There is no need to be captured. Personal opinions remain personal opinions with all sympathies and antipathies.The best way is to hear the testimony of their opponents as to how great their games were.
That is something which is not captured by numbers.
I want to hear personal experience, not opinion.There is no need to be captured. Personal opinions remain personal opinions with all sympathies and antipathies.
Exactly my point...Hahaha, relax man....it just cannot be measured.....just a question of taste
Expressing the personal experience is nothing else but an opinion. Ferrer said that during his career his toughest opponent was Rafa. He had a lot of losses again Djok and Fed but he feels that Rafa was tougher. Just he felt so. That is fully personal and fully irrelevant to the assessment of the players' careers.I want to hear personal experience, not opinion.
Some personal opinions are worth hearing, if the person has traded strokes with one of the greats. Ferrer's remark is worth more than an armchair evaluation.Expressing the personal experience is nothing else but an opinion. Ferrer said that during his career his toughest opponent was Rafa. He had a lot of losses again Djok and Fed but he feels that Rafa was tougher. Just he felt so. That is fully personal and fully irrelevant to the assessment of the players' careers.
Can you confirm that based on Ferrer's statement Rafa is the better player than Federer for you?Some personal opinions are worth hearing, if the person has traded strokes with one of the greats. Ferrer's remark is worth more than an armchair evaluation.
I have no opinion as to who is the greatest, I leave it up to the peer evaluation...I never traded strokes with Nadal or Hoad.Can you confirm that based on Ferrer's statement Rafa is the better player than Federer for you?
Oh, you definitely have an opinion when citing and agreeing on Evans' listing. You have also cited and supported many other lists by other players during the years.I have no opinion as to who is the greatest, I leave it up to the peer evaluation...I never traded strokes with Nadal or Hoad.
I think that most of his peers rate Fed number one. Maybe Nadal was tougher on clay.
Those are opinions of the players themselves, not mine.Oh, you definitely have an opinion when citing and agreeing on Evans' listing. You have also cited and supported many other lists by other players during the years.
And you agreed on them. This is an opinion.Those are opinions of the players themselves, not mine.
I agree that only the peer players have an opinion that is worth considering.And you agreed on them. This is an opinion.
And a third, the player who achieved the highest level of tennis play, has the best peer reviews.Greatest player versus Best player.!?
One has the most achievements. The other has the best statistics.
The greatest players have the greatest career achievements over a period of at least ten years.And a third, the player who achieved the highest level of tennis play, has the best peer reviews.
That is your own definition. Many of the greats had less than a ten year period of great tennis, such as Borg, McEnroe, Budge, Vines, Kramer, Ashe, Connors, Edberg, Becker.The greatest players have the greatest career achievements over a period of at least ten years.
Well, I would agree that someone like Borg, who may not have played for ten years is an ATG player. I am pretty sure that Connors played for more than ten years, as did Becker, McEnroe and Edberg. I was thinking whole career, not just slam winning years.That is your own definition. Many of the greats had less than a ten year period of great tennis, such as Borg, McEnroe, Budge, Vines, Kramer, Ashe, Connors, Edberg, Becker.
No, Connors won all his majors between 1974 and 1983. That is nine years.Well, I would agree that someone like Borg, who may not have played for ten years is an ATG player. I am pretty sure that Connors played for more than ten years, as did Becker, McEnroe and Edberg. I was thinking whole career, not just slam winning years.
Again, I was talking about whole career, not just slam winning years. Rosewall won his first in 53, if one counts amateur slams, his last in 72. I know many disregard his 72 AO, but he did win the 71 AO which was highly competitive, without losing a set.No, Connors won all his majors between 1974 and 1983. That is nine years.
Becker about eleven years, McEnroe about six years, Edberg about seven years.
The point is, Rosewall only won world championship titles in two years, 1963 and 1964, and that was after his principal rivals were past prime and Laver was not quite at his prime. Laver has some claim to 1964, despite Rosewall being the official No. 1. Laver led the money list for that year, and was 17-7 against Rosewall, and Laver won the two biggest tournaments at Longwood and Wembley.Again, I was talking about whole career, not just slam winning years. Rosewall won his first in 53, if one counts amateur slams, his last in 72. I know many disregard his 72 AO, but he did win the 71 AO which was highly competitive, without losing a set.