In all fairness to Laver and Sampras...

[McEnborg]

NEITHER had the career of Nadal or Federer. Federer has CLEARLY bettered Sampras...in career slams, tournaments won and excellence on ALL surfaces. Fed got to FIVE French finals, winning one. He won other clay court events and only lost to the GREATEST clay courter of all time. Sampras got to ONE French semi..and was smoked by Kafelnikov. Pete did very little on clay.

Federer clearly has had a better all around game than Laver. Just watch film. Better serve, quicker and better mover, bigger groundies. Laver winning 2 slams is great, but what Fed did in all the semi, final and wins in majors is MORE impressive.

Nadal is so far and away the greatest clay courter of all time...no one, even Borg is close. And, Rafa has won on the other surfaces, unlike Pete. A healthy Nadal would destroy Laver. Sorry, that's the truth. People need to appreciate how lucky we've been with Rafa and Roger. My top 10 list of all time:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) McEnroe
7) Lendl
8) Agassi
9) Connors
10)Budge ...after this, I'd put the next five as (no particular order) Joko, Becker, Tilden, Newcomb and Perry. After that, I'd have Emerson, Wilander, Rosewall, LaCoste and Vilas.

Novak will probably be top 7 before he's done.

 

[Def]

To be fair, Laver lived in a time without all of the present technology which undeniably makes a difference.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

To be fair, Laver lived in a time without all of the present technology which undeniably makes a difference.

It does but doesnt need to be taken into account (and compensated) for comparison purposes. Evolution is a natural phenomenon.

50 yrs from now, there could be lot of technological improvements in Tennis the players dont have access to now..

 

[90's Clay]

Huh?

200 Tournament wins
2 Calendars
11 slams (despite not playing ANY of the slams in your prime years)
Domination of over ALL main rivals
6-7 years at the top of the sport

.... Thats not having the career of Fed and Nadal?

I know the media can brainwash you today.. But go back and look at some tennis history

 

[magnut]

And so another thread begins! Pete and Laver are crap to Fed and Nadal....blah, blah, blah.

Cant you guys come up with anything else to talk about?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Huh?

200 Tournament wins
2 Calendars
11 slams (despite not playing ANY of the slams in your prime years)
Domination of over ALL main rivals
6-7 years at the top of the sport

.... Thats not having the career of Fed and Nadal?

I know the media can brainwash you today.. But go back and look at some tennis history

I am good with everything except for "despite not playing ANY of the slams in your prime years". in my book, there are no compensatory points for that. Laver ended up with 11 slams period.

How does it compare with Nadal and Federer....i would say pretty good.

Full disclosure: There is no perfect GOAT (that would mean a player never should lose a match ever). I consider Roger federer as the closest one can get to a GOAT as he (in my book) has least gaps in his resume.

I dont mean to turn this into a GOAT Thread....i guess i did

 

[Tennis_Monk]

And so another thread begins! Pete and Laver are crap to Fed and Nadal....blah, blah, blah.

Cant you guys come up with anything else to talk about?

Well Pete certainly is......

 

[magnut]

Well Pete certainly is......

An Amazing response and well thought out. Good job!

 

[Def]

Also, what justifies Borg not being even close. Is 6 FO that much less than 7? While I do think that Nadal is the best, I also think that it is atleast somewhat close.

 

[Mustard]

Federer clearly has had a better all around game than Laver. Just watch film. Better serve, quicker and better mover, bigger groundies. Laver winning 2 slams is great, but what Fed did in all the semi, final and wins in majors is MORE impressive.

You think Federer in unique in that consistency? Think again:

1959 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1959 US Championships: Quarter Final Loser
1960 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
1960 French Championships: Round of 32 Loser
1960 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1960 US Championships: Runner-up
1961 Australian Championships: Runner-up
1961 French Championships: Semi Final Loser
1961 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1961 US Championships: Runner-up
1962 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
1962 French Championships: CHAMPION
1962 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1962 US Championships: CHAMPION
1963 French Pro: Runner-up
1963 Wembley Pro: Quarter Final Loser
1963 US Pro: Runner-up
1964 French Pro: Runner-up
1964 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1964 US Pro: CHAMPION
1965 French Pro: Runner-up
1965 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1965 US Pro: Runner-up
1966 French Pro: Runner-up
1966 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1966 US Pro: CHAMPION
1967 French Pro: CHAMPION
1967 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1967 US Pro: CHAMPION
1967 Wimbledon Pro: CHAMPION
1968 French Open: Runner-up
1968 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1968 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
1969 Australian Open: CHAMPION
1969 French Open: CHAMPION
1969 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1969 US Open: CHAMPION

Also, what justifies Borg not being even close. Is 6 FO that much less than 7? While I do think that Nadal is the best, I also think that it is atleast somewhat close.

Borg is definitely a GOAT candidate.

 

[tennisaddict]

Laver was Rosoled in his prime... early round losses .

 

[tennisaddict]

There can be several GOAT candidates, but the greatest of them all is without doubt Federer. Laver, Borg and Nadal concur. The opinions of some members here count for zilch.

 

[TMF]

You think Federer in unique in that consistency? Think again:

1959 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1959 US Championships: Quarter Final Loser
1960 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
1960 French Championships: Round of 32 Loser
1960 Wimbledon: Runner-up
1960 US Championships: Runner-up
1961 Australian Championships: Runner-up
1961 French Championships: Semi Final Loser
1961 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1961 US Championships: Runner-up
1962 Australian Championships: CHAMPION
1962 French Championships: CHAMPION
1962 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1962 US Championships: CHAMPION
1963 French Pro: Runner-up
1963 Wembley Pro: Quarter Final Loser
1963 US Pro: Runner-up
1964 French Pro: Runner-up
1964 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1964 US Pro: CHAMPION
1965 French Pro: Runner-up
1965 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1965 US Pro: Runner-up
1966 French Pro: Runner-up
1966 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1966 US Pro: CHAMPION
1967 French Pro: CHAMPION
1967 Wembley Pro: CHAMPION
1967 US Pro: CHAMPION
1967 Wimbledon Pro: CHAMPION
1968 French Open: Runner-up
1968 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1968 US Open: Round of 16 Loser
1969 Australian Open: CHAMPION
1969 French Open: CHAMPION
1969 Wimbledon: CHAMPION
1969 US Open: CHAMPION

Pre-open era ??

I hope you're not trying to sell us that those tournaments are equivalent to the modern slams because that would be ridiculous.

 

[magnut]

There can be several GOAT candidates, but the greatest of them all is without doubt Federer. Laver, Borg and Nadal concur. The opinions of some members here count for zilch.

Does Federer claim to be the GOAT?

 

[90's Clay]

I am good with everything except for "despite not playing ANY of the slams in your prime years". in my book, there are no compensatory points for that. Laver ended up with 11 slams period.

How does it compare with Nadal and Federer....i would say pretty good.

Full disclosure: There is no perfect GOAT (that would mean a player never should lose a match ever). I consider Roger federer as the closest one can get to a GOAT as he (in my book) has least gaps in his resume.

I dont mean to turn this into a GOAT Thread....i guess i did

So...How many slams does Roger win if you take the slam opportunities away from him for virtually his entire 20s?

Laver ended up with 11 slams because he was banned from playing the slams. ROFLMAO

Lets ban Rog from playing the slams from 24-30 years of age and see how many he ends up with shall we?

The significance of the slam count only became really prominent and a major barometer for "GOAT status" when Sampras overtook Emerson


Yea.. so there should be compensatory points for that considering Laver was banned from playing them from 1962-1969 or so during a player's physical PEAK years


We can count the pro slams and Laver has 17 slam equivalent, Rosewall has a 23-24 slam equivalent. Quite a few more than Roger.

 

[TMF]

Does Federer claim to be the GOAT?

Does a greatest player has to self-proclaimed himself a goat to qualify for goat?

Jerry Rice never conceded that he's the greatest when reporters kept asking him the same question. But who cares, the fans are to be the judge.

 

[tennisaddict]

Does Federer claim to be the GOAT?

But Laver, Borg , Nadal and anyone worth the money claim. That is better than the opinions of clowns here.

 

[magnut]

So Federers opinion does not matter but Nadals and Lavers does.

More cherry picking.

Yup, You guys are really something. I am impressed.

 

[tennisaddict]

So...How many slams does Roger win if you take the slam opportunities away from him for virtually his entire 20s?

Laver ended up with 11 slams because he was banned from playing the slams. ROFLMAO

Lets ban Rog from playing the slams from 24-30 years of age and see how many he ends up with shall we?

The significance of the slam count only became really prominent and a major barometer for "GOAT status" when Sampras overtook Emerson


Yea.. so there should be compensatory points for that considering Laver was banned from playing them from 1962-1969 or so during a player's physical PEAK years


We can count the pro slams and Laver has 17 slam equivalent, Rosewall has a 23-24 slam equivalent. Quite a few more than Roger.

Unfortuately pro slams are not considered even by the tennis experts , media and the world. At the end of the day it is only majors that count . That is what the world knows.

 

[90's Clay]

Unfortuately pro slams are not considered even by the tennis experts , media and the world. At the end of the day it is only majors that count . That is what the world knows.

That is what the fans of the last 10-15 years know. Fans that have NO CLUE about tennis history. And the media knows. The same media that doesn't even have a guy like Pancho Gonzales (who is a clear GOAT candidate) in the top 5.

Tennis was in existence before the year 2000 you know.

 

[tennisaddict]

So Federers opinion does not matter but Nadals and Lavers does.

More cherry picking.

Yup, You guys are really something. I am impressed.

So you want Fed to say , ' yeah, undoubtedly i am the GOAT'. That guy has huge respect for the game, the past era players and the history. He is full of class and he would never utter such a thing. Now, if Novak were to be at 17 majors, he may say that and that goes with Novak's personality.

 

[tennisaddict]

That is what the fans of the last 10-15 years know. Fans that have NO CLUE about tennis history. And the media knows. The same media that doesn't even have a guy like Pancho Gonzales (who is a clear GOAT candidate) in the top 5.

Tennis was in existence before the year 2000 you know.

The world has moved on , no one really cares what happened 50 years back.

In any case, even the historians agree that Federer is the all time great. At the very least, since it is not an apple to apple comparison, there can be no question in conceding Federer is the modern era GOAT.

 

[90's Clay]

The world has moved on , no one really cares what happened 50 years back.

In any case, even the historians agree that Federer is the all time great. At the very least, since it is not an apple to apple comparison, there can be no question in conceding Federer is the modern era GOAT.

What is a modern era GOAT?

GOAT represents great of ALL TIME. Not modern era

 

[magnut]

The world has moved on , no one really cares what happened 50 years back.

In any case, even the historians agree that Federer is the all time great. At the very least, since it is not an apple to apple comparison, there can be no question in conceding Federer is the modern era GOAT.

Ya Know. There comes a time in every addicts life where you just need to tell yourself to put the crackpipe down and get your life together.

You need to come to terms with the fact that there are people who care about what happened 50-100-1000-2000-2million years ago. Its not like ....all that matters is the little world you decide to wrap your mind around. Things have been happening a long time on this planet...even before you were born!:shock:

But keep your replys going. Your a hoot!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The need to idolize someone above the rest - and trying to convince others that it's a useful and rational occupation - is a very primitive form of mental servitude. The question is not "who is the GOAT?" but "what kind of instincts does the invention of a GOAT satisfy and why do we need to indulge them?".

 

[magnut]

The need to idolize someone above the rest - and trying to convince others that it's a useful and rational occupation - is a very primitive form of mental servitude. The question is not "who is the GOAT?" but "what kind of instincts does the invention of a GOAT satisfy and why do we need to indulge them?".

LOL.

I think your looking into it a little deep. Understand that alot of these kids are under 20 years old, still live at home, and have never had a real job. They have a disconnect with the family structure and try to find comfort in whatever obsession they are pursueing. Most probably wont even be playing tennis in 20 years as the real world is going to knock them on their behinds. Then it will be apathy all the way!

 

[tennisaddict]

Ya Know. There comes a time in every addicts life where you just need to tell yourself to put the crackpipe down and get your life together.

You need to come to terms with the fact that there are people who care about what happened 50-100-1000-2000-2million years ago. Its not like ....all that matters is the little world you decide to wrap your mind around. Things have been happening a long time on this planet...even before you were born!:shock:

But keep your replys going. Your a hoot!

See, the problem is Federer has every conceivable record to his name and that is too much for the haters to take.

So, to diminish his achievements , they start to bring in things where a comparison may not make any sense. Now you can start sayin the primitive tribes played great tennis and they were the GOAT.

Even considering open era, it is hard for haters to accept that he is undisputed GOAT. They will bring in weak era, modern racket, transition era, H2H , crying and anything else they can think of.

Feel sorry for them.

 

[magnut]

See, the problem is Federer has every conceivable record to his name and that is too much for the haters to take.

So, to diminish his achievements , they start to bring in things where a comparison may not make any sense. Now you can start sayin the primitive tribes played great tennis and they were the GOAT.

Even considering open era, it is hard for haters to accept that he is undisputed GOAT. They will bring in weak era, modern racket, transition era, H2H , crying and anything else they can think of.

Feel sorry for them.

My god you are right! I never thought of it that way. He really is the GOAT!

 

[tennisaddict]

My god you are right! I never thought of it that way. He really is the GOAT!

Glad to enlighten you. Cheers.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What is a modern era GOAT?

GOAT represents great of ALL TIME. Not modern era

Then, you have to have the overview for both the period from the beginning of the Time to present day AND from present day to the eternity.

Come on, boy, you can do it!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

LOL.

I think your looking into it a little deep. Understand that alot of these kids are under 20 years old, still live at home, and have never had a real job. They have a disconnect with the family structure and try to find comfort in whatever obsession they are pursueing. Most probably wont even be playing tennis in 20 years as the real world is going to knock them on their behinds. Then it will be apathy all the way!

I must confess this is entertaining for me, especially when I'm having insomnia. Kids arguing ferociously about who is the GOAT is a slightly more elaborated version of little kids in school discussing whose daddy is the strongest or has the bigger car. I'm no better than them. I can't resist the urge to bask on their weakness.

 

[Talker]

The need to idolize someone above the rest - and trying to convince others that it's a useful and rational occupation - is a very primitive form of mental servitude. The question is not "who is the GOAT?" but "what kind of instincts does the invention of a GOAT satisfy and why do we need to indulge them?".

I've been telling this to Laver fans for years. HaHa.


Serious.
This happens all the time at job interviews, they go over resume's and sometimes get into debates.

But no one is idolized.


How do you know it's idolization or just debating facts?

 

[Talker]

NEITHER had the career of Nadal or Federer. Federer has CLEARLY bettered Sampras...in career slams, tournaments won and excellence on ALL surfaces. Fed got to FIVE French finals, winning one. He won other clay court events and only lost to the GREATEST clay courter of all time. Sampras got to ONE French semi..and was smoked by Kafelnikov. Pete did very little on clay.

Federer clearly has had a better all around game than Laver. Just watch film. Better serve, quicker and better mover, bigger groundies. Laver winning 2 slams is great, but what Fed did in all the semi, final and wins in majors is MORE impressive.

Nadal is so far and away the greatest clay courter of all time...no one, even Borg is close. And, Rafa has won on the other surfaces, unlike Pete. A healthy Nadal would destroy Laver. Sorry, that's the truth. People need to appreciate how lucky we've been with Rafa and Roger. My top 10 list of all time:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) McEnroe
7) Lendl
8) Agassi
9) Connors
10)Budge ...after this, I'd put the next five as (no particular order) Joko, Becker, Tilden, Newcomb and Perry. After that, I'd have Emerson, Wilander, Rosewall, LaCoste and Vilas.

Novak will probably be top 7 before he's done.

Good list.

But this was resolved in GOAT thread #127.

 

[magnut]

I must confess this is entertaining for me, especially when I'm having insomnia. Kids arguing ferociously about who is the GOAT is a slightly more elaborated version of little kids in school discussing whose daddy is the strongest or has the bigger car. I'm no better than them. I can't resist the urge to bask on their weakness.

LOL...Batman is better than Superman! The Silver Surfer sucks! The Punisher aint got nothin!

Yeah..its kind of like that

 

[magnut]

Good list.

But this was resolved in GOAT thread #127.

Its about time we all just copy and paste responses from the other 500 threads. Almost anything would fit right in.

Oh...by the way

Rafter completely owned Federer. He was clearly the better player when they encountered each other. Federer had no answers to Rafterman.

 

[Nitish]

Federers opinion on the subject seems fair to me
"Back in the day they weren't doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us 'you should do this and win that and you'll be considered the greatest of all time'.

"And anyway I don't think you can compare different eras in tennis."

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I've been telling this to Laver fans for years. HaHa.


Serious.
This happens all the time at job interviews, they go over resume's and sometimes get into debates.

But no one is idolized.


How do you know it's idolization or just debating facts?

Well I suppose it has to do with the way I see things. There are basically two philosophies: you either think facts exist outside of discourse and that they can be reached in their pure form, thereby constituting "truth"; or you think of discourse as a sort of game where specific facts are brought together to create any given possibility of truth. Truth is not out there, it's produced. And we as people or fans of the sport already function as products of certain construed truths that we don't question, such as the fact that there being a GOAT is somehow important. The GOAT debate is absurd because everyone plays it as a game but isn't able to see it as a game. Objectivity is just another way of saying "I will create these rules in order to make a certain player candidate for greatest of all time". Cartesianism always sees what it wants to see in the first place. Cogito, ergo troll.

 

[jg153040]

Well I suppose it has to do with the way I see things. There are basically two philosophies: you either think facts exist outside of discourse and that they can be reached in their pure form, thereby constituting "truth"; or you think of discourse as a sort of game where specific facts are brought together to create any given possibility of truth. Truth is not out there, it's produced. And we as people or fans of the sport already function as products of certain construed truths that we don't question, such as the fact that there being a GOAT is somehow important. The GOAT debate is absurd because everyone plays it as a game but isn't able to see it as a game. Objectivity is just another way of saying "I will create these rules in order to make a certain player candidate for greatest of all time". Cartesianism always sees what it wants to see in the first place. Cogito, ergo troll.

Well I agree for the most part. But people don't create rules for their players.
They just judge players according to rules.

It's not as fans decided that slams or rankings should be used. They become fans because of the rules. Even players and experts are bound to some of those rules. They all use slams and rankings and the goal of any pro is to win slams and spending time being nr.1.

So those opinions aren't wishes. Fans usually follow the best. Why do they become fans in the first place? It was because Fed won slams and was nr.1 and his game. Without this nobody would call Fed the best.

The only problem is comparing the value of those rules across eras or even today. People can't decide if slams have the same value.

Also they can't decide what value h2h has.

Even best scientists don't agree. But they accept the consensus of majority.
That is based on the best knowledge we have. Unless there is some kind of conspiracy theory and they hide things for whatever reasons.

It's hard to take emotion out of it, since we aren't driven by logic but emotion.

 

[mattennis]

The need to idolize someone above the rest - and trying to convince others that it's a useful and rational occupation - is a very primitive form of mental servitude. The question is not "who is the GOAT?" but "what kind of instincts does the invention of a GOAT satisfy and why do we need to indulge them?".

I can not believe it!. One sensible and intelligent post in these forums!

Sadly, don't expect anyone to think about it, they will go on and on and on....on their fictional goat crap....

 

[sunof tennis]

The world has moved on , no one really cares what happened 50 years back.

In any case, even the historians agree that Federer is the all time great. At the very least, since it is not an apple to apple comparison, there can be no question in conceding Federer is the modern era GOAT.

No one cares about what happened 50 years ago? Wow, that is scary! Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it...
So much garbage in these posts.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

That is what the fans of the last 10-15 years know. Fans that have NO CLUE about tennis history. And the media knows. The same media that doesn't even have a guy like Pancho Gonzales (who is a clear GOAT candidate) in the top 5.

Its all about being caught up in a moment--a moment lacking the total domination of the majors.

Tennis was in existence before the year 2000 you know.

Yes, but some of the usual suspects are far too young to know anything about tennis older than 2000, which is why they want to believe Federer is some unique case in tennis, when he's just one of "the best of the rest."

 

[BobbyOne]

NEITHER had the career of Nadal or Federer. Federer has CLEARLY bettered Sampras...in career slams, tournaments won and excellence on ALL surfaces. Fed got to FIVE French finals, winning one. He won other clay court events and only lost to the GREATEST clay courter of all time. Sampras got to ONE French semi..and was smoked by Kafelnikov. Pete did very little on clay.

Federer clearly has had a better all around game than Laver. Just watch film. Better serve, quicker and better mover, bigger groundies. Laver winning 2 slams is great, but what Fed did in all the semi, final and wins in majors is MORE impressive.

Nadal is so far and away the greatest clay courter of all time...no one, even Borg is close. And, Rafa has won on the other surfaces, unlike Pete. A healthy Nadal would destroy Laver. Sorry, that's the truth. People need to appreciate how lucky we've been with Rafa and Roger. My top 10 list of all time:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Laver
4) Sampras
5) Borg
6) McEnroe
7) Lendl
8) Agassi
9) Connors
10)Budge ...after this, I'd put the next five as (no particular order) Joko, Becker, Tilden, Newcomb and Perry. After that, I'd have Emerson, Wilander, Rosewall, LaCoste and Vilas.

Novak will probably be top 7 before he's done.

McEnborg, Having Rosewall behind Agassi and Connors and Budge and Becker and Newcombe and Perry and equal to Emerson and Vilas shows that you have to learn tennis history intensely. Much luck in doing so!

Edit: Your list is as good as Tennis Channel's!

 

[BobbyOne]

Pre-open era ??

I hope you're not trying to sell us that those tournaments are equivalent to the modern slams because that would be ridiculous.

It's just ridiculous to belittle the feats of the giants before open era, Mighty Federer.

 

[BobbyOne]

That is what the fans of the last 10-15 years know. Fans that have NO CLUE about tennis history. And the media knows. The same media that doesn't even have a guy like Pancho Gonzales (who is a clear GOAT candidate) in the top 5.

Tennis was in existence before the year 2000 you know.

90's Clay, The "experts" of tennis Channel even ranked Gonzalez at No.22 among the men...

 

[BobbyOne]

Good list.

But this was resolved in GOAT thread #127.

Talker, you really find a list good that omits Pancho Gonzalez?????????????????

 

[TMF]

It's just ridiculous to belittle the feats of the giants before open era, Mighty Federer.

Yes bobby. We shouldn't belittle Laver achievement in the pre-open era but feel free to belittle Emerson achievements.

 

[McEnborg]

McEnborg, Having Rosewall behind Agassi and Connors and Budge and Becker and Newcombe and Perry and equal to Emerson and Vilas shows that you have to learn tennis history intensely. Much luck in doing so!

Actually, YOU need to learn more. I weigh EVERYTHING.

Connors won 109 tournaments and sustained brilliance as long as Rosewall. I think his overall game and toughness was better. That's my opinion

Agassi is the greatest returner in the game's history. Won on all surfaces. Amazing hand-eye coordination and simply more powerful the Rosewall. At their primes, Agassi beats Rosewall. There is no question. I've watche A LOT of film of Rosewall and highly respect him. Never saw his overall play quite at Andre's best.

 

[TMF]

McEnborg, Having Rosewall behind Agassi and Connors and Budge and Becker and Newcombe and Perry and equal to Emerson and Vilas shows that you have to learn tennis history intensely. Much luck in doing so!

Actually, YOU need to learn more. I weigh EVERYTHING.

Connors won 109 tournaments and sustained brilliance as long as Rosewall. I think his overall game and toughness was better. That's my opinion

Agassi is the greatest returner in the game's history. Won on all surfaces. Amazing hand-eye coordination and simply more powerful the Rosewall. At their primes, Agassi beats Rosewall. There is no question. I've watche A LOT of film of Rosewall and highly respect him. Never saw his overall play quite at Andre's best.

If he criticize the experts like Steve Flink, what makes you think he wouldn't criticize you?

If he disagree with the list, he'll criticize anyone.

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes bobby. We shouldn't belittle Laver achievement in the pre-open era but feel free to belittle Emerson achievements.

Emerson is overrated in comparison to Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez.

 

[BobbyOne]

McEnborg, Having Rosewall behind Agassi and Connors and Budge and Becker and Newcombe and Perry and equal to Emerson and Vilas shows that you have to learn tennis history intensely. Much luck in doing so!

Actually, YOU need to learn more. I weigh EVERYTHING.

Connors won 109 tournaments and sustained brilliance as long as Rosewall. I think his overall game and toughness was better. That's my opinion

Agassi is the greatest returner in the game's history. Won on all surfaces. Amazing hand-eye coordination and simply more powerful the Rosewall. At their primes, Agassi beats Rosewall. There is no question. I've watche A LOT of film of Rosewall and highly respect him. Never saw his overall play quite at Andre's best.

Rosewall like Emerson? Nonsense. Gonzalez not among the 20 best? Nonsense.

Rosewall and Gonzalez have achieved much more than most of your favourites. Exception only Laver.

You never saw Rosewall in his prime. You can't judge objectively!

Edit: Rosewall leads Laver in big events.



Learn history, my young friend!