chaognosis,
I do believe that accomplishments are the best guide we have but, there are always exceptions that need to be made and explanations that need to be given. That’s why I said “ comparing and debating accomplishments”.
No, that isn’t a valid comparison and really the two don't sound anything alike. The Grand Slam is acknowledged as the supreme achievement in our sport and it can’t be compared to the total number of majors won, no-matter how many there are of the latter. All you can do is compare Grand Slam(s) to Grand Slam(s) and total number of majors won to total number of majors won. Then, when you do that you can wheel out the exceptions and make your case for one player over another, one set of circumstances over another. So, you make your case for Budge and his one Grand Slam over Laver and his two Grand Slams. Then, I’ll make my case for Rosewall and his 8 majors over Sampras and his 14. As you said, achievements/accomplishments have to be weighed in context BUT that really isn’t very hard to do and it helps us to eliminate the pointless ‘my player would beat your player’ back and forth that dominates almost all of these discussions.
In all honesty, I’m not 100% sure that Budge would have won another Grand Slam. Of course he was capable of doing it but, in my opinion, he would have to have done it almost two years on the trot. Personally, I don’t believe that he had the versatility of Laver and, rather than be an earlier rendition of Federer, was more along the lines of a Boris Becker (another redhead) – tremendous power but not a lot of flexibility.
No, I reject the notion that one Grand Slam is of higher quality than the next. While you might be able to say that Laver’s 69 win was more validating than his 62 effort, you’re asking for trouble if you attempt to rank any of them. I could very easily say that in 38 Budge managed to win the Slam because, unlike Perry and Crawford, he didn’t have any genuinely significant opposition (those two players having left the scene). I could also say, with quite some justification that Roy Emerson in 62 was significantly tougher opposition than Gene Mako, Bunny Austin (32 at the time), Roderik Menzel (31) or a 20 year old John Bromwich. However, that would do a disservice to Budge’s achievement.
I don’t think that Laver’s struggles against Rosewall and Budge’s success against Perry and Vines are an indication of Budge’s superiority. On the contrary, they’re a direct indication of Rosewall’s greatness compared to Perry and Vines, as well as a reflection on Perry’s age (30) and Vines fall from his best (very well documented). Regardless, in the 39 season Budge beat Vines 21 times to 18 and Perry 18 to 11. Neither one constitutes a genuine superiority.
McEnroe was a super talent, no doubt about that. However, I believe his record is inferior to Rosewall’s, although I consider it far better than Kramer’s. I can accept McEnroe rated so highly if you’re basing your judgement on pure skill but, if that is the case, then I don’t see how you could omit Lew Hoad.
Speaking as someone who, working within academia, has to deal on a daily basis with the revisionist approach to history, I’m very wary of most ‘experts’. Certainly there are a few who command respect but most are merely intent on giving the public what they think they want and, unfortunately, that usually means an unhealthy bias towards players from one country.
Fred Perry did not lose his prime years due to the ban on professionals playing the major tournaments. Ken Rosewall, did (Fred Perry turned pro at age 29, Ken Rosewall at age 22). For that matter, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, Tilden
If you mean, when you say, “ Rosewall could well have won a few in the early 1960s” that had he not turned pro he would have won a few Wimbledons then I would agree but, ‘a few’ is an understatement. Give him back those 12 years and I’m certain he would have won at least 4 Wimbledons on top of the numerous wins he would have had in French, Australian and US Opens. Wimbledon grass was his weakest surface but he still managed to make 2 finals before and one considerably past his prime. How much does it say about any player that they are able to excel on their weakest surface?
I do believe the tournament format is of use and would happily tender Rosewall’s 6 Wembley wins and 3 RU (Wembley being the ‘unofficial’ World Championship), 2 US Pro and 1 RU (not sure how often he played that event) and 8 French Pro Championships (2 over Hoad, 1 over Gonzales). That, combined with his record at the majors, displays a mastery of all surfaces – grass, clay (he and Borg would have to be the most impressive clay-courters of all time), indoors, hard courts, you name it- that exceeds any player in the game’s history. You mentioned Tilden but, unfortunately, his clay-court record is diminished due to the French not becoming an ‘open’ event until 1925. Of your top 10, the only players who come remotely close to, but are still behind, Rosewall’s record on all surfaces would be Budge, Rod Laver, Bill Tilden, Bjorn Borg and Fred Perry. Certainly, Sampras and Kramer aren’t in the same league, McEnroe and Gonzales are a long way off and Federer is making ground but will need to win the French before his career is through.
