Matt Cronin's All Time Top-10 Greatest

W

williams planet

Guest
Cronin's All-Time Top-10

1.Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Tilden
5. Kramer
6. Connors
7. Budge
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10, Federer
 
R

Rodeo

Guest
it's nice to see rod laver ranked ahead of borg. and rightfully so.:D
 

superman1

Legend
Nah, that's no good. Fed should be in the top 3, and I expect him to take the #1 spot soon (when he takes the French Open or cracks the 10 Grand Slam mark). Agassi should be top 5. He used to whomp McEnroe and Connors and he adapted with the game for 20 years so that he can still whomp 99% of the guys today. And McEnroe should be higher, he was more talented than any of these guys.
 
R

RogerRulez

Guest
williams planet said:
Cronin's All-Time Top-10

1.Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Tilden
5. Kramer
6. Connors
7. Budge
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Federer

B*llsh*t! Federer should in the top 5!
 

Ash Doyle

Professional
I think a lot of disagreement comes from some of the members of this board not being old enough to know much about the game and the players from past generations; and in some cases, just not having any respect for the past either.
 

Shabazza

Legend
Ash Doyle said:
I think a lot of disagreement comes from some of the members of this board not being old enough to know much about the game and the players from past generations; and in some cases, just not having any respect for the past either.
I sure have a lot of respect for the past greats, that's why I'm surprised that Sampras is at the top of this list. He's 3rd for me at most. Winning the most slams doesn't mean you're the best tennis player imo.
 
just another stupid "greatest ever list". all that really matters is whether a player is the best in their era. and agassi definitely was not. no lendl or pancho? bill tilden at #4? paleeze.
 
R

Rodeo

Guest
I love Matt Cronin. He's one of the very few sports journalists that I truly respect. My other favs? Peter Bodo, Bud Collins and Frank Deford.:D
 
R

Rodeo

Guest
Ash Doyle said:
I think a lot of disagreement comes from some of the members of this board not being old enough to know much about the game and the players from past generations; and in some cases, just not having any respect for the past either.

very very true.:D
 
W

williams planet

Guest
In the first 130 years of tennis as we know it:

• nobody in men's tennis history has won more Wimbledon singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many U.S. Open singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has finished as many years ranked #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has ranked as many weeks at #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many singles titles at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many ATP Tour Championships as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in winning Grand Slam singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in reaching Grand Slam singles finals than SAMPRAS ....

We will have to see if Federer can do what no man in the first 130 years of tennis could do -- outperform SAMPRAS.
 

killer

Semi-Pro
Ugh. I'm beginning to dislike these "All-Time" lists. There is never going to be consensus, and while i love the fact that these lists do bring history and the present closer than perhaps they might be in people's mind, there's really no way to compare the accomplishments of the past with those of the present.

The caliber of competition, the accesibility of what was historically an 'elite' sport, the number of worldwide events, the variation in court surfaces, the elevation of physical standards for athletes, the 'improvements' in the technology that surrounds the game, the era of 'Open' tennis competition, the ability to travel more easily are all reasons for us to be incapable of truly comparing, 'once and for all,' the greatest players of tennis in any meaningful sort of way.

In the last 2 decades, there are a handful of players whose games themselves can truly illustrate how brilliant tennis can be. The all-court game is, to my mind, the best indication of a players 'overall' historical standing. Their career statistics are important without question; champions are champions because of the number of majors they've won and the circumstances under which they've been able to produce their very best. But from a 'purist' standpoint, a player's ability to serve, return, hit groundstrokes, hit volley, attack and counterpunch are perhaps better ways of establishing their place in tennis history.

John McEnroe never considered himself to be a 'pure' serve&volley player; Connors never thought of himself as just a baseliner; Fed and Pete are classic all-courters (though perhaps Roger epitomizes this moreso); "Big Bill" goes down as one of the first huge serves in tennis, but what about the rest of his game? (seriously...i'm asking!) What about all of the other 'greats' who contributed to the game in some way or another? How do you end up rating them against one another? Apples and oranges!

So what if we look at players for their overall ability on a court, not just their records, and not just their one 'particular' contribution to the game? Who wins then?
 

Shabazza

Legend
killer said:
So what if we look at players for their overall ability on a court, not just their records, and not just their one 'particular' contribution to the game? Who wins then?
No one!
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Dropping Fed in at 10, almost like an afterthought, doesn't do anything to build any credibility. But at least he put Fed at 10 - if he hadn't I'd be asking what color crayon this list were written in.

Bolleteri - who I think is a better judge of tennis talent than some armchair journalist - already has Fed as best of all time.
 
i dont know if this is just about singles but i think doubles counts too and in my opinion that would put mac ahead of a lot of people and even if it isnt then he should still be in the top four
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
williams planet said:
In the first 130 years of tennis as we know it:

• nobody in men's tennis history has won more Wimbledon singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many U.S. Open singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has finished as many years ranked #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has ranked as many weeks at #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many singles titles at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many ATP Tour Championships as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in winning Grand Slam singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in reaching Grand Slam singles finals than SAMPRAS ....

We will have to see if Federer can do what no man in the first 130 years of tennis could do -- outperform SAMPRAS.
That's a cute list - but a lot of the men on the list a) didn't have Slams on hardcourts; b) didn't have such a thing as the ATP tour to play on; c) didn't have weekly #1 rankings to compete for.

I like how you say 'W wins...' , 'US Open wins on hard...', 'W + US Open wins' - why not add 'most Slam wins by someone with the initials PS!'
 

killer

Semi-Pro
A good point, prestige18! Dubs is often perceived as an afterthought, and in a similar thread about the "GOAT" female players (OMG I'm tempting fate here!) one of the sticking points was the consideration of doubles ability in determining status.
I'd certainly throw Mac a bit higher up the chart b/c of his dubs ability...I mean, there's a reason that the following Q&A exists:

"Who's the greatest doubles team of all time?"
"Mac and anybody." (Martina Navratilova) [is this really her quote?]
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
killer said:
"Who's the greates doubles team of all time?"
"Mac and anybody." (Martina Navratilova) [is this really her quote?]
I thought Peter Fleming said it. It was absolutely true when it was said by whoever did say it.
 
W

williams planet

Guest
West Coast Ace said:
That's a cute list - but a lot of the men on the list a) didn't have Slams on hardcourts; b) didn't have such a thing as the ATP tour to play on; c) didn't have weekly #1 rankings to compete for.

I like how you say 'W wins...' , 'US Open wins on hard...', 'W + US Open wins' - why not add 'most Slam wins by someone with the initials PS!'

Grand Slams .. consistency throughout their career ... dominance .. longevity .. most wins at Wimbledon .. most wins at the U.S. Open on hardcourts .. most ATP Tour Championships .. most years finished at #1 .. most weeks ranked #1 .. these are all good ways to evaluate the best ever.
 
W

williams planet

Guest
killer said:
A"Who's the greatest doubles team of all time?"
"Mac and anybody." (Martina Navratilova) [is this really her quote?]


What amazes me the most about Martina Navratilova is that she won nearly as many doubles as singles titles.
 

superman1

Legend
I don't know anything about these old guys: I've never seen Laver or Bill Tilden play. But I can't believe that Johnny Mac and Andre Agassi are so low. Especially Agassi. McEnroe had that one year that he showed he could be the greatest of all time. Agassi is the only player that never declined in the rise of the power game. He's still beating up 99% of the guys when he's healthy.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Love Sampras but above Laver? Pancho or Rosewall (the top 2-3 players ever) not even included in the top 10?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
In the first 130 years of tennis as we know it:

• nobody in men's tennis history has won more Wimbledon singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many U.S. Open singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has finished as many years ranked #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has ranked as many weeks at #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many singles titles at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many ATP Tour Championships as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in winning Grand Slam singles titles than SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in reaching Grand Slam singles finals than SAMPRAS ....

We will have to see if Federer can do what no man in the first 130 years of tennis could do -- outperform SAMPRAS.

Oh wow :lol:
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
In the first 130 years of tennis as we know it:

• nobody in men's tennis history has won more Wimbledon singles titles than SAMPRAS ....and FEDERER

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many U.S. Open singles titles on hardcourts as SAMPRAS .... and FEDERER

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles on hardcourts as FEDERER ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many Grand Slam singles titles as SAMPRAS FEDERER....

• nobody in men's tennis history has finished as many years ranked #1 as SAMPRAS ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has ranked as many weeks at #1 as FEDERER....

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many singles titles at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as SAMPRAS .... and FEDERER

• nobody in men's tennis history has won as many ATP Tour Championships as FEDERER ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in winning Grand Slam singles titles than NADAL ....

• nobody in men's tennis history has more consecutive years in reaching Grand Slam singles finals than FEDERER....

We will have to see if Nadal can do what no man in the first 130 years of tennis could do -- outperform FEDERER.

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Sampras still has the consecutive finals record with 11. Fed made 10, before 2013 let him down. Nadal is likely to equal it next year as he currently has 10 years consecutively winning so just needs a final. That one year that he didn't win RG, he had already taken the AO with those two 5-setters in a row.
 
Top