Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best

[TMF]

Connors won big in 82, Sampras 20 years later.Both were 30 and 32 respectively.Laver won the GS aged 31, Rosewall, the epitome of longevity, won his last major at 38, and two years later reached two major finals...yes, it is not unknown at all, but any excuse is good for Federites.They never let facts bother their opinions...

30-40 years ago is a LONG time ago!
The game has changed and it's hell a lot tougher to compete in their 30s.

Anyway, stay on topic:twisted:....this is not about Laver or any past players except the current players(Fed/Nadal/Nole) competing against one another.

 

[DRII]

That's the problem with his fallacy. Take Fed out from 2004-2007 the major titles are spread out across the field. Thus making the field incredibly strong. The 2010 and 2011 look incredibly weak because one guy win 3 slams/per year.

This only gets back to square one again.

However a multiple slam (on multiple surface) winning Federer is the one constant in the comparison of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present. Therefore rendering your argument moot!

 

[Soulie]

I don't to enter into this debate as I feel it doesn't tell the whole story by far, but just for the record, there are 8 slams missing for 2006. I don't care about the end of the year ranking, Agassi played all four majors this year, and according to your logic, he was the biggest threat at the beginning of the year (ie bigger than Federer, who only had 6 at that time), so he should definitely be included.

That's not according to my logic at all. Please read where I discount all players that were in obvious decline and if we were to look at the year beginning rankings Agassi would most definitely be discounted as a threat. I mean how old was he 33 34?

See? That's what I meant when I wrote that DRII only wanted to see one side of the coin.

What do you mean, Federer had 0 threats in 2006? Nobody beat him? In this case, Djokovic had 0 threats in 2011, except Federer on clay. Just like Nadal had 0 threats in 2010, except Ferrer in Australia. You can't go around double-starndardising all day long, your arguments won't hold water for long. Anyway it makes much more sense to compare at the end of the year as that shows how well the players performed during the season. Looking at the rankings for the beginning of that year doesn't mean anything.

It's like when you say: in 2006, nobody (except Nadal on clay) could prevent Federer from winning --> weak era


Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. But then you say:

In 2011/2012, nobody can prevent Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal to be winner, runner-up and semi-finalist in all majors --> strong era

Excuse me? So the exact same argument is used to prove that (A) 2006 was weak, and (B) 2011 and 2012 are strong. My advice would be to take your pick and stick to it.

Plus, all this weak-era business is awfully subjective. Here's one example:

Assuming that 2004-2007 was the weakest era ever and that Federer is the luckiest #1 in the history of tennis, as DRII repeatedly stated...

You have obviously completely lost the plot here and missed the point by a mile. The threats are counted as any previous slam winner who was at the top of their game i.e. in the top 5. The only guys adhering to that are Nadal and Federer in 2006 (though nadal was only a threat on clay), whereas there are Djok, Fed and Nadal in 2011. One can quite easily tell from this that the top of the game was more competitive in 2011. More slam holders in the top 5 = tougher competition.

Nowadays, you have the same Federer, almost 31, who hasn't won a slam in more than two years (only made one final)... and who has a pretty good chance of getting the #1 spot back in the next 3-4 months. Now, how's that for a weak-era? I mean, during the weakest-era ever (ie when Federer was #1), a washed-out old champ whose titles should all be asterisked anyway because he won them vs sub-par competition, such an old-timer would *never* have come within sniffing distance of the #1 spot. But Federer could take it back as early as Wimbledon. So, using the same kind of circular logic that DRII and you are using, 2011 and 2012 are actually *much weaker* than 2004-2007, and the final proof will be if Federer snatches the #1 spot.

How silly of you to underestimate one of the GOATs. He is playing well still in the modern era because he is very talented - imo not the most talented - but talented nonetheless.

See? We're basically going nowhere fast with this kind of arguments...

See? We're basically going nowhere fast with this kind of arguments...

Basically all of your responses have been bad reading comprehension on your part. Not really worth replying to.

 

[DRII]

I could care less about your weakera-strongera rubbish. I am merely pointing out that Fed has noticeably declined. And that this era is terrible compared to any other. And don't bother about sunshine and rain. Your a sorry **** either way.

Somebody needs some bad...

 

[BlueClayIsRealClay]

However a multiple slam winning Federer is the one constant in the comparison of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present. Therefore rendering your argument moot!

Nadal won more slams in 2008 than in 2005. They were less spread out from his perspective. Therefore 2008 is a weaker era than 2005, no?

 

[Soulie]

Hey,

Yep, I know about your table, saw it but didn't have time to answer yesterday. And I don't agree about Borg, btw. He won his 6th slam when he was 22 and one month old, ie closer to 18-22 than 22-28 as far as I'm concerned, so I stand to what I wrote, ie that defensive players generally win the bulk of their titles earlier (and are done sooner) than the offensive one, but even that is not a hard and fast rule, as there are exceptions ala Becker.

Also, the limit you chose feels pretty artificial, especially if you consider that 22+ falls under the 22-28 category (as you seem to do in the case of Borg). Dismissing any issue of "prime" or "not-prime" (which differ for every player), your argument would then be, "most players win more title during 7 years than during 4 years". Er. Sure. I could also say that "most players win far more titles from 18-35 than from 15-17". You'd be hard-pressed to disprove it, and it would tell us... absolutely nothing.

I'm sorry but 22 and 1 month > 22

Put it in another way: most slams are won by players over 22. That is a trend in itself. Whereas some sports like ski jumping you will find a lot more of the winners are still teenagers. Just because Nadal won his first slam at 19, Fedfans are trying to say that he was perfectly capable of winning on other surfaces during Fed's reign from 2005-2008. But as this trend shows: he was most likely not going to win most of his slams until he was 22.

A similar thing happened to Sampras: He won his first slam at 19 but didn't win a single slam again until 3 years later and then started winning left right and centre.

 

[BlueClayIsRealClay]

Aren't most slams won by players over the age of 1?

 

[TMF]

However a multiple slam (on multiple surface) winning Federer is the one constant in the comparison of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present. Therefore rendering your argument moot!

So you're saying a player who wins(or dominate) so much in one year means the field is weak. That's your opinion but try to be consistent and not cherry pick certain year(and certain season) so argue that's weak/strong. Your logic also means 1984 and 1989 was the worse year in that decade because Mac and Wilander dominated the field.

 

[TMF]

Yes Mariana Puerta winning Roland Garros, Mario Ancic winning Wimbledon, Sebastien Grosjean in Wimbledon finals, Ivan Ljubicic winning Roland Garros, which is what we would have without Federer and Nadal, makes the field look so incredibly strong. Roddick winning 5 or 6 majors as well would really be a stamp of excellence on the game, LOL!

Hey clueless. As long as the slams are spreadout, that's what count(according to DRII).

The stronger the competition, the more distributed the big titles.

You're throwing in the name of the winner doesn't prove that it's weak. Funny how you claimed the women's tennis in 2008 was strong when there were 4 different players won a slam that year. Two-faced Davey25 !

 

[Povl Carstensen]

However a multiple slam (on multiple surface) winning Federer is the one constant in the comparison of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present. Therefore rendering your argument moot!

Not at all. Might as well be Federer not being constantly at the same level, which is just as plausible or more.

 

[kiki]

The stronger the field atop, the more distributed majors will be.And, in 70´s and 80´s, surfaces were so much different than now ( which are all the same ).That means, there were amazing specialists that dominated their field.A guy like Borg, doing the Channel Slam ( over a month) is just amazing and the best proof of Borg´s undeniable talent.

You can´t compare it to Nadal´s 2008/2010 or Federer 2009 wins ( which are huge, nothing against that) because Borg faced a CLAY COURT SPECIALIST like Vilas or Lendl and a grass court great like Connors or Mc Enroe with almost no time to get conditioned.

 

[jackson vile]

The stronger the field atop, the more distributed majors will be.And, in 70´s and 80´s, surfaces were so much different than now ( which are all the same ).That means, there were amazing specialists that dominated their field.A guy like Borg, doing the Channel Slam ( over a month) is just amazing and the best proof of Borg´s undeniable talent.

You can´t compare it to Nadal´s 2008/2010 or Federer 2009 wins ( which are huge, nothing against that) because Borg faced a CLAY COURT SPECIALIST like Vilas or Lendl and a grass court great like Connors or Mc Enroe with almost no time to get conditioned.

 

[dh003i]

It does not at all follow that if we have a strong field at the top, the slams will be more spread out. Nor does it follow at all that if the slams aren't spread out, the field must not have been strong.

I'd argue that Federer dominated so much because he was just that much better. In his prime, I still think he'd win the majority of matches vs. today's Djokovic and against Nadal off of clay.

 

[abmk]

The stronger the field atop, the more distributed majors will be.

so we agree that 1969 was the 'worst' field of all time , given that only one guy won all the majors ? :twisted:

 

[sunny_cali]

so we agree that 1969 was the 'worst' field of all time , given that only one guy won all the majors ? :twisted:

LOL That just might be too logical for the old peeps. Of course it might apply to 2011 as well, what with Djoker pounding Wawa to pulp. But then these eratards want to apply the "domination" era fallacy selectively to Fed.

 

[kiki]

so we agree that 1969 was the 'worst' field of all time , given that only one guy won all the majors ? :twisted:

No, it was the tougher since there were guys that had RECENTLY ( or would very soon) won a big title: Rosewall,Roche,Emerson,Gimeno,Ashe,Newcombe,Santana,Stolle,Kodes,Nastase,Smith and I may have forgotten others.

But look now, hther than 1 time winner Del Potro , you have only 3 guys with big titles...that is the definition of weak era.Considering the depth of the field , of course.I rate it ass 3 times weaker than 69.

 

[Cup8489]

No, it was the tougher since there were guys that had RECENTLY ( or would very soon) won a big title: Rosewall,Roche,Emerson,Gimeno,Ashe,Newcombe,Santana,Stolle,Kodes,Nastase,Smith and I may have forgotten others.

But look now, hther than 1 time winner Del Potro , you have only 3 guys with big titles...that is the definition of weak era.Considering the depth of the field , of course.I rate it ass 3 times weaker than 69.

I rate you at 32765 times less knowledgeable about tennis than NSK.

 

[kiki]

Do you have something better to post?

 

[kiki]

I rate you at 32765 times less knowledgeable about tennis than NSK.

oh¡ another loyal federal whose feelings have been hurt by the true facts...

 

[Cup8489]

oh¡ another loyal federal whose feelings have been hurt by the true facts...

What true facts? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the nonsense you type is not in fact factual.

And I am no FEDERAL!

 

[kiki]

What true facts? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the nonsense you type is not in fact factual.

And I am no FEDERAL!

Laver 3 Gran Slams, Fed none ( neither Borg or Sampras).That is a fact, whether you are bad news bearer or not.

 

[abmk]

No, it was the tougher since there were guys that had RECENTLY ( or would very soon) won a big title: Rosewall,Roche,Emerson,Gimeno,Ashe,Newcombe,Santana,Stolle,Kodes,Nastase,Smith and I may have forgotten others.

who cares about recently or would very soon ..... Fact is by your logic, 1969, only one person won majors , hence it was the weakest year of all time ...... Deal with it .....

and lol @ the names thrown out just like that......

kodes, nastase, smith were not at their primes in 69 .. not even close ...

emerson was well on his way down ..

newk was still to hit his peak

etc etc ...

But look now, hther than 1 time winner Del Potro , you have only 3 guys with big titles...that is the definition of weak era.Considering the depth of the field , of course.I rate it ass 3 times weaker than 69.

but of course, lets make split fields like the ones in the 60s, dilute the pool and have tens of slam winners ( amateur and pro ) ones ...... LOL !!!!!!!!

face it , current field >>>> the field of 69 , going by your own so called "logic"

you yourself proved it :twisted:

you also have hewitt, roddick, ferrero in the slam winners list

and finally your obsession with slam winners or the no of slams won while considering quality of play is downright "moronic" ....... Rosewall & emerson had tons more slams than Roche, but Roche was the greatest threat to Laver in 69, not Rosewall, not Emerson ....

similarly the non-slam players like tsonga, berdych are more of a threat these days than hewitt/roddick/ferrero ... form counts a lot, clueless ....

Did Safin care that sampras was a 13 time slam winner at that time when he faced him at Flushing in 2000 USO finals , while he himself had 0 slams ? No, he just went and blitzed him ...

 

[norbac]

Good on Pat Cash for being brutally honest.

 

[Tony48]

Wow...this thread has been going on for a long ass time.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

No, it was the tougher since there were guys that had RECENTLY ( or would very soon) won a big title:
Rosewall,Roche,Emerson,Gimeno,Ashe,Newcombe,Santana,Stolle,Kodes,Nastase,Smith and I may have forgotten others.

Because the titles were easier to win due to less competition? As demonstrated by Lavers dominance? See, it just doesn't work that way.

But look now, hther than 1 time winner Del Potro , you have only 3 guys with big titles...that is the definition of weak era.Considering the depth of the field , of course.I rate it ass 3 times weaker than 69.

Oh, three times? Enlightning.

 

[DRII]

Do you have something better to post?

He was actually agreeing with your post.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Wow...this thread has been going on for a long ass time.

Because Federer fans are desperate to disprove what is obvious.....:

Feds not as good as they thought he was.....his lack of competition just made him look good.

 

[kiki]

who cares about recently or would very soon ..... Fact is by your logic, 1969, only one person won majors , hence it was the weakest year of all time ...... Deal with it .....

and lol @ the names thrown out just like that......

kodes, nastase, smith were not at their primes in 69 .. not even close ...

emerson was well on his way down ..

newk was still to hit his peak

etc etc ...



but of course, lets make split fields like the ones in the 60s, dilute the pool and have tens of slam winners ( amateur and pro ) ones ...... LOL !!!!!!!!

face it , current field >>>> the field of 69 , going by your own so called "logic"

you yourself proved it :twisted:

you also have hewitt, roddick, ferrero in the slam winners list

and finally your obsession with slam winners or the no of slams won while considering quality of play is downright "moronic" ....... Rosewall & emerson had tons more slams than Roche, but Roche was the greatest threat to Laver in 69, not Rosewall, not Emerson ....

similarly the non-slam players like tsonga, berdych are more of a threat these days than hewitt/roddick/ferrero ... form counts a lot, clueless ....

Did Safin care that sampras was a 13 time slam winner at that time when he faced him at Flushing in 2000 USO finals , while he himself had 0 slams ? No, he just went and blitzed him ...

Wrong.The fact that Laver won them all in 69 doesn´t mean the rest were ****ch.I refeered to their recent or inmediate wins in 68 and 70 ( or 67 an d71 ) to prove how extraordinary tough the field was..which enhances Laver´s staure as the rgeatest player to play this game, which is just a universal truth, like men don´t get pregnant and women do or apples are rounded.Even a moron like you can still understand it, don´t ya?

Emerson had just won his last slam a mere 2 yrs before, Stolle, just 3 yrs before, Rosewall and Ashe won slams in 68, Newcombe and Kodes would win in 70 and 71, just as Stan Smith.Gimeno, just in 72, as well as Nastase ( still just 3 yrs after).Roche won his only GS in 67, at RG, and had also reached the W final just a year before ( by the way, Laver beat him in straight sets playing even better tennis than in 69)

Rosewall would , again, win a major in 70.Do you think that between 68 , when he took RG and 70, when he won at FH he simply " had forgotten " to play, like he was abduced by some ET? well, Rosewall had beaten Laver in 4 sets at 68 RG...but Laver completely destroyed him in straights a year later.

 

[kiki]

Because Federer fans are desperate to disprove what is obvious.....:

Feds not as good as they thought he was.....his lack of competition just made him look good.

This is already becoming a universal truth

 

[kiki]

Because the titles were easier to win due to less competition? As demonstrated by Lavers dominance? See, it just doesn't work that way.
Oh, three times? Enlightning.

Actually, I think it is more than 3 times...but lets leave it like that, so federals won´t be so upset

 

[abmk]

Wrong.The fact that Laver won them all in 69 doesn´t mean the rest were ****ch.I refeered to their recent or inmediate wins in 68 and 70 ( or 67 an d71 ) to prove how extraordinary tough the field was..which enhances Laver´s staure as the rgeatest player to play this game, which is just a universal truth, like men don´t get pregnant and women do or apples are rounded.Even a moron like you can still understand it, don´t ya?

Emerson had just won his last slam a mere 2 yrs before, Stolle, just 3 yrs before, Rosewall and Ashe won slams in 68, Newcombe and Kodes would win in 70 and 71, just as Stan Smith.Gimeno, just in 72, as well as Nastase ( still just 3 yrs after).Roche won his only GS in 67, at RG, and had also reached the W final just a year before ( by the way, Laver beat him in straight sets playing even better tennis than in 69)

who cares about what happened before or after that ? your statement straightaway implied that 69 was the weakest year of all time ......

again coming back to your generalization (aka dumb statement ) :

take the WTA for example, was 2008 and 2009 when all slams were being split like crazy stronger than 2002-2003 when it was serena and henin dominating ( with the field containing venus, capriati, hingis etc . etc ) ?

LOL !


Also how conveniently you missed responding to the form part of my post. No answer as usual, I guess ...

Rosewall would , again, win a major in 70.Do you think that between 68 , when he took RG and 70, when he won at FH he simply " had forgotten " to play, like he was abduced by some ET? well, Rosewall had beaten Laver in 4 sets at 68 RG...but Laver completely destroyed him in straights a year later.

Rosewall's form had dipped quite a bit in 69 and it was one of his worst years since he hit his prime ...... and he was pretty lacklusture in the RG 69 final ...

 

[Cup8489]

Wrong.The fact that Laver won them all in 69 doesn´t mean the rest were ****ch.I refeered to their recent or inmediate wins in 68 and 70 ( or 67 an d71 ) to prove how extraordinary tough the field was..which enhances Laver´s staure as the rgeatest player to play this game, which is just a universal truth, like men don´t get pregnant and women do or apples are rounded.Even a moron like you can still understand it, don´t ya?

Emerson had just won his last slam a mere 2 yrs before, Stolle, just 3 yrs before, Rosewall and Ashe won slams in 68, Newcombe and Kodes would win in 70 and 71, just as Stan Smith.Gimeno, just in 72, as well as Nastase ( still just 3 yrs after).Roche won his only GS in 67, at RG, and had also reached the W final just a year before ( by the way, Laver beat him in straight sets playing even better tennis than in 69)

Rosewall would , again, win a major in 70.Do you think that between 68 , when he took RG and 70, when he won at FH he simply " had forgotten " to play, like he was abduced by some ET? well, Rosewall had beaten Laver in 4 sets at 68 RG...but Laver completely destroyed him in straights a year later.

This is the most pathetic attempt to rationalize something I've ever seen.

By your logic, that would mean that, in fact, Agassi was a legitimate opponent for Federer in the 2005 USO, as he had won a major a 'MERE' two years before, at the AO.

If you say that he wasn't a worthy opponent, as you've made all of Laver's contemporaries out to be, you're a hypocrite. And a horrendous logician, though you wouldn't even qualify for such a title if you denied what I've just said, as the hypocrisy would be too great.

 

[kiki]

This is the most pathetic attempt to rationalize something I've ever seen.

By your logic, that would mean that, in fact, Agassi was a legitimate opponent for Federer in the 2005 USO, as he had won a major a 'MERE' two years before, at the AO.

If you say that he wasn't a worthy opponent, as you've made all of Laver's contemporaries out to be, you're a hypocrite. And a horrendous logician, though you wouldn't even qualify for such a title if you denied what I've just said, as the hypocrisy would be too great.

what parts of my logic are you unable to reach?

 

[kiki]

who cares about what happened before or after that ? your statement straightaway implied that 69 was the weakest year of all time ......

again coming back to your generalization (aka dumb statement ) :

take the WTA for example, was 2008 and 2009 when all slams were being split like crazy stronger than 2002-2003 when it was serena and henin dominating ( with the field containing venus, capriati, hingis etc . etc ) ?

LOL !


Also how conveniently you missed responding to the form part of my post. No answer as usual, I guess ...




Rosewall's form had dipped quite a bit in 69 and it was one of his worst years since he hit his prime ...... and he was pretty lacklusture in the RG 69 final ...

EVEN YOU KNOW YOU CAN´T SIMPLY COMPARE ANY OF THE NAMES OF MY POST WITH ANY WTA LADY....

 

[abmk]

EVEN YOU KNOW YOU CAN´T SIMPLY COMPARE ANY OF THE NAMES OF MY POST WITH ANY WTA LADY....

I'm not comparing the names, I'm comparing the situations.

Take another example, for example 79-80, where it was split b/w borg ( FO/WIm ) and mac ( USO ) .. and 2001-2002 where you had agassi, kuerten, goran,hewitt, johansson, costa,hewitt and sampras winning the slams in that order ..

So was 2001-2002 stronger ? really ?

 

[kiki]

I'm not comparing the names, I'm comparing the situations.

Take another example, for example 79-80, where it was split b/w borg ( FO/WIm ) and mac ( USO ) .. and 2001-2002 where you had agassi, kuerten, goran,hewitt, johansson, costa,hewitt and sampras winning the slams in that order ..

So was 2001-2002 stronger ? really ?

Those palyers had proved or would inmediately prove to be true champions.Everybody knows THEY PLAYED AGAINST TOUGH COMPETITION, not the case with WTA´rs today.

The fact that titles are or aren´t split is irrelevant.It says nothing about the situation.What is enlightening is the quality and density of top players, which are players who normally take a slam or two...

It´s like saying x President had 57% electoral vote and Y president also had 57% without judging their facts and their context.Just numbers, numbers and numbers.Which is the only reasoning newtards have trying to rationalize it when they clearly see they have been beaten up....

 

[purge]

Wow...this thread has been going on for a long ass time.

and as always everything noteworthy has been said withing the first couple of pages. followed by a shipload of junk

 

[abmk]

Those palyers had proved or would inmediately prove to be true champions.Everybody knows THEY PLAYED AGAINST TOUGH COMPETITION, not the case with WTA´rs today.

everybody doesn't know ...... see below ...

The fact that titles are or aren´t split is irrelevant.It says nothing about the situation.What is enlightening is the quality and density of top players, which are players who normally take a slam or two...

memory loss much ? this is what you had stated , flat out ...

The stronger the field atop, the more distributed majors will be.

^^ That is what I said was incorrect

It´s like saying x President had 57% electoral vote and Y president also had 57% without judging their facts and their context.Just numbers, numbers and numbers.Which is the only reasoning newtards have trying to rationalize it when they clearly see they have been beaten up....

clueless , that is exactly what I'm saying. You don't know how good the slamless guys in nalbandian, tsonga, soderling, davydenko etc... are , how good the one or two slammers like roddick, hewitt, safin etc. are because you haven't watched them, you have ZERO clue about them ......

you love pwning yourself badly, don't you ?

 

[jankustra]

pat cash is funny guy, who help people to understand tennis. if he realy mean that joker is better than fed... I dont think so... maybe it was just joke about joker Only Sampras is better than Federer...

 

[Cup8489]

everybody doesn't know ...... see below ...



memory loss much ? this is what you had stated , flat out ...



^^ That is what I said was incorrect



clueless , that is exactly what I'm saying. You don't know how good the slamless guys in nalbandian, tsonga, soderling, davydenko etc... are , how good the one or two slammers like roddick, hewitt, safin etc. are because you haven't watched them, you have ZERO clue about them ......

you love pwning yourself badly, don't you ?

I'm fairly convinced he's drunk posting, because there's no way he's actually this dumb.

 

[Cup8489]

pat cash is funny guy, who help people to understand tennis. if he realy mean that joker is better than fed... I dont think so... maybe it was just joke about joker Only Sampras is better than Federer...

16>14. 6>5. FO, Wimbledon, USO, AO > Wimbledon, USO, AO.

 

[TMF]

pat cash is funny guy, who help people to understand tennis. if he realy mean that joker is better than fed... I dont think so... maybe it was just joke about joker Only Sampras is better than Federer...

Tennis Channel disagree with you.



GREATEST MALE TENNIS PLAYERS

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg
6 Don Budge
7 Andre Agassi
8 John McEnroe
9 Jimmy Connors
10 Bill Tilden
11 Roy Emerson
12 Ivan Lendl
13 Ken Rosewall
14 Boris Becker
15 Fred Perry
16 Stefan Edberg
17 Arthur Ashe
18 John Newcombe
19 Lew Hoad
20 Mats Wilander
21 Jack Kramer
22 Pancho Gonzales
23 Rene Lacoste
24 Novak Djokovic
25 Guillermo Vilas
26 Jim Courier
27 Henri Cochet
28 Jean Borotha
29 Frank Sedgman
30 Ilie Nastase
31 Tony Trabert
32 Jack Crawford
33 Manuel Santana
34 Guga Kuerten
35 Stan Smith
36 Neale Fraser
37 Lleyton Hewitt
38 Ellsworth Vines
39 Pancho Segura
40 Bobby Riggs
41 Fred Stolle
42 Patrick Rafter
43 Gottfried Von Cramm
44 Jaroslave Drobny
45 Tony Roche
46 William Renshaw
47 Marat Safin
48 Vic Seixas
49 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
50 Jan Kodes
51 Norman Brookes
52 Yannick Noah
53 Tony Wilding
54 Bill Johnston
55 Nicola Pietrangeli
56 Andy Roddick
57 Thomas Muster
58 Manuel Orantes
59 Pat Cash
60 Henry Austin
61 Michael Chang

 

[Mustard]

11. Roy Emerson
22. Pancho Gonzales

That tells you all you need to know about the legitimacy of that list. Gonzales is a serious GOAT contender, and in my opinion, the best player in the world every year from 1954-1961, and then he took an 18 month sabbatical at the end of 1961. Even by the open era, by which time, Gonzales was in his 40s, he could still beat the world's best players on his day.

Emerson was a very good player, and the dominant amateur player of the 1960s. He's also both overrated and underrated, but he's nowhere near Gonzales' level in all-time great status.

 

[dudeski]

11. Roy Emerson
22. Pancho Gonzales

That tells you all you need to know about the legitimacy of that list. Gonzales is a serious GOAT contender, and in my opinion, the best player in the world every year from 1954-1961, and then he took an 18 month sabbatical at the end of 1961. Even by the open era, by which time, Gonzales was in his 40s, he could still beat the world's best players on his day.

Emerson was a very good player, and the dominant amateur player of the 1960s. He's also both overrated and underrated, but he's nowhere near Gonzales' level in all-time great status.

Also a 3 slams winner Ashe is #17 ahead of 7 slams winner Wilander or 7 slams winner Lacoste but apparently if you don't agree with that it automatically makes you a racist.

 

[Cup8489]

Also a 3 slams winner Ashe is #17 ahead of 7 slams winner Wilander or 7 slams winner Lacoste but apparently if you don't agree with that it automatically makes you a racist.

I didn't see the broadcast, but could it be possible that Ashe is ahead for humanitarian reasons?

 

[dudeski]

I didn't see the broadcast, but could it be possible that Ashe is ahead for humanitarian reasons?

LOL so if Djokovic were to die from stepping on a land mine while doing charity work in Africa later this year after losing at FO, W, and USO then he will become the GOAT?

The only thing that should matter in a list like that are tennis achievements. So for example if that jerk Jimmy Connors had 17 slams than he should be at number 1 no matter how big his mouth was.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I agree with hall of famer Pat cash.....

He knows a bit more about tennis than anyone here......and he has probably actually hit with both Fed and Joker.....

Can anyone else here say that?

 

[bullfan]

I agree with hall of famer Pat cash.....

He knows a bit more about tennis than anyone here......and he has probably actually hit with both Fed and Joker.....

Can anyone else here say that?

well nanny nanny poo poo to you. Based on your logic, any player that has hit against Fed and Novak would be the definitive experts. That's a load of crap.

 

[Cup8489]

I agree with hall of famer Pat cash.....

He knows a bit more about tennis than anyone here......and he has probably actually hit with both Fed and Joker.....

Can anyone else here say that?

Andre Agassi has, and since he's a better hall of famer, with 8 majors, I take his opinion with more worth.

Btw, Agassi said Federer is the GOAT.

Can you say that?

LUL

 

[TheTruth]

11. Roy Emerson
22. Pancho Gonzales

That tells you all you need to know about the legitimacy of that list. Gonzales is a serious GOAT contender, and in my opinion, the best player in the world every year from 1954-1961, and then he took an 18 month sabbatical at the end of 1961. Even by the open era, by which time, Gonzales was in his 40s, he could still beat the world's best players on his day.

Emerson was a very good player, and the dominant amateur player of the 1960s. He's also both overrated and underrated, but he's nowhere near Gonzales' level in all-time great status.

Not only that, but TTC will be revising this list in the very near future depending on the coming results. They're the last people to put much stock into. Overlooking Gonzales to that extent is beyond ridiculous.