N
nowhereman
Guest
Fedr out of top 10 for first time in 14 years. How does he compare with other longevity greats? Who is the longevity GOAT as of now?
Tennisanity
Legend
1) Connors
2) Federer
3) Nadal - LOLLLLLLL
2) Federer
3) Nadal - LOLLLLLLL
C
Chadillac
Guest
Fed > rosewell > connors
Fed was dominate during his run, rosewell is still placed under laver, connors (dont like him) for his consistency over the span (was rarely the best unlike other guys).
Fed was dominate during his run, rosewell is still placed under laver, connors (dont like him) for his consistency over the span (was rarely the best unlike other guys).
C
Chadillac
Guest
Nadal will always remain the greatest player to ever spend more weeks at #2 than 1. No one will take that away from him.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Yeesh.
Still going, four years later.
Calling this for GOATerer.
Still going, four years later.
Calling this for GOATerer.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Did you know that if Nadal reaches two more Grand Slam finals in his 30s, he will exceed the record shared by Rosewall and Federer (8) in the Open Era?
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
If we're completely honest with ourselves, Nadal is quite clearly excluded from all longevity discussions, though.Did you know that if Nadal reaches two more Grand Slam finals in his 30s, he will exceed the record shared by Rosewall and Federer (8) in the Open Era?
Because of the constant cycle of recuperative breaks unavailable to the remainder of the Tour...
...an asterisk is insufficient. 
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
LOLLLLL this guy in 2016 predicted Nadal's longevity to be among the best in history. Good call!
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
H2H in the timespan all Big3 won slams (2008 AO - 2018 AO):
Djokovic-Nadal 24-18
Djokovic-Federer 22-17
Nadal-Federer 15-9
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
Would look pretty bad if Federer is the "longevity goat" but ends up without the slam record....
In fact already looks bad, because Federer is only ONE slam ahead of the often-injured Rafa.
In fact already looks bad, because Federer is only ONE slam ahead of the often-injured Rafa.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
His longevity was good, but not as great as Rosewall's.
Pancho had a 20-year span of reaching major quarter-finals (1948 US - 1968 US), whereas Rosewall had a near 26-year span (1952 AO, held in January - 1977 AO, held in December).
Edit: no surprise that @AnOctorokForDinner has liked your post though. He thinks Gonzales was GOAT at everything.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
That's up for dispute, but even if we exclude the AO, Rosewall still reached major finals over a period of more than 20 years (1953 FO - 1974 US).
I think it would be churlish and unreasonable to deny Rosewall the longevity crown, even if you consider Gonzales the GOAT overall.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
It's certainly a dispute between the two. Not sure who wins, Rosewall shot up a bit earlier in his teens but Gonzales was more impressive in his forties. I take the fence on this one.
D
Deleted member 772264
Guest
What we are now seeing of Federer is just a rough draft of tennis history, until then.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Reasonable point of view, I still think you overrate Gonzales in all criteria though.
Leandro2045
Semi-Pro
Unreal how Rafa will soon break Jimbo's record of most consecutive weeks inside the Top 10.
He also holds the most weeks inside the Top 2 in tennis history.
Amazing how being 5 years younger he's even breaking Roger longevity records
He also holds the most weeks inside the Top 2 in tennis history.
Amazing how being 5 years younger he's even breaking Roger longevity records
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Nothing looks "bad" for Fed or Rafa.
It's just us TTW fanboys (and girls) that make it sound that way.
Last edited:
Federev
G.O.A.T.
I kind of agree with this.If we're completely honest with ourselves, Nadal is quite clearly excluded from all longevity discussions, though.
Because of the constant cycle of recuperative breaks unavailable to the remainder of the Tour...
...an asterisk is insufficient.
When you put him up against Fed and then remember Fed's had ZERO retirements over 22 years - and only one long injury break.. that just is INSANE.
So I think you have a point.
Vanilla Slice
Professional
Damn ... I voted for Connors in 2016 on this post!!!!
don’t worry just changed it to Federer
don’t worry just changed it to Federer
Rosewall reached the USO and Wimbledon finals in 74. At Wimbledon he was 39-8 months, at USO, 39-10
I believe Rosewall won 10 tournaments in his forties, in one final at 42 he beat Nastase who was ranked #3 at that time.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Tilden was competing with top pros in his 50's and deserves a shout out.
Gonzalez won his last pro major, the US Pro, at 33. Rosewall was 33 when the open era began and won 4 slams: The FO at 33, USO at 35, a very competitive AO at 36 and another AO at 37. He also reached 4 other slam finals 33-37. He also won two WCT finals vs Laver at 37 and about 40 total tournaments ages 33-43,
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
So you are in support of Rosewall being the longevity GOAT then?
This is the view of all objective tennis observers.
1. GS are not limited to 3 players. Check the USO 2019 or 2018
2. why do you limit the time period to 2008 and 2018?
Nadal was #3 in the world in 2005 already and won his first GS title as well in 2005
Djokovic was #3 in the world in 2007 already and was reaching the second week of GS in 2006
3. what was Roger supposed to do before Djokodal reached their peak? ignore the GS tournaments cause he couldn't face them?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
He only started dominating in late 20s though, albeit WWI likely delayed his ascension by a few years.
Actually, Tilden dominated in early to mid twenties, till the 3 French Guys dominated till about 1930.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Age-wise. He was born in 1892.
I thought the post I was replying to was about the 1920's not Tilden's age.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Agreed. It's only if you have an agenda to state that Pancho Gonzales was a divine being who is the best in history at everything, that you'd try and diminish the longevity of Kenny, merely to prop up your long-dead idol.
Too much difficult to define longevity.
There are 2 problems.
1) Longevity at which level?
Hypotetical example: A perennial top 10 player, with maybe 1 or 2 slams wins, but slam QF in a span of 20 years, had a great longevity. But can we argue he had Federer's longevity?
Real example: McEnroe has only a 5 year span between is first and last GS Win. And 6 years between is first and last GS Final. He was YE top 3 in a 7 year span. Not a great longevity as dominant player.
But he had a 15 year span between his first and last GS Semifinal, and he was YE Top 5 and YE Top 10 in a 12 year span. Very good longevity as a good player.
2) Is consistency required?
Hypotetical example: A player who won a slam at 18 and another at 35, without great achievements between them and a lot of time missed or playing at low level, has a better longevity than a player who won between 20 and 30 but was consistent in this 10 year span?
Real example: Agassi was great for more than 10 years. He won slams from 1992 to 2003, He was top 3 from 1988 to 2002. These are longer spans than Connors one, who won slams from 1974 to 1983 and was top 3 from 1973 to 1984.
But Agassi had a lot of ups and downs, missing YE Top 3 in 9 out of 15 years. Connors was YE Top 3 in 12 straight seasons.
Who had the better longevity?
A comparison between only pure OE ATGs:
I think Federer has the edge now, 6 years span as YE#1 doesn't tell the whole story(He regained #1 for some weeks in 2017 too).
If Nadal can play at a good level for a couple of years after Federer's level drops he can easily surpass him.
Connors isn't in discussion with these two IMO. He had a great consistency at a great level for 15 years, Fedal has a great(Maybe bit less than Connors) consistency at a higher level for the same or more time.
Big 3 are on track to be the 3 greatest here too.
If we include pre-Open Era, Rosewall had a 27 years career, being at a slam final level for 22 years(1953-1974), with a great consistency in GS or Pro Slams when he turned pro before OE.
Maybe can be argued that pre-OE slams wasn't the same, so the first 4 years of his top level career are overrated. Difficult to compare, but I have to pick him anyway.
There are 2 problems.
1) Longevity at which level?
Hypotetical example: A perennial top 10 player, with maybe 1 or 2 slams wins, but slam QF in a span of 20 years, had a great longevity. But can we argue he had Federer's longevity?
Real example: McEnroe has only a 5 year span between is first and last GS Win. And 6 years between is first and last GS Final. He was YE top 3 in a 7 year span. Not a great longevity as dominant player.
But he had a 15 year span between his first and last GS Semifinal, and he was YE Top 5 and YE Top 10 in a 12 year span. Very good longevity as a good player.
2) Is consistency required?
Hypotetical example: A player who won a slam at 18 and another at 35, without great achievements between them and a lot of time missed or playing at low level, has a better longevity than a player who won between 20 and 30 but was consistent in this 10 year span?
Real example: Agassi was great for more than 10 years. He won slams from 1992 to 2003, He was top 3 from 1988 to 2002. These are longer spans than Connors one, who won slams from 1974 to 1983 and was top 3 from 1973 to 1984.
But Agassi had a lot of ups and downs, missing YE Top 3 in 9 out of 15 years. Connors was YE Top 3 in 12 straight seasons.
Who had the better longevity?
A comparison between only pure OE ATGs:
I think Federer has the edge now, 6 years span as YE#1 doesn't tell the whole story(He regained #1 for some weeks in 2017 too).
If Nadal can play at a good level for a couple of years after Federer's level drops he can easily surpass him.
Connors isn't in discussion with these two IMO. He had a great consistency at a great level for 15 years, Fedal has a great(Maybe bit less than Connors) consistency at a higher level for the same or more time.
Big 3 are on track to be the 3 greatest here too.
If we include pre-Open Era, Rosewall had a 27 years career, being at a slam final level for 22 years(1953-1974), with a great consistency in GS or Pro Slams when he turned pro before OE.
Maybe can be argued that pre-OE slams wasn't the same, so the first 4 years of his top level career are overrated. Difficult to compare, but I have to pick him anyway.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Wait, what?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Too much difficult to define longevity.
There are 2 problems.
1) Longevity at which level?
Hypotetical example: A perennial top 10 player, with maybe 1 or 2 slams wins, but slam QF in a span of 20 years, had a great longevity. But can we argue he had Federer's longevity?
Real example: McEnroe has only a 5 year span between is first and last GS Win. And 6 years between is first and last GS Final. He was YE top 3 in a 7 year span. Not a great longevity as dominant player.
But he had a 15 year span between his first and last GS Semifinal, and he was YE Top 5 and YE Top 10 in a 12 year span. Very good longevity as a good player.
2) Is consistency required?
Hypotetical example: A player who won a slam at 18 and another at 35, without great achievements between them and a lot of time missed or playing at low level, has a better longevity than a player who won between 20 and 30 but was consistent in this 10 year span?
Real example: Agassi was great for more than 10 years. He won slams from 1992 to 2003, He was top 3 from 1988 to 2002. These are longer spans than Connors one, who won slams from 1974 to 1983 and was top 3 from 1973 to 1984.
But Agassi had a lot of ups and downs, missing YE Top 3 in 9 out of 15 years. Connors was YE Top 3 in 12 straight seasons.
Who had the better longevity?
A comparison between only pure OE ATGs:
I think Federer has the edge now, 6 years span as YE#1 doesn't tell the whole story(He regained #1 for some weeks in 2017 too).
If Nadal can play at a good level for a couple of years after Federer's level drops he can easily surpass him.
Connors isn't in discussion with these two IMO. He had a great consistency at a great level for 15 years, Fedal has a great(Maybe bit less than Connors) consistency at a higher level for the same or more time.
Big 3 are on track to be the 3 greatest here too.
If we include pre-Open Era, Rosewall had a 27 years career, being at a slam final level for 22 years(1953-1974), with a great consistency in GS or Pro Slams when he turned pro before OE.
Maybe can be argued that pre-OE slams wasn't the same, so the first 4 years of his top level career are overrated. Difficult to compare, but I have to pick him anyway.
Decent post, but can you include Courier also please, or remove Murray? Thanks.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Wasn't actually scoring important wins by then though. Tilden was a top player until like 46 which is still quite superb, the other side though is that he only started regularly contending for top titles at 27 - WWI did throw in a wrench. Tennis wasn't as athletically demanding at the time of course so comparisons are difficult; what set Tilden apart from the previous amateur era stars was that after his prolonged dominance (over a fairly feeble post-war field) was ended by new challengers in French Musketeers, he worked hard, with the dedication of a pro rather than an amateur hobbyist, to retool his game to be the best again, and his eventual return to acclaimed #1 at the ripe old age of 37 was strongly attributed to a much improved BH - truly there is nothing new under the sun. That's what made him the first acknowledged ATG, really. Renshaw or Larned's titles are nice but not taken too seriously given the obvious hobbyism of their tennis era. Tilden was the first great player to treat tennis professionally and eventually break off from the amateurs to lead the nascent pro tour making real money.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Fair points. Tennis was also less athletically demanding than now when your idol (and supposed GOAT in both dominance and longevity, according to you) Pancho Gonzales dominated. Yet you have no qualms in proclaiming him the greatest.
I would genuinely like to know why you hold Pancho in such divine self-esteem. Is it because he was renowned as a volatile character, and you empathise with him?
I was worried about trasforming this post in a "Is Murray an ATG?" one
.For information Courier has:
Slam Wins *** RG 91 - AO 93 *** 1,75 years
Slam Finals *** RG 91 - WC 93 *** 2,25 years
Slam Semifinals *** RG 91 - US 95 *** 4,5 years
YE #1 *** 1992-1992 - 1 year (0 misses)
YE Top 3 *** 1991-1993 *** 3 years (0 misses)
YE Top 5 *** 1991-1993 *** 3 years (0 misses)
YE Top 10 *** 1991-1995 *** 5 years (1 miss)
Clearly, longevity is not part of his greatness.
Similar threads
- Poll
