alone is probably worth more than Hewitt's whole career, let alone adding Kuerten's Masters successes and WTF title on hard courts/indoors as well.
It is just like if Nadal reached 18 slams, Federer would still probably be better on all surfaces except clay, but Nadal would be considered the better player then.
On slam results, Hewitt has two slam finals and several SF that Kuerten doesn't have. The difference between them is not as great as you say in slam, imho. But Kuerten make the difference with his masters 1000. Hewitt's performance in master 1000 is a shame regarding his overall level (only two titles)!
How big are these tiers?
I have Kuerten ahead of Hewitt, but neither are in my second tier (10). (Hewitt is in the fifth tier and Kuerten is in the fourth tier.)
My second tier--
In the original post I mentioned them because I didn't included pre Open era second tier players (for lack of knowledge).
Okay, now I get it. Thanks for the explanation.
You rate Lendl, Connors and McEnroe very low. Lendl and Connors are considered by many as top tier players (my self among them), and McEnroe by some. N°20 behind Emerson is hard!
Some of your second tier are really first tier, and I don't see how you got these.
Certainly Vines, Hoad, Kramer, McEnroe could be first tier.
Try these for first tier:
Short-listed are a second ten: Kramer, McEnroe, Newcombe, Trabert, Ashe, Lacoste, Tilden, Williams, Emerson, Connors, Perry.
Riggs lost his place after getting whipped by von Cramm at Queens Club, Cochet played below Lacoste, Lendl failed at the big W.
Of course we the right to judge say/judge any experts we want to on this board. You can criticize Steve Flink for all I care. All I'm saying is you and kiki are in no position to critcize them due to their greater knowledge/experience.
Ranking Emerson ahead of Lendl and Rosewall isn't a display of knowledge. I find it more shocking than ranking Fed fourth or fifth of all time.
Ranking Emerson ahead of Lendl, Rosewall, Gonzales, and many of the others he was ranked above already makes it clear some clowns were part of the choices. Probably the Jensen brothers, John Werthless, and Mark Petchey were amongst the voters. Maybe they compiled it during the U.S Open, so invited the MTV crew to cast their votes too, lol!
What did Lendl achieve at the big W?
This is the big test.
Lendl is underrated on this forum. If you're going to slight Lendl for not winning Wimbledon, the same you have to do for Rosewall.
Rosewall appeared in five Wimbledon finals, and only the 1956 and 1967 finals were close to his prime years. He had to face Hoad and Laver in those finals, a hopeless task.
Rosewall would certainly have won a Wimbledon or two in the early sixties, had he been allowed to compete against an open field there.
In 1962 he won at Kooyong in the final against Hoad, and in 1963 won the final at Forest Hills against Laver., so obviously he was the best grass player in these years. (His only setback being at Kooyong against Laver in 1963.)
Lendl was never barred from Wimbledon, and what else did he win on grass?
I think you made a mistake in your list when you ranked Gonzales and Rosewall ahead of Hewitt, Cash, Krajicek and Ivanisevic, if winning Wimbledon is the sole criterion.
Where is an official peak play list?
Where should 72-73 Nastase rank?
Which is peak year?
Hoad 59 Laver 67 Borg 79 Sampras 93 Mac 84 Becker 89 or Wilander 88?
We need a peak year ranking for the best players and then compare
So Nadal is not even top 30 all time and Hoad is #1, Sedgman is #8, and Trabert and Ashe top 15? Intriguing to say the least.
He probably forgot? No way could Nadal not be ATLEAST be top 15. Obviously to many of us he'd be top 10...
hoodjem, I cannot understand that you rank Emerson ahead of McEnroe. Emmo was never a top three player while McEnroe was No.1 for several years and a genius on court.
Dan, Sedgman ahead of Borg and Budge ahead of Tilden are clueless. Riggs' loss to von Cramm at the Queensclub does not disqualify for a high ranking.
M.Federer, The scandalous ranking of the Tennis Channel "experts" proves that quantity of watching matches does not automatically mean quality of expertise!
Vines top ten and his record twin NOT INCLUDED
If you don' t want Kodes in the second tier then remove Vines as well
Flash, What is shocking in ranking Federer at fourth place?
Dan, Lendl achieved much more than Emerson: 8 majors in open era!
M.Federer: As so often you are again wrong: Rosewall missed 11 (or 13 if we include 1972 and 1973) years at W. while Lendl played there every year.
But Rosewall was able to win on other surfaces. There's no excuse not to win Wimbledon, the same with Lendl who won everything except Wimbledon. You will have to accept that Wimbledon is not their best surface.
Bobby, you have the right to disagree.
M.Federer: Wimbledon is NOT a surface. Rosewall was great on the grass surface. Your GOD would have won 0 (Zero) Wimbledon wins if he was not allowed to participate as Rosewall was...
Thanks, TMF. But fortunately I'm not the only poster to disagree with Tennis Channel.
I have to disagree, because Roger did win Wimbledon(twice) during his past prime year.
And I don't expect ANY expert that can come up with top 100 list which everyone can agree on. THere will always be a disagreement.
M.Federer, I must disagree: Federer won Wimbledon at the age from 22 to 31 when Rosewall missed W. Winning at 31 is easier than at 33 when Rosewall came back to W...
The Tennis Channel case is not of a simple question of agreement or disagreement. It's a case of obviously wrong decisions. Their rankings are partly as stupid as ranking Seppi ahead of Federer. In that case you would react angry. But they ranked Federer first. Therefore the list is okay for you and you don't care about Rosewall's, Gonzalez's and Tilden's wrong places.
How far past his prime was Rosewall at 33?
NatF, about 4 years.
Federer was 4-5 years from his peak and 2'ish years past his prime by my reckoning at this years Wimbledon. Not sure how you define peak and prime in general.
Separate names with a comma.