In all fairness to Laver and Sampras...
- Thread starter McEnborg
- Start date
But McEnborg isn't from The Tennis Channel and his ranking list is difference.
Please try to understand the ranking list isn't about your most favorite players but the greatest players of all time.
Fintft
G.O.A.T.
I'd insert Ilie Nastase at 7 and get rid or Connors and Budge, have Nole be 8th.
You might want to REMEMBER the history that Rosewall never won Wimbledon.
And, I HAVE watched Rosewall on film many times. He's not top 10 to me. Maybe I'd move him into the 11-15 range. But, he's not top 10. Agassi had a better game at his peak. Although he was older, Connors absolutely destroyed Rosewall in their matches.
And, I HAVE watched Rosewall on film many times. He's not top 10 to me. Maybe I'd move him into the 11-15 range. But, he's not top 10. Agassi had a better game at his peak. Although he was older, Connors absolutely destroyed Rosewall in their matches.
I won't be the one who try to compare different eras, but in the OP he seems to use achievements of players to say that Nadal and Federer are the best ones, but in reality Tilden, Gonzales, Laver or Rosewall have greater achievements than any modern player.
And I repeat, for me it doesn't mean they were better than modern great players (like Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer or Nadal) because it is impossible to compare players more than 5 years apart.
And I repeat, for me it doesn't mean they were better than modern great players (like Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer or Nadal) because it is impossible to compare players more than 5 years apart.
Hello expert, the Wimbledon case exposes you as a true expert. REMEMBER that Rosewall was banned for 11 years at Wimbledon because he was a pro. Among these years were Ken's peak years.
Who was older: Connors or Rosewall???
Rosewall was almost 40 when facing Connors in 1974. Imagine what would happen to your idol when being 40...
You did not reply regarding your omission of Gonzalez .
mattennis, Thanks for writing that Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver have greater achievements than any modern player. It's just the truth not accepted by some younger fans.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Laver's GS is worthless looking at Nadal and his FO record. Look how well Djokovic has played in the last couple of years and he can't beat Nadal at the FO (even though Nadal in 2013 is far worse than his 2008 version). Federer got taken out 5 times by Nadal and pretty much took the only opportunity he had in 2009.
Who was Laver's biggest obstacle for the GS? Rosewall on clay? Really?
Who was Laver's biggest obstacle for the GS? Rosewall on clay? Really?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall, Stolle, Ashe, Emerson, Drysdale, Smith, Ralston. Isn't that enough?
Any reservation against Rosewall on clay or at all? That guy was arguably the best of all time and surely one of the three greatest claycourters.
Laver's biggest obstacle for his 1969 GS was Tony Roche at the AO. These two played not less than 90 games in scorching heat. (no tiebreak then).
Roche, as Rosewall, is totally underrated now, btw.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Roche was the second best player of 1969, in my opinion. Rosewall dropped down somewhat that year, having been top 2 since 1960.
Mustard, I guess that our young colleague does not know who Ralston is and believes that Drysdale is just a TV announcer...
Yes, 1969 was one of only a few "bad years" of Muscles (although still No.5).
One could make a case that Rosewall was 16 times among the top three or even top two which is a gigantic feat.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Good for Laver..
MonkeyBoy
Hall of Fame
Pancho Gonzales is very underrated GOAT candidate. His game was so good the powers that be actually had to change the rules to stop him from winning. This is a feat that has yet to be duplicated.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
BorisBeckerFan
Professional
It makes no difference to me what order you put Laver, Federer and Sampras in. Nadal has not joined them yet. It's pretty obvious he will though.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Federer and Laver...i probably agree with you.
But Sampras ..really...with such a clay record....??
BorisBeckerFan
Professional
Maybe it's just my personal bias but tennis started out as a lawn sport and Wimbledon is it's Pantheon. For that reason alone I rate Pete rather highly. Statistically, obviously Sampras has a hole, no doubt about it but he more than made up for it in my book.
mightyrick
Legend
I have to say that this top-10 left me absolutely speechless. :lol:
I literally was going to type something in response... and I just don't know where to start or what to say.
Bobby and Mustard... I leave it to you guys. I have no words.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It didn't work. Gonzales dominated Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo on the 1960 World Pro Tour, even when he was forbidden to serve and volley. The rule change seemed to anger Gonzales all the more, because the professional powers that be saw some chinks in Gonzales' armour after Hoad's strong performances against him in 1959 and saw an opportunity to end his dominance on the big tours.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
How international was tennis in Laver's day? How big was the pool of players playing tennis in the world? How good was access to good coaches, courts, and trainers in less developed countries (like Serbia!!!)? The truth is that the globalization process has also made sport more accessible to the world.
In the old days, tennis was played mainly by upper class white dudes in England, the US, and Australia. This may still be true to some degree but Fedal (and now Djoker) are making the game popular worldwide and are donating money to improve access to the game as well through their foundations.
So yes, Laver was competing against a MUCH smaller field of players when he won his slams.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Where is Djokovic on this list? He was a few points from a win on clay against Nadal and a likely Career Grand Slam!
He will at least be Lendl's equal by the time he retires.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I agree, yes. The rules create both the fans and the cognitive field in which they can rate their players. That's something we can all agree on. But once these broad rules of the game are set (rankings, Slams and other tournaments) every fan of a specific player will rate different achievements according to their preference. Head-to-head could be very important for a Nadal fan, but it will hardly count for a Federer fan. Discussion becomes particularly virulent when what is at stake is deciding who the greatest is. My question is: why do we have this need to rate players? You will notice that if your favourite player is Ivanisevic, for instance, you can enjoy his career without needing to rate everything he's done. It's the need to have a hero or a demi-god that produces the greatest amount of demagoguery, where the focus of the debate is no longer the emotional narrative that surrounds a player's career but the destructive instincts that govern the individual's claims for truth and power.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
There were players from all over the world.
There were players from Australia, the USA, Latin America, Europe (both Western and Eastern), India and Japan.
As for Serbia, it was then a part of Yugoslavia. The former Yugoslavia (which existed up to 1991) is now 7 seperate states (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Slovenia, FYR Macedonia and Kosovo). From 1991-92 to 2003, the country Yugoslavia continued to exist consisting of Serbia (which included Kosovo at that time) and Montenegro.
Likewise, the Soviet Union back then is now 15 seperate states (Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). There was also a country called Czechoslovakia (now 2 seperate states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia).
Last edited:
Smasher08
Legend
He and a few other Fed-hating N A R Ds were trying to peddle that BS earlier this week.
They're not deterred by the fact that these Pro Slams usually had draws of 16 or less, with the equivalent of seeded players getting byes to the last 8.
Here's the draws of the Wembley Championships, played on indoor wooden floored courts, for example.
What kind of dummy would try peddling these things as either equal or superior to modern day slams?
Very good question -- certainly not a bright or particularly well-informed person!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
There were no open era equivalents of modern day majors before the open era. In the 1960s before the open era, the top players were in the professional ranks. The amateur majors didn't have the best players in them, despite the numbers in the draw. I've explained all this to TMF until I'm blue in the face.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Amazing, isn't it? I've often wondered about this obsessive need to do this. Me, personally I can't stand the concept of assigning superiority, but this particular debate goes on and on and on.
I couldn't possibly name a GOAT when I haven't witnessed the entire history of the sport. It makes no sense.
Recently, they were talking about Max Decugis and I hadn't heard his name in years or knew, or remembered what he was known for.
How on earth some people think that you can definitively say that a GOAT exists is beyond me.
mightyrick
Legend
Also keeping in mind that the pre-Open Era top amateurs were the equivalent of the modern day ATP pros ranked in the #20 to #40 range. The top amateurs were awesome players in their own right.
Smasher08
Legend
Smasher08
Legend
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I know that the best amateur players like Emerson, Santana, Ashe and Drysdale were good. It's just annoying when some people count amateur majors because of its high number of players in the draw, yet ignore professional majors just because of the low numbers of players in the draw. The best players were in the professional game. So when Laver was playing in the professional majors from 1963-1967, he was playing against the cream of the crop alongside Rosewall, Gonzales, Hoad, Gimeno etc. Laver and Rosewall were the best 2 players in the world at that time.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Point well taken, but do you believe that the pool of potential tennis players in the world was 1/10 of what it is now?
jeu Sampras
New User
Federer has clearly bettered Sampras? Maybe better at loosing to the top guys. Yeah Federer has him beat by numbers, but like Pete not winning the French, Federer couldn't best his main rival. What's worse? Pete came through in the big matches time after time. Federer is right up there especially with his consistency of deep runs in tournaments consistently he is more consistent than Sampras.
mightyrick
Legend
It's just trolling. Nobody who knows (and actually plays) tennis thinks for one minute that the draw in the WTF is easier than the draw in one of the four modern Open Era majors. Likewise, nobody who knows (and actually plays) tennis thinks that the draws in amateur majors were harder than the draws in the pro slams. The pro slams were like a 5-set WTF.
I don't even argue the point anymore.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
It's almost as if the very idea of a GOAT (which is recent in historical terms) had to be inscribed in History as part of a "human spirit" of some kind. Trying to read the past by using a concept that is foreign to it. I'm a philosophy teacher and I often use this example: the Greeks weren't Platonists, we are. Marx wasn't a marxist, but we all are (simply because Marx came up with a way of looking at history and world events that is ingrained in us, whether you like to call yourself a conservative, a liberal or a communist). Similarly, it seems we can't think about tennis without some of these categories. But that doesn't mean we have to reduce the beauty of tennis to our intellectual limitations. That's why I've always preferred descriptive discussions of tennis (this player's agile backhand, this incredible duel between two players, that extraordinary achievement under extreme pressure - as well as the disappointments) rather than pointless enterprises in search of truth and indisputable meaning.
mightyrick
Legend
I honestly don't know why you think this is so incredulous. In any large "body of work"... people feel the need to rank and rate. That is just how things are.
What was Michelangelo's best work ever? What is the most beautiful body of water in the world? What is the best android phone? What is the best tablet? What was the best television comedy in history? What war was the most devastating? What is the best movie ever?
Of course all of this is subjective, but normal people have a desire to identify excellence. Not necessarily because they seek the truth... but because they enjoy the discussion, analysis, and comparisons involved. Excellence is awe-inspiring. Comparing excellence is very interesting.
I don't really find anything that shocking about it.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
And federer didnt come through but ended up with more slams ?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Rating and categorizing, anywhere except perhaps in the natural sciences, is done by commentators or people who are not themselves producers of knowledge. Marx was creative because he invented a way of looking at history (as social struggle for the means of production), but his "marxist" followers were just commentators who dedicated their lives to understanding whether he had also predicted the future. I'm not really comparing marxism to tennis, I just wanted to show that it's the same thought process in both cases. We all know the language of politics and power, it's the language of equality and excellence. Which basically means we're all equally condemned to have the same conversations over and over again: has any new idea been born out of a discussion about who the greatest anything is? We all know the drills, the categorization, the statistics, the comparisons: we could even make a general history of the way in which we have judged things to be excellent. Where does that take us? I claim that this prevents more creative discussions to happen - debates that have more to do with people than the proclamation of a deity - such as how the game has evolved in different patterns, what does it mean when a certain type of player decides to play from the baseline (like Borg) thereby changing the face of the sport, are the women's and the men's game one game or two distinct types of game (if one has more service breaks than the other, are we still talking about the same kind of game?). Anyway, I think judging excellence has always been a stale occupation. Ask any writer (novels or comedy), filmmaker, artist or musician if creativity has anything to do with gods and altars. I'm sure most of them would say it has more to do with the pulsating quality of human life.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
So recent many of the placeholders don't even know that they hold the streaks. It had no relevance then, and it has none now.
Even more hilarious is that the "GOAT" keeps changing. The commentators and pundits are already adding Nadal and Djokovic to the list.
I have seen several GOATs come and go in the last 15 years. It is a mythical term that will never be permanently assigned to any one player.
It is like a carrot that they dangle in front of the players. Nothing more.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
In the end it all comes down to subjectivity and bias. Thanks, but no thanks.
It's like the People Magazine's list of the Most Beautiful People in the World that they publish each year. It's so pointless, circular, and well, ridiculous to me.
mightyrick
Legend
No offense, but you're overthinking this a little. Although if you are a philosophy instructor or a philosopher yourself... I'm not surprised.
Sometimes, people just want to have fun without producing something. For me, this kind of discussion is like candy. It is trash TV that produces nothing, kills brain cells, and tastes so sweet.
It isn't for everybody. Some don't like it. That's fine. To each his own.
jeu Sampras
New User
Nadal could end up with more slams than both of them. He already would have if he didn't get injured twice. Imagine if he does that, he does it having to compete against the supposed greatest of all time Federer and a already great Djokovic. Federer won 10 of his slams against Roddicks and Nalbandians. I hope Nadal wins Wimbledon it will further prove he is the best of this era.
Today's game is essentially one surface game and one single style.
I'm pretty sure both Laver and Sampras would rack up 20+ slams
and dominant for a decade, if they only need to play single surface and
single style.
In fact, Laver won about 20 slams if you count both pro and amateur slams.
Today's players are not special. It's just an environment more favorable to top
players.
Only sure thing is Nadal. His record on clay is becoming the absolute best in history. Other than that, maybe these are the greatest baseliner era on all slow surfaces: clay, clay like slow bouncy grass, mud low sandy hard courts.
I agree with this 100%. Nadal is also very, very special. Tennis has never really had a Nadal before. He is kind of like Muster in his prime....year after year, after year. Its quite comical in some ways. I think he is a real standout in terms of history. Even though the other majors have slowed down he really has no business with 1 let alone 2 Wimbledon titles. Nor the US Open for that fact. Tennis historians will be talking about Rafa until the end of time....and he is not even one of my favorites...but he is special.
NikeWilson
Semi-Pro
Federer
Sampras
Nadal
Laver
Borg
Djokovic
If you push Grand Slams aside, and let these Players(in their Primes) play a Round Robin style tournament against each other... who would win?
I think we really shouldn't under-estimate Pete Sampras' style of play. I think his Serve and his Volley skills(and Overhead Smashes) will be a great unfamiliar challenge for Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer. Plus Pete was very strong and very athletic in his prime. And he knew how to take you out of a rhythm, and pressure you into going for too much. He knew how to bore you to death, and make you hate playing tennis. His style of play and tactics were overall just demoralizing to his opponents. And he had an incredible will to win.
It would be no fun to play against him, and it would be no fun to watch him play.
Sampras
Nadal
Laver
Borg
Djokovic
If you push Grand Slams aside, and let these Players(in their Primes) play a Round Robin style tournament against each other... who would win?
I think we really shouldn't under-estimate Pete Sampras' style of play. I think his Serve and his Volley skills(and Overhead Smashes) will be a great unfamiliar challenge for Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer. Plus Pete was very strong and very athletic in his prime. And he knew how to take you out of a rhythm, and pressure you into going for too much. He knew how to bore you to death, and make you hate playing tennis. His style of play and tactics were overall just demoralizing to his opponents. And he had an incredible will to win.
It would be no fun to play against him, and it would be no fun to watch him play.
Pete in his 95-96ish prime was pretty unstopable. His A game just couldnt be broken. I think in that mode he would probably come out on top. I think Pete and maybe Laver would take out Nadal. Federer would lose to Nadal as usual and probably Pete. Not sure about Laver. I would put Borg somewhere in the middle. Novak really should not be on that list IMO. Nothing against Novak, hes a great player. I just dont think he matches up well against prime sampras, fed, laver, or borg. Nadal??? could go either way.
Throw Prime Edberg and and a hot, confident, healthy Rafter in there and it would really get fun. Becker could get interesting as well.
Similar threads
