Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time (Men)

Not sure why Emmo is not anyones list. If you are saying tennis player rather than singles player I could understand, but still not agree with the omission. If you are talking tennis players here you have to include him. 28 grand slam titles gets you in the discussion. BTW he is the only male player to have won all grand slam titles in both singles and doubles.

JN
Please explain there's "no way" Laver could beat Sampras and Federer in their primes??
I think both Laver and Hoad using the modern equipment would beat them, TW
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
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.
According to your criterion h2h then Kramer should be above Gonzalez because their h2h difference is also vast. Do you realize that this negative h2h is objectively due to the difference in the age and the first years as a pro? And this is valid for everybody, not only for Gonzalez and Rosewall.
For instance Rod has a negative balance to Candy, Cooper and other. Is he weaker than they?
Yes, we have to accept the facts but first we have to analyse them not just citing them. h2h is mostly reasonable for players playing at the same periods of time and at the same age.
The overall achievements matter a lot more.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
According to your criterion h2h then Kramer should be above Gonzalez because their h2h difference is also vast. Do you realize that this negative h2h is objectively due to the difference in the age and the first years as a pro? And this is valid for everybody, not only for Gonzalez and Rosewall.
For instance Rod has a negative balance to Candy, Cooper and other. Is he weaker than they?
Yes, we have to accept the facts but first we have to analyse them not just citing them. h2h is mostly reasonable for players playing at the same periods of time and at the same age.
The overall achievements matter a lot more.
I do agree with you that The overall achievements Should matter more. I, like Tennisbase, really do place Ken above Pancho but was sort of going with the flow as most here tend to rank Gonzalez the superior.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I do agree with you that The overall achievements Should matter more. I, like Tennisbase, really do place Ken above Pancho but was sort of going with the flow as most here tend to rank Gonzalez the superior.
P.S. I suppose one could say that Pancho was the better player, but that Ken accomplished more when it came to the big tournaments?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
What is "big"?
8- Official Slams for Ken, 2 for Pancho
15 Pro Slams for Ken, 12 for Pancho
1 non pro tour US Pro for Ken, 0 for Pancho
I non pro tour Wembley for Ken, 0 for Pancho
2 WCT Titles, 0 for Pancho
What is "big"?
Pro Slams: Ken-15, Pancho-12
Official Slams: Ken-8, Pancho-2
WCT YE Titles: Ken-2, Pancho-0
No doubt Pancho won other big pro tournaments, but most of those tournament only lasted a year or a few more and are rarely recognized in tennis record books. Pancho also won many pro tours, but then again, they are not much recognized or known by the average tennis fan.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
8- Official Slams for Ken, 2 for Pancho
15 Pro Slams for Ken, 12 for Pancho
1 non pro tour US Pro for Ken, 0 for Pancho
I non pro tour Wembley for Ken, 0 for Pancho
2 WCT Titles, 0 for Pancho

Pro Slams: Ken-15, Pancho-12
Official Slams: Ken-8, Pancho-2
WCT YE Titles: Ken-2, Pancho-0
No doubt Pancho won other big pro tournaments, but most of those tournament only lasted a year or a few more and are rarely recognized in tennis record books. Pancho also won many pro tours, but then again, they are not much recognized or known by the average tennis fan.
I think that Gonzales' pro tour wins were highly publicized in the media and well-known to the tennis public, more so than most of the pro tournaments, the exception being the Forest Hills and Wembley events. The other pro tournaments got little ink in the press.

I would not grant major status to the Cleveland events after 1950, which were not known as "U.S. Pro" tournaments, anyway.

So, I have difficulty accepting this list of majors.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
8- Official Slams for Ken, 2 for Pancho
15 Pro Slams for Ken, 12 for Pancho
1 non pro tour US Pro for Ken, 0 for Pancho
I non pro tour Wembley for Ken, 0 for Pancho
2 WCT Titles, 0 for Pancho

Pro Slams: Ken-15, Pancho-12
Official Slams: Ken-8, Pancho-2
WCT YE Titles: Ken-2, Pancho-0
No doubt Pancho won other big pro tournaments, but most of those tournament only lasted a year or a few more and are rarely recognized in tennis record books. Pancho also won many pro tours, but then again, they are not much recognized or known by the average tennis fan.
Thanks for exposing the truth.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I do agree with you that The overall achievements Should matter more. I, like Tennisbase, really do place Ken above Pancho but was sort of going with the flow as most here tend to rank Gonzalez the superior.
It's better to stand at your positions and objective criteria. It's not needed to follow the guys "from the flow" which change their positions and rankings where the wind blows to.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
It's better to stand at your positions and objective criteria. It's not needed to follow the guys "from the flow" which change their positions and rankings where the wind blows to.
It is time to clean up the record and remove the old stories.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1962

I don't think there is much between segura, gimeno and buchholz in 1962. Segura played well on clay in the minor events, but he did not do that well in the big 2. gimeno and hoad reached the finals and segura was beaten by buchholz at the us pro, in a 4 man event, where buchholz also beat rosewall, and in the 3rd place wembley match. Segura did not perform that well in fields with all the best players , only reaching the final in zurich. I would tend to put Gimeno and segura level with buchholz just behind them. Laver finished ahead of buchholz and gimeno playing mainly on a unfamilar fast indoor surface in the us tour of'63; I would thus rank Laver 3 in 1962. He then went to play well on the tournament circuit out performing Buchholz and gimeno; he won more events , reched 2 major pro finals and beat buchholz at us pro and french pro to counteract his loss at wembley. gimeno only won on clay and failed at the 2 european majors.

hoad seemed to able to peak in the years 61-63, reaching the final at Wembley in all 3 years and only just beating buchholz in two very long semi-finals. However, hoad's general level was not to good. He failed to win an event in '61 and '63, but won 2(but miles behind rosewall who won 10) in '62, probably because Gonzales (around in '61) and laver (around in '63) were not in the field.

In 1961,Hoad did not seem to be that affected by his injury in march '61; he was back by july playing in the Russian tour and before Rosewall came back from his holiday; and ended up playing more events than Rosewall. He had his moments winning 2 out of 3 with gonzales(including his big wembley performance) and winning the deisive match with trabert in the kramer cup.

Overall I would rank him in '61 about joint 5th with gimeno behind trabert(3rd) and segura(4th).The pro field in '61 was super strong; the fields for the french pro and wembley pro are great. All the players including the older ones like segura and trabert are playing as well as ever. Only sedgman seems to have decined with his 15-13 victory over Mackay suggesting he was no longer in the top 6.

Hoad' performance against laver I feel is the same as his wembley ones. he psyhed himself up and got into shape, but was not able to repeat that performance on weekly basis in '61-63. That suggest he would have been very competitive at say the australian open (australian grass is his best surface) and wimbledon(prestige) but no threat say at the the french open ,given his performances at the french pro on clay, and in ordinary events between 61-63

jeffrey
I would rate Hoad #1 for 1961, a year in which no player took control.

I cannot choose Rosewall, because he dodged Gonzales in the world series, you can't do that and still be #1.

Hoad was injured, but came back strong late in the year, winning 7 of 11 against Gonzales in Britain/Ireland, and winning a big decider against Trabert for the Kramer Cup.

Gonzales looked good that year, but the world series was a weak field, one-set matches affair....not good enough.
 
Last edited:

lud

Hall of Fame
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Borg
7. Agassi
8. Lendl
9. McEnroe
10. Connors
 
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
 

lud

Hall of Fame
There is quite a difference between BEST and GREATEST. For best example I would use Messi and CR7. Messi is for my money best(most elegant,talented) player ever. However, CR7 is greatest ever. Simply because he won it more with different clubs + ofc. 2 trophies with Portugal.

In tennis, best tennis player is easily Roger Federer. He is full package in once. Serve,forehand,backhand,slice...
He is also still greatest ever. In my opinion, Nadal will pass him in 2021. I'm not so sure about Djoker, though.

Top 10 Greatest: (November 2019)
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
6. Borg
7. Lendl
8. Connors
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg

I can't include Laver here. Agassi golden career over Borg any day.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
correction 1958 and 1959
Hoad played more than 300 matches for those 2 years. But ... important are the wins from those matches.
Many other players had more than 150 matches per year for many years - Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden, Segura etc.
 

barone

New User
I think Borg is the best and he would be even better if he played today. With todays rackets and slower courts. And that movement and durabillity he had is historys best. The only style that could hurt him was serve/volley and that doesnt exist today.
 
50

Amritraj(Vijay), Ashe, Becker, Borg, Cash, Connors, Edberg, Emerson, Ferreira, Forget, Fraser, Gerulaitis, Gimeno, Gómez, Gonzales, Gorman, Henman, Hoad, Ivanisevic, Kodes, Korda, Krishnan(jr.), Kuerten, Laver, Leconte, Lendl, Mayer(Gene), McEnroe, Muster, Nastase, Newcombe, Noah, Okker, Orantes, Panatta, Pioline, Rafter, Roche, Rosewall, Sampras, Santana, Siemerink, S.Smith, Stich, Stolle, Tanner, Taróczy, R.Taylor, Vilas, Zivojinovic.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
50

Amritraj(Vijay), Ashe, Becker, Borg, Cash, Connors, Edberg, Emerson, Ferreira, Forget, Fraser, Gerulaitis, Gimeno, Gómez, Gonzales, Gorman, Henman, Hoad, Ivanisevic, Kodes, Korda, Krishnan(jr.), Kuerten, Laver, Leconte, Lendl, Mayer(Gene), McEnroe, Muster, Nastase, Newcombe, Noah, Okker, Orantes, Panatta, Pioline, Rafter, Roche, Rosewall, Sampras, Santana, Siemerink, S.Smith, Stich, Stolle, Tanner, Taróczy, R.Taylor, Vilas, Zivojinovic.
You are tough on Agassi, Courier, Wilander, and several other (multi) slam winners.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Top 50, open era, retired players only.

Ashe, Becker, Borg, Bruguera, Cash, Chang, Connors, Corretja, Costa, Courier, Davydenko, Edberg, Ferrer, Ferrero, Gaudio, Gerulaitis, Gomez, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Kodes, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Laver, Lendl, Martin, McEnroe, Moya, Mecir, Muster, Nalbandian, Nastase, Newcombe, Noah, Okker, Orantes, Panatta, Rafter, Roche, Roddick, Rosewall, Safin, Sampras, Smith, Stich, Tanner, Vilas, Verkerk, Wilander.

Top 10, ranked: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, Newcombe.
 

Lotus_Island

New User
Top 50, open era, retired players only.

Ashe, Becker, Borg, Bruguera, Cash, Chang, Connors, Corretja, Costa, Courier, Davydenko, Edberg, Ferrer, Ferrero, Gaudio, Gerulaitis, Gomez, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Kodes, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Laver, Lendl, Martin, McEnroe, Moya, Mecir, Muster, Nalbandian, Nastase, Newcombe, Noah, Okker, Orantes, Panatta, Rafter, Roche, Roddick, Rosewall, Safin, Sampras, Smith, Stich, Tanner, Vilas, Verkerk, Wilander.

Top 10, ranked: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, Newcombe.
Nalbandian ranked ahead of Safin?
 

clout

Hall of Fame
My top 15 in Open era:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras
5. Borg
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander
13. Laver
14. Rosewall
15. Murray
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Top 50, open era, retired players only.

Ashe, Becker, Borg, Bruguera, Cash, Chang, Connors, Corretja, Costa, Courier, Davydenko, Edberg, Ferrer, Ferrero, Gaudio, Gerulaitis, Gomez, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Kodes, Korda, Krajicek, Kuerten, Laver, Lendl, Martin, McEnroe, Moya, Mecir, Muster, Nalbandian, Nastase, Newcombe, Noah, Okker, Orantes, Panatta, Rafter, Roche, Roddick, Rosewall, Safin, Sampras, Smith, Stich, Tanner, Vilas, Verkerk, Wilander.

Top 10, ranked: Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Laver, Edberg, Becker, Rosewall, Newcombe.
Nice lists, Flash

Just 1 pick hits the eye.... Verkerk. all I remember of him is his reaching the French final
And one absentee... Agassi
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
If you look at the h2h between rosewall and Gonzales, on a yearly basis, rosewall won more years
Mostly after Gonzales was past prime. 1959 they did not play on the 4-man tour.

Their main hth series were 1957 and 1960, Gonzales winning 50 to 26 in 1957, 20 to 5 in 1960.

Overall, 70 to 31, a 70% win rate, huge dominance.
 

BGod

Legend
There a reason to have so many versions of the same thread? Anywho, OE only:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Sampras
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Becker
10. Agassi

I finally put Nadal over Sampras after the 4th USO and 5th YE. Pete has nothing now except the concentration of clutch performances. I'd still take him over Nadal in a H2H overall but career-wise there's nothing left really as his weeks at #1 are no longer as big a gap but he still has all the WTF titles.
 
Top