Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time (Men)

GameSampras

Banned
Sampras played in a much more competitive era than Laver', and that Laver won his titles only on two different surfaces (clay & grass) while Sampras did it on three (Rebound-Ace, grass & hard). Big difference and a more difficult feat in playing in an era with the most polarized surfaces in history
 

timnz

Legend
Laver era vs Sampras era

Sampras played in a much more competitive era than Laver', and that Laver won his titles only on two different surfaces (clay & grass) while Sampras did it on three (Rebound-Ace, grass & hard). Big difference and a more difficult feat in playing in an era with the most polarized surfaces in history
You make 2 points here. IMO I disagree

1/ Sampras' era was more competitive. Laver had to put up with Gonzales (and I am not just saying the Open era, but also the Pro era earlier in the 60s), Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Ashe, Okker, Stan Smith, Kodes etc. These were really tough guys. Not saying that the 90's weren't tough, but the 60's/early 70's were equally tough if not tougher.

I'd make another point about comparing era's. A lot of us imagine, plonking guys from the 60's against guys now, where the guy from the 60's has to play with a modern racket on a modern court. But why that way around. Why not put current players back in 60's conditions ie fast grass courts, wooden rackets, old type shoes. See how the current players handle that!

2/ Sampras won on 3 surfaces - Rebound Ace, Grass and Hard. Rebound Ace is just another kind of hard court. Laver only winning grass and clay? Please go to the Wikipedia article about him and you will find that he won a lot of important tournaments on hard court eg the Pacific Southwest in Los Angeles in 1968. From 1969 I quote the Wikipedia article on laver:

"Laver proved his versatility by winning the Grand Slam tournaments on grass and clay, plus the two most important hard court titles (South African Open at Ellis Park, Johannesburg and the U.S. Professional Championships at Boston) and the leading indoor tournaments (Philadelphia U.S. Pro Indoor and Wembley British Indoor). "

These guys were tough. Often times they didn't sit down between changeovers (take a look at the youtube video of the 1969 French Open final between Laver and Rosewall to confirm that).
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
2/ Sampras won on 3 surfaces - Rebound Ace, Grass and Hard. Rebound Ace is just another kind of hard court.
Interesting. So this means you think Roddick's clay court titles (har tru), are the same as winning a Roland Garros title, since har tru, is just another type of red clay.

Additionally, Connors US Open win on Har tru is the same as a Roland Garros Title.

Very Interesting.
 

cristiano

New User
Interesting. So this means you think Roddick's clay court titles (har tru), are the same as winning a Roland Garros title, since har tru, is just another type of red clay.

Additionally, Connors US Open win on Har tru is the same as a Roland Garros Title.

Very Interesting.
This answer is not acceptable.

If somene thinks that Rebound ace is a different surface from other kinds of hard courts, it doesn't follow that Roddick's torunament or Connors' are the same than winning Garros.

First, it would follow that Connors has won on different surfaces too (grass, hard, har tru) but NOT that he won on red clay

Second, it would follow that Roddick has won on different surfaces, but not red clay, and not in Major Tournaments.

So, I think you need to put some logic in your answers, or, maybe, need to try not to necessarily say something against Sampras ;)

By the way, in my opinion we're too rigid in this kind of questions. Too schematic. We have different grass courts, clay courts, hard courts, and the similarities and differences aren't always tha same. So, to say that x player has won on y surface is not so important. It's important to say that 'Sampras didn't win Paris', 'Wilander didn't win Wimbledon' 'Agassi wasn't a dominant champions on grass and claycourts' "Roddick is not a good player on red clay", "Laver has won on every surface he played on" and so on.

If we simplify with statistics, sometimes we only assist to a sterile debate between some fans and some anti-fans.

c.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
This answer is not acceptable.

If somene thinks that Rebound ace is a different surface from other kinds of hard courts, it doesn't follow that Roddick's torunament or Connors' are the same than winning Garros.

Uhmmm, yes it does.

If someone thinks rebound ace is the same as deco turf, then by that logic, har-tru is the same as red clay.

The rest of your post is gabage.
 

urban

Legend
The Wim grass of today is by all accounts not the same grass as the Wim of 1998, but its still grass. The Australian grass was different, more drye, but it was still grass. Har-tru was a clay like surface, it was different to the RG clay, as the Hamburg clay is different to the RG clay or the Rome clay. Even the Chatrier Court plays different than the Lenglen court at RG. But they all are clay courts. Rebound ace, Deco turf are all hard courts, if playing a bit different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Uhmmm, yes it does.

If someone thinks rebound ace is the same as deco turf, then by that logic, har-tru is the same as red clay.
I think there is another way to view this issue. It is that all grass courts are in the same category, all hard courts are in the same category, and all clay courts are in the same category--but that within each category there are distinctions.

So one must say that Har-tru is not a hard court (Drak would you say it is?), and Har-tru is not a grass court (Drak would you say it is?), it is somewhat similar to clay (granular, powdery, earth-based) though its color is different and its playing characteristics are different, therefore it falls within the clay category.

One might ask if the Hamburg courts or the courts in Rome or the courts in Monte Carlo play the same as the courts at Roland Garros? In order to answer that completely we probably need a scientific system of measurement (particulate size, molecular composition, tests of machine-fired balls, etc.)

Do the Wimbledon courts play the same as the Stella Artois/Queens Club in Kensington courts. (I've played on grass courts at Cambridge that were rather slow--a vast amount depends on mowing height, grass length, amount of watering, and then rolling afterwards.

Did they use exactly the same composition of grass in the late 60s at Wimbledon, Forest Hills, and at Milton Courts in Brisbane? Was it rolled with exactly the same weight roller, was it mowed to exactly the same height, was it watererd the same amount, etc? (I have no answers here.)

But I imagine that the differences here in grass courts would amount to similar differences between Deco-Turf versus Plexicushion Prestige verus Rebound Ace versus other types of hard courts. (Does asphalt play the same as concrete?)

What about carpet and wood courts? (Weren't some of the old Pro circuit matches on slick polished wood floors?)
 
Last edited:
Jeffrey, thanks so much for posting all those stats for Rosewall - I have his biography "Twenty Years at the Top" but to have all the stats and other info set out, as in your post, adds tremendously to my knowledge base. I've copy/pasted both your post and SgtJohn's to keep with my other notes on Kenny.

His sheer longevity as a player puts him in a class of his own and he is still contributing to tennis in other ways, not the least of which is in connection with the Tennis Museum in Sydney.
Hello Virginia,
you can find some Rosewall info in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rosewall
 
Thank you Carlo - there's also a very useful stats website, that covers many players - I expect you know it?
Thank you Virginia.

More Rosewall's stats made and compiled by AndrewTas in January 2009 : magnificent Andrew's work as usual :

Career Summary

Amateur Period Tournament Win-Loss
1949 2-0 (projected win-loss 5-0)
1950 16-9
1951 28-10
1952 38-16 (projected win-loss 40-16)
1953 70-14
1954 59-14
1955 66-7
1956 97-10 (projected win-loss 98-10)

Amateur Period 376-80 (projected win-loss for period 382-80)

Joe McCauley’s Amateur Win-Loss Record
1950: 15:10 (includes 1-3 from state matches)
1951: 28:10
1952: 38:16
1953: 81:17 (3 losses from international team play)
1954: 63:14
1955: 69:7
1956: 90:9

Professional Years Tournament Win-Loss
1957 13-11 (with pro tours and other matches 85-87)
1958 21-15 (with pro tours and other matches 63-29)
1959 27-15 (with pro tours and other matches 62-32)
1960 30-4 (with pro tours and other matches 62-30)
1961 24-7 (with pro tours and other matches 29-7)
1962 40-5 (with pro tours and other matches 52-7)
1963 30-10 (with pro tours and other matches 89-26)
1964 46-15 (with pro tours and other matches 69-30)
1965 48-26 (with pro tours and other matches 50-30)
1966 56-18 (with pro tours and other matches 60-20)
1967 56-20 (with pro tours and other matches 59-24)

Pro Period 391-146 (with pro tours and matches 680-322)

Open Era Tournament Win-Loss
1968 43-12 (NTL reported 46-13 which may include Gonzales One-night Stands)
1969 54-23
1970 71-21
1971 76-19
1972 63-15
1973 67-17
1974 31-9
1975 49-12 (projected 50-12)
1976 44-18
1977 42-20
1978 20-20
1979 4-5
1980 3-3
1982 2-1 (projected 4-1)

Open Era 569-195 (projected and with NTL 575-196)

Summary
Amateur Period 376-80 (projected win-loss for period 382-80)
Pro Period 391-146 (with pro tours and matches 680-322)
Open Era 569-195 (projected and with NTL 575-196)

Total Career Tournament Win-Loss (not including pro tours)
1336-421 (projected as 1348-420)

Total Career Win-Loss (with pro tours and other pro results)
1625-597 (projected as 1637-598 )


Tournaments Played/ Won
1949 2/ 0
1950 9/ 0
1951 11/ 1
1952 16/ 0
1953 17/ 4
1954 16/ 3
1955 12/ 5
1956 21/ 11 (one final unknown)
1957 7/ 1
1958 13/ 2
1959 13/ 3
1960 10/ 6
1961 8/ 3
1962 15/ 9
1963 13/ 5
1964 26/ 10 (+1 shared)
1965 26/ 6
1966 24/ 9
1967 23/ 7
1968 17/ 5
1969 24/ 3
1970 25/ 6
1971 27/ 8
1972 22/ 7
1973 22/ 5
1974 9/ 0
1975 16/ 5
1976 21/ 4
1977 22/ 2
1978 18/ 0
1979 5/ 0
1980 3/ 0
1982 1/ 0

Singles won 130 (+ 1 shared) of 514 tournaments played
 
Last edited:

Q&M son

Professional
The only way you are the GOAT is to win a slam on all three surfaces....
Grass of Wimby was always different to grass from Aussie Open, same remark with clay of RG vs clay of USO..... it's not so "easy" like you think.

So, before 1978 there's no GOAT available
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Hall of Fame

Ridiculous logic in the article. The author's entire argument swings on the premise that past greats valued different tournaments than today's players and/or were unable to play in certain tournaments, and as a result, looking at the major total is misleading. Fine. That's certainly legitimate. Except...

The author completely minimizes the fact that tennis was nowhere near as competitive back in Laver's era than it is today (not by any stretch of the imagination). It was a country club game and it's much, much harder to rise to the top of the game today than it was back then.

Also, the author foolishly insists on looking at statistics and tries to make it seem as though Sampras's and Federer have "poor" winning percentages. But by the guy's own logic, shouldn't he acknowledge that player's today play in more tournaments (is it Federer's fault that Borg quit) and that players (Sampras especially) just don't care about certain smaller events.

If anything a Masters Series tournament win today should equal a "Slam" back then. Doesn't Federer have like 19 Masters Series Titles & Cups combined? That makes 33 slams.

Just to remind you guys, Raymond Lee is the guy who wrote the ridiculous and poorly argued "statistical analysis" article that TW posters tore apart a couple years back.
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=503656
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Chopin,

At least you're consistent. But you occasionally have to give past players some credit. All he was saying was it's a bit early to call Federer the GOAT yet considering how many greats there have been in tennis and he didn't rule it out. He gave accurate numbers and put them in perspective so why is it ridiculous?

He said Federer and Nadal are potential GOATs. Is that wrong?

All he wrote was wait to the end of his career, then judge it.
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Chopin,

At least you're consistent. But you occasionally have to give past players some credit. All he was saying was it's a bit early to call Federer the GOAT yet and he didn't rule it out. He gave accurate numbers so why is it ridiculous?

He said Federer and Nadal are potential GOATs. Is that wrong?

All the guys said was wait to the end of his career.
I'm fine with everything that you just wrote above. It makes sense. We should wait until Federer is done playing to "place" him in history. It's like the shirt that Federer wore after winning Wimbledon that read, "There is no finish line." I couldn't agree more.

I simply found the author's method of analyzing tennis to be silly.

And I know everyone on these boards thinks I hate the past greats but that simply isn't true. I watched a special on Laver on the tennis channel the other night and they interviewed him and I was struck by what a nice and humble champion he is. I have a lot of respect for him and what he (and others) did for the sport.
 
Latest from ATP website.

Records against top tenners win -loss

Becker 121 65
Sampras 124 71
Borg 67 28
Lendl 119 66
Connors 84 82
Agassi 109 90
Mcenroe 85 64
Edberg 97 114
Wilander 54 54
Rafter 35 49
Kuerten 38 36

Becker maybe is not one of the all time greats but at his peak is surely among the best.
 

The-Champ

Legend
If Borg had won the US Open in either 1978 or 1980, I would have no qualms declaring him as the GOAT as he would have achieved the French Open-Wimbledon-US Open treble on clay, grass and hard respectively.

Borg's son won those titles 2010. Unfortunately he only has 9 majors, he still has a lot to accomplish to be even considered among the elites.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Borg's son won those titles 2010. Unfortunately he only has 9 majors, he still has a lot to accomplish to be even considered among the elites.
Ahhhh. All Borg's tennis-groupie philandering has paid off: he is the sire of Nadal.


I guess that makes Nastase Fed's secret biological poppa. Sneaky devil that Nasty.
 
Lol..yes, Nadal.."son of Borg"..interesting concept. Federer used to remind me a bit of Borg, but now it's Nadal. Speaking of the Iceman, I read on the Wiki page for Borg that he's (1) the only player to have won Wimbledon without losing a set (Open Era I would think) and also (2) the only man to have won 3 majors without losing a set. Borg won the 1976 W title, his first without losing a set, but also won the French Open twice without the loss of a set in both 1976 and 1980. Has any other man won 3 majors without losing a set? Also, note that there are 101 career singles titles listed for Borg on the Wiki page between 1974-1981 (though the ATP site notes 64 "official" titles). His career match winning percentage is #1 all time at 82.7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg_career_statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Lol..yes, Nadal.."son of Borg"..interesting concept. Federer used to remind me a bit of Borg, but now it's Nadal. Speaking of the Iceman, I read on the Wiki page for Borg that he's (1) the only player to have won Wimbledon without losing a set (Open Era I would think) and also (2) the only man to have won 3 majors without losing a set. Borg won the 1976 W title, his first without losing a set, but also won the French Open twice without the loss of a set in both 1976 and 1980. Has any other man won 3 majors without losing a set? Also, note that there are 101 career singles titles listed for Borg on the Wiki page between 1974-1981 (though the ATP site notes 64 "official" titles). His career match winning percentage is #1 all time at 82.7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg_career_statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Björn_Borg
Mac was still better his prime, IMO.
 
Mac was still better his prime, IMO.
You mean 1983-1984 or so? Head to head or overall? McEnroe was a tough matchup for Borg, but it created sizzling tennis. For example, I don't think McEnroe won a match during 1981 against EITHER Connors or Lendl in 1981, yet Borg was doing well against both Connors and Lendl (though Lendl did win a match against Borg in 1980 I believe, Borg beat him at the Masters and the FO final). Borg went 5-0 indoors on fast carpet for example in Jan. 80 & Jan. 81 Masters tourneys in NY against McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl.

I don't know, it's tricky. You had McEnroe playing well definitely in those years, but he was also utilizing that Maxply200G to full effect. We never saw Borg wield the same firepower. McEnroe's win at the 1981 US Open was the last major won with a small faced wooden frame I believe. Anyway, let's look at Borg and McEnroe in their prime years. Borg wins on clay. He was also very tough on carpet (beat McEnroe at MSG Masters in Jan. 1981 indoors in NY). On grass courts, it would be quite close (much like the 80-81 matches). On hard courts, I'd give McEnroe the edge (though Borg could be very tough on hard courts too as evidenced by his straight set win in the 81 US Open SF). So, who's "better" if you look at it that way? Prime vs. prime you have what is to be expected when all time greats collide, they tend to split matches. Anyway, Borg gets the nod in my book against even prime McEnroe and he ranks higher as an all-time great in my book. Borg was, I submit, better against the field than McEnroe which is a big reason I would rate him over McEnroe (putting their 7-7 H2H on fast surfaces only aside). You may have the complete opposite opinions, which you are certainly entitled to.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
This guy has BORG ahead of MAC!!!! I thought MAC was the reason Borg retired?? MAC was better than Borg.
7-7 head to head.Borg won 14 majors ( GS+WCT+Masters), Mc 17 , although in terms of GS titles, Borg won 11 to Mac´s 7.In doubles, it is completely another story...
 

kiki

Banned
PRE OPEN TENNIS
1-.Gonzales
2-.Tilden
3-.Budge
4-.Perry
5-.Kramer
6-.Hoad
7-.Lacoste
8-.Cochet
9-.Crawford
10-.Trabert

OPEN TENNIS
1-.Laver
2-.Federer/Sampras
4-.Borg
5-.Connors
6-.Lendl/Rosewall
8-.Mc Enroe/Agassi/Nadal
 

kiki

Banned
PRE OPEN TENNIS
1-.Gonzales
2-.Tilden
3-.Budge
4-.Perry
5-.Kramer
6-.Hoad
7-.Lacoste
8-.Cochet
9-.Crawford
10-.Trabert

OPEN TENNIS
1-.Laver
2-.Federer/Sampras
4-.Borg
5-.Connors
6-.Lendl/Rosewall
8-.Mc Enroe/Agassi/Nadal
PRE OPEN ERA (Following)
11-.Emerson
12-.Brookes
13-.Borotra
14-.Vines
15-.Parker/Riggs
17-.Doherty
18-.Wilding
19-.Von Cramm
20-.Seixas/Santana

OPEN ERA
11-.Wilander/Newcombe/Becker/Edberg
15-.Nastase
16-.Vilas
17-.Djokovic
18-.Ashe
19-.Rafter
20-.Kodes/Courier/Smith
 

kiki

Banned
PRE OPEN ERA (Following)
11-.Emerson
12-.Brookes
13-.Borotra
14-.Vines
15-.Parker/Riggs
17-.Doherty
18-.Wilding
19-.Von Cramm
20-.Seixas/Santana

OPEN ERA
11-.Wilander/Newcombe/Becker/Edberg
15-.Nastase
16-.Vilas
17-.Djokovic
18-.Ashe
19-.Rafter
20-.Kodes/Courier/Smith
PRE OPEN WOMEN´S
1-.Wills/Court
3-.Lenglen/Connolly
5-.Bueno
6-.Lambert Chambers
7-.Gibson/Marble/Fry
10-.Hard

OPEN ERA

1-.Navratilova
2-.Graf
3-.Evert
4-.Williams S
5-.King
6-.Seles
7-.Henin/Hingis/Venus
10-.Sharapova
11-.Goolagong/Mandlikova/Sanchez/Clijsters/Davenport
16-.Austin/Capriati
18-.Sabatini
19-.Kuznetsova
20-.Wade
 

kiki

Banned
FINAL ACT. Here is my legacy

TOP 20 DOUBLES TEAMS

1-.Newcombe/Roche
2-.Hewitt/Mc Millan
3-.Fleming/Mc Enroe
4-.Hoad/Rosewall
5-.Brugnon/Cochet
6-.The Woodies
7-.Bromwich/Quist
8-.Emmo/Stolle
9-.Brookes/Wilding
10-.Borotra/Lacoste
11-.Sedgman/Mc Gregor
12-.Gonzales/Schroeder
13-.Lutz/Smith
14-.Okker/Riessen
15-.Bryant tweens
16-.Mc Namara/Mc Namee
17-.Edberg ( or Fitzgerald)/Jarryd
18-.Mulloy/Talbert
19-.Fraser/Cooper
20-.Gottfried/Ramirez and Alexander/Dent
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
PRE OPEN TENNIS
1-.Gonzales
2-.Tilden
3-.Budge
4-.Perry
5-.Kramer
6-.Hoad
7-.Lacoste
8-.Cochet
9-.Crawford
10-.Trabert

OPEN TENNIS
1-.Laver
2-.Federer/Sampras
4-.Borg
5-.Connors
6-.Lendl/Rosewall
8-.Mc Enroe/Agassi/Nadal

PRE OPEN ERA (Following)
11-.Emerson
12-.Brookes
13-.Borotra
14-.Vines
15-.Parker/Riggs
17-.Doherty
18-.Wilding
19-.Von Cramm
20-.Seixas/Santana

OPEN ERA
11-.Wilander/Newcombe/Becker/Edberg
15-.Nastase
16-.Vilas
17-.Djokovic
18-.Ashe
19-.Rafter
20-.Kodes/Courier/Smith
Kiki,

I'm not going to question any of your rankings but I am curious why you put Laver in the Open Era instead of the Pre Open Era. Either one is fine but many might argue Laver's best years and where he won the majority of his tournaments were prior to 1968 which was the Pre Open Era.
 

kiki

Banned
FINAL ACT. Here is my legacy

TOP 20 DOUBLES TEAMS

1-.Newcombe/Roche
2-.Hewitt/Mc Millan
3-.Fleming/Mc Enroe
4-.Hoad/Rosewall
5-.Brugnon/Cochet
6-.The Woodies
7-.Bromwich/Quist
8-.Emmo/Stolle
9-.Brookes/Wilding
10-.Borotra/Lacoste
11-.Sedgman/Mc Gregor
12-.Gonzales/Schroeder
13-.Lutz/Smith
14-.Okker/Riessen
15-.Bryant tweens
16-.Mc Namara/Mc Namee
17-.Edberg ( or Fitzgerald)/Jarryd
18-.Mulloy/Talbert
19-.Fraser/Cooper
20-.Gottfried/Ramirez and Alexander/Dent
TOP 10 WOMEN´S DOUBLES (OPEN ERA)
1-.Navratilova/Shriver
2-.Casals/King
3-.Ruano/Suarez
4-.Jordan/Smith
5-.Stove/Turnbull
6-.Davenport/Raymond
7-.Court/Melville
8-.Graf/Sabatini
9-.Hingis/Kournikova
10-.Serena/Venus and Khode/Sukova
 

kiki

Banned
Kiki,

I'm not going to question any of your rankings but I am curious why you put Laver in the Open Era instead of the Pre Open Era. Either one is fine but many might argue Laver's best years and where he won the majority of his tournaments were prior to 1968 which was the Pre Open Era.
Yes, it is a tough decision, same for Rosewall.Since both can be included in the pre and open era, I think their role as the foundation of pro tennis made me put them in the open era - even tough they probably played their best tennis just before the open era-.

Just think, if both ranked so high in the open era...and played their best tennis in the pre open era, it is not fool to consider them as the absolute GOAT
 

kiki

Banned
Kiki,

I'm not going to question any of your rankings but I am curious why you put Laver in the Open Era instead of the Pre Open Era. Either one is fine but many might argue Laver's best years and where he won the majority of his tournaments were prior to 1968 which was the Pre Open Era.
question whatever you feel like.After all, this is what it is about no?

But I´m pretty sure that your opinion will be very similar to mine ( maybe 4-5 different positions?):)
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
world rankings 1970 and 1971

I did a point system based around the ATP ranking system of the current decade

Real slams = 200
super nines =100
ordinary events = 60,50, 40, 35 etc

ratio of points 100 =win ; 70 = ru ; 45=sf ; 25=qf; 15=L16

In 1970 there were only 2 realslams; aussie open and french reduced to 100.
Also there were 11 super nines. However with total free choice no player entered more than 9 ;and only okker managed that.

Its an 18 event season (4 slams+ 9 supernines + 5 best others+ bonus of masters for 6 players)

1970 ranking

1. Laver 1095
2. Rosewall 865
3. Newcombe about 700

Laver easily wins with his 15 tourament victories (some of which are not counted because of the 5 best others restrictions). 6 of these were super 9
equivlents (philadelphia, syndey dunlop open( best of 5 set event with a much better field than the aussie open), psw, london wembley, South african open (big prestige event in thelate 60s like ilalian and german open), and the champions tennis classic (the big contract pro event like the WCT finals in latter years - laver earned 70,000 dollars and rosewall 45.000 from easily the biggest prize money event in 1970). laver's wins were all quality events. He had a 5-0 edge over rosewall and 3-0 edge over necombe and beat every player in the top 10 at least twice.


rosewall only won 6 events and none of his victories was a super nine; the most ponts rosewall earned outside the slams was 70 for being runner-up at sydney and champions tennis classic. he had a 5-1 edge on newcombe.


For 1971 there were only 6 super nines available. So there were 8 additional events counted to make up the 18. because some of these super 9 clashed with contractual obligation; the davis cup was a a replacement event for itf players like smith and nastase (eg neither nastase or kodes could play washington because of davis cup matches) and the champions tennis classic for wct players (neither laver or okker could play richmond because of classic tennis matches.). There were 5 slams for this year but only wimbledon deserved the full 200 points; aussie 150, italian 150, french 125, us open 150)
no itf players played the aussie open and hardley any top wct players played the french; therefore each group had only 4 majors to play.

1971 rankings
Laver 938
rosewall 818
ashe and smith 790
newcombe 750
nastase 725

Laver won farly easily because all his wins were in strong fields. A fact represented by the fact that he won far more matches over top players (the top 17 repesenting the top 10 of the wct and the top 7 of the itf - in all the top 10 rankings for 1971 that i have seen the WCt had 7 players and the itf only 3 confirming that the WCT circuit was the stronger one). The ratio of points for topwins was as follows
Laver 86; rosewall 57; newcombe 55; nastase 42; smith 32; ashe 30.

Nastase won 9 events and laver 7 but as you can see from the above ratios , alot of nastase's wins were from weak fields.

A different approach was to treat all events outside the majors as the same ie abandon the super 9 approach. You got extra points not for notional quality of the field, but for actually beating a top player.
The results were basically the same except nastase did better and ashe worse based on actually beating a good player.

1971 rankings were
laver 1010
rosewall 890
nastase 880
smith
newcombe
ashe

Laver's edge over rosewalll is the same under both systems.

jeffrey
Bumped.

"1970 ranking

1. Laver 1095
2. Rosewall 865
3. Newcombe about 700"

"1971 rankings
Laver 938
rosewall 818
ashe and smith 790
newcombe 750
nastase 725"

or "1971 rankings were
laver 1010
rosewall 890
nastase 880
smith
newcombe
ashe"
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
1971 rankings carlo methodology

here are the 1971 rankings using carlo's favoured approach

Laver 1010
rosewall 954
smith 940
newcombe 858
ashe 735
nastase 723

Not suprisingly Smith (carlo's choice for no1) benefits most from this approach, he led Newcomne by only 30 points on the standard methodology but his lead is now 80 points. Thus systems rewards wins and ru at majors and deflates ru and sf at ordinary events.


AS to your 50% ratios derived from the assumption that you have a 50% chance of winning, I don't approve. My preferred weighting is
1,2.4.7,10 compared to yours of 1,2,4,8,16. My system is nearly the the same as yours up to the final, but changes enormously for the final. losers in the early rounds are receiving the 50% ratio in both systems.


First of all winning tennis matches in succession is not the same as tossing 5 heads in a row. Players who lose in the second round have a 50% win ratio. Players who reach finals regularly like laver have a 90-95% winning chance in until about the sf.

Cumulative wins are not important; i treat each match and tournament as separate event and points are additive; the points you've already got are irrelevant. Following your logic thru a players winning successive events would recive an enormous number of points. For example one player at the start of the season has a record at 5 events as follows w,1st round, w, 1st round, w. That would lead to 48 points under your system

another player later in the season has arecord of w, w, w, 1st ,1st. He wins the same amount of matches but following the logic of unbearen cumulative wins he would carry thru to each tournament his previous points and would end up with about 32000 points. Totally riduclous. Just as tournaments are separate additive distinct events so are indvidual matches.


About your 4 tatio for slams against super 9s, nobody i have ever read has suggested this in the last 50 years. I presume given your readership of french tennis magazines that you got the idea from them. I have no time for atp rankings and their weights which are used shamlessly to promote their own events at the expense of other active promoters. However the ITf have been active in weights as well and the slams are their own events. The first weights ever were the grand prix weights of 1970 and that was openly set up as an itf event to crush wct. Their initial weight was 15:11 and the weights up to 2000 reflected that from everybody not just the atp. since 2000 a weighting system of 2:1: 0.5 has been used with the ITF approval (the itf got this weight in exchange for ditching the grand slam cup.)

rRemember a strong WCT event like philadelpnia in 1971 is on a 4:1 ratio with wimbledon. A weak event like Istanbul in 1971 is on 25 points a ratio of 8:1. Your sort of ratios do exist in the system but for standard events not really strong fields like washington and wembley which actually had stronger fields than the us open in 1971.


As to henman He is not forgotten. I cetainly regard him as better remenbered than either costa, gaudio and johanssen. Its your world ranking history that counts and henman's is beter. Nastase is better remembered (putting aside his gamenanship) for his world ranking; he was no2 in 1972 and no1 in 1973 and in the top ten from 1970-77. Okkerhad run of 1968-74 in the top ten; not much different, but his best was only no4 in '68 and '69. Okker's worst surface was grass and that surface was very important 68-74 for slams. Kodes did beter in the slams than nastase and okker with 3 wins and 2 ru, but his world ranking record is no where near as good as the others. Nastase is a lot better remembered and okker was abetter player than kodes.

jeffrey
Bumped again.

"here are the 1971 rankings using carlo's favoured approach

Laver 1010
rosewall 954
smith 940
newcombe 858
ashe 735
nastase 723"
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
How about now?
Interesting reading from this article Top 10 Greatest Male Tennis Players of All Time

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Rod Laver
4. Pete Sampras
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Ivan Lendl
8. Jimmy Connors
9. John McEnroe
10. Andre Agassi, Ken Rosewall

My opinion, I think what Federer has accomplished in 2017 and 2018 firmly convinced me that he's the #1 on the list of all time greatest tennis player. Nadal was phenomenal himself and I believe he's in contention with Laver at #2. I have no problem in switching position between these two players. Borg/Djokovic could be swap position and I've heard many fans in here still have Borg > Djokovic. I also think Lendl and Connors and very close and have no problem for either one being above one another.
 
C

Cenarius

Guest
Interesting reading from this article Top 10 Greatest Male Tennis Players of All Time

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal
3. Rod Laver
4. Pete Sampras
5. Novak Djokovic
6. Bjorn Borg
7. Ivan Lendl
8. Jimmy Connors
9. John McEnroe
10. Andre Agassi, Ken Rosewall

My opinion, I think what Federer has accomplished in 2017 and 2018 firmly convinced me that he's the #1 on the list of all time greatest tennis player. Nadal was phenomenal himself and I believe he's in contention with Laver at #2. I have no problem in switching position between these two players. Borg/Djokovic could be swap position and I've heard many fans in here still have Borg > Djokovic. I also think Lendl and Connors and very close and have no problem for either one being above one another.
In your opinion what Djokovic need to accomplish to overtake Sampras?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Had to laugh at his 2 and 3....really a sad list with his top 2 and 3 as Tilden and Budge.

People should NOT formulate a list like this unless they have seen EVERY player play on their list. Its a joke and tiring to see this garbage on the boards.

Who am I to rate how good Laver was...NEVER SAW THE GUY PLAY. Was he good/great...of course. The only thing I can say for certain is he has won quite a few majors and a 2 time GS winner. But to rate him over Mcenroe or Lendl?? How? I saw Mac and Lendl play many matches and have no problems with rating players from the 80's, 90's and 00's. This list is a joke and I am finding the OP posts to have the same credibility.
You should judge a player by his career achievements, not his game style or whether you have ever seen him play. WINNING is what counts, not how you win, as long as it is fair.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Kiki,

I'm not going to question any of your rankings but I am curious why you put Laver in the Open Era instead of the Pre Open Era. Either one is fine but many might argue Laver's best years and where he won the majority of his tournaments were prior to 1968 which was the Pre Open Era.
Same with Rosewall in the pre open era. He certainly is a top 5 there. I would rank him #2, Gonzalez #1, Laver #3. I do not rank players pre 1950, as they are of a completely different era.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Same with Rosewall in the pre open era. He certainly is a top 5 there. I would rank him #2, Gonzalez #1, Laver #3. I do not rank players pre 1950, as they are of a completely different era.
How come you rank Gonzalez over Rosewall now? Used to be the other way round IIRC.
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Federer and Laver are the only ones with an argument to being the greatest.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
How come you rank Gonzalez over Rosewall now? Used to be the other way round IIRC.
I thought that Rosewall had won more major or important tournaments, and still do, but the vast difference in their H-H gives Pancho the edge. They probably played more than any two great players ever but even when he lost though, Ken usually gave Pancho a tough match. Sometimes, one has to accept facts, like them or not.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
The Wim grass of today is by all accounts not the same grass as the Wim of 1998, but its still grass. The Australian grass was different, more drye, but it was still grass. Har-tru was a clay like surface, it was different to the RG clay, as the Hamburg clay is different to the RG clay or the Rome clay. Even the Chatrier Court plays different than the Lenglen court at RG. But they all are clay courts. Rebound ace, Deco turf are all hard courts, if playing a bit different.
Yes.


Each plays somewhat differently, but there are these three big categories: 1) hard court (including concrete, cement, rebound ace, deco turf), 2) clay (including green, red, blue, or orange), and 3) grass (including old, new, dry, mushy, 8mm rye, blend of chewings fescue, strong and slender creeping red fescue, and browntop)

Is there another category? Maybe carpet. (Could it or has it been considered another sub-category within hard court, or has it always been an entirely separate category?)
 
Last edited:
Top