Ridiculous, Bobby.
Look at the tour results.
Dan, I doubt that Sedgman would have lost tour matches to Cooper and Anderson.
Ridiculous, Bobby.
Look at the tour results.
Yes sometimes having a couple of huge weapons is better for winning matches than having a more balanced game - not that Agassi was more balanced.
Sedgman seems to have had a very solid and damaging game. Interesting comments on Rosewall too, I feel he's doing him a disservice as Rosewall won many big matches against supposedly 'better' players but I do feel his level of play wasn't GOATly.
Sedgman doesn't get spoken so much with regards to volleys, especially compared to the greats you listed. I guess that's to do with his lack of comparative fame.
Sedgman was every bit as famous as Rosewall or Hoad in his day. Thing is that he turned pro and essentially spent the rest of prime and competitive years as a pro barred from all classic majors. He did play some Open Tennis I believe but he was way over the hill being over forty. Sedgman even played the Australian Open as late as 1975 (counts as part of the 1976 season even though it was in December of 1975) winning the first round. That's not bad considering he was born in 1927. Rosewall was just young enough to be competitive in the Open Era. To give Rosewall credit that was because of his greatness and his style of play. Sedgman's greatness has been dimmed by time and the fact he was no longer great during the Open Era. At least Pancho Gonzalez (born in 1928 ) had some great and memorable wins in the Open Era.
Sedgman was every bit as famous as Rosewall or Hoad in his day. Thing is that he turned pro and essentially spent the rest of prime and competitive years as a pro barred from all classic majors. He did play some Open Tennis I believe but he was way over the hill being over forty. Sedgman even played the Australian Open as late as 1975 (counts as part of the 1976 season even though it was in December of 1975) winning the first round. That's not bad considering he was born in 1927. Rosewall was just young enough to be competitive in the Open Era. To give Rosewall credit that was because of his greatness and his style of play. Sedgman's greatness has been dimmed by time and the fact he was no longer great during the Open Era. At least Pancho Gonzalez (born in 1928 ) had some great and memorable wins in the Open Era.
In his day yes but these days he's rarely mentioned I find.
And that's one of the things about tennis history that I find to be terrible, ie that some greats are often forgotten. Even some super greats like Pancho Gonzalez are somewhat forgotten. Laver, while he deserves to be well known is remembered because he played and won his Grand Slam in 1969 in the Open Era.
I feel Laver is mentioned almost by obligation these days not because his record is understood, someone like Pancho Gonzalez deserves equal respect IMO. Federer and Laver are usually the 2 GOAT candidates these days.
It's very possible. Laver is mentioned by experts because he always is mentioned. No one seems to mention greats like Tilden, Kramer or Gonzalez anymore to use them as an example.
It's possible that the experts are aware of those players but just don't rate them as the GOAT's alongside Laver and Federer - which is the case for me with the exception of Gonzalez who I have as a candidate too.
But I think it's more likely that they're just forgotten as they didn't achieve much in the Open Era.
It always amuses me because so many seem to not consider that top competitive tennis existed before the Open Era in 1968. Forty-six years really isn't that long a period of time! I think another reason is that people don't understand or know what Gonzalez accomplished in tennis. They just go by his amateur accomplishments or perhaps regard him as this old man who somehow did well at the beginning of the Open Era.
With Tilden however there is no really good excuse except that he played so long ago. His record in tennis is easily found and it's amazing. The only excuse is how long ago it was.
Yes the way the B league e.g. the amateurs but not the pro's is very strange. There's enough information out there now to evaluate those players. I think the trend is the view newer tennis players as better than the last generation, when you get back to Tilden's era the general perception is that tennis just wasn't as competitive back then.
[/B]
Perhaps. It's always hard to say. Some of the names of the 1930's look awfully impressive to me with Vines, Budge, Nusslein, Tilden (still around), Perry at the top. The late 1940's through the 1950's with Kramer, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Kovacs, Hoad, Rosewall, Segura, Riggs look great also.
I generally try to ask myself if I feel a player from that time would be successful today given the training and equipment from today. With Tilden I almost have no doubt he would be fantastic today given some time to adapt. The main reason is his brilliant tennis mind and how he could play any style he wanted if need be. He was an excellent athlete who was very mobile and an excellent serve. That's translates very well for today's game. Wouldn't be surprised if Tilden decided to hit with a two hand backhand for example.
On my own list I take into account the advances of today and give, for lack of better term bonus points to players who have played more recently. Despite this Tilden is one of if not the top player.
I think the question would be more of depth rather than simply top level players. But yes the 30's certainly had some stand out names. I agree about Tilden adapting to modern tennis as well.
There's some discussion in the General Pro Player section where the ranking of certain achievements is being discussed with point values. I would be interested in exploring that with pre-open era players and early open era players. Though I expect with a much more fickle definition of majors it would be quite difficult.
Dan, I doubt that Sedgman would have lost tour matches to Cooper and Anderson.
Dan, Then list up those matches. I never heard of them.
I once read that Gonzalez was not match-tight at Wembley and that he swore revenge for the following year.
And that's one of the things about tennis history that I find to be terrible, ie that some greats are often forgotten. Even some super greats like Pancho Gonzalez are somewhat forgotten. Laver, while he deserves to be well known is remembered because he played and won his Grand Slam in 1969 in the Open Era.
Do some reading, old boy.
Gonzales did vow revenge, and got it the following year.
But Sedge got him back in 1958 and 1959.
When pumped, too tough.
I agree with this.
Tennis pundits seem to only talk about Open Era records, or if they do mention greats prior to that time, it's only in the context of the traditional majors, not about anything they did in the pro game.
I don't know if it's a purposeful attempt to not discuss the pro tour, or just ignorance/laziness because it's easier to look at the grand slam records throughout the years and assume a continuum.
Do some reading, old boy.
Gonzales did vow revenge, and got it the following year.
But Sedge got him back in 1958 and 1959.
When pumped, too tough.
This seems to be what The Tennis Channel largely did in creating its list.I don't know if it's a purposeful attempt to not discuss the pro tour, or just ignorance/laziness because it's easier to look at the grand slam records throughout the years and assume a continuum.
Okay. Here is the place to post your peak-play GOATs list.
As the title implies, this is about the individual's level of play on their very best day at the peak of their career. To put it in modern vernacular, when this person was "in the zone" for one whole match and everything was going this person's way. Everything clicked.
Cumulative achievements do not matter; longevity does not count; years at no. 1 are not relevant.
1. Hoad
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Federer
5. Vines
6. Kovacs
7. Sampras
8. Tilden
9. Borg
10. Budge
(I have not thought in these terms before, but here's my "first-thoughts" list.)
What venue? Surely Nadal should be on this list.
Chopin it's opinion for who's the greatest for one match. What's your list? Nadal's one of the greatest I've seen but is his highest level among the top few of all time?
Dan, It's unfair to make a claim, then not giving proofs and then saying: Do some read! Which books do you suggest???
Gonzalez was better than Sedgman in 1959 and arguably in 1958.
You miss the point again.
Sedgman WHEN PUMPED played in the stratosphere.
He whipped Gonzales at Wembley in 1953 by 6-1, 6-2, 6-2.
He whipped Gonzales in the 1959 Kooyong final 6-4, 9-7, 6-4.
These were probably Sedgman's two most important wins, and show a level of peak play probably beyond Sampras.
That was the issue, in case you have forgotten.
When Sedgman was very rusty, he lost a marathon Wembley final to Gonzales in 1956, and a close five set Forest Hills decider to Gonzales in 1957.
Keep things in perspective, please.
Yes, leading up to 1953 Wembley, Gonzales played several warm-up tournaments.
No excuse.
So put your number 1 of your list playing against peak 2008 Nadal in Phillippe Chatrier in a best of 5 playing with modern racquets...
Are you sure your pick is going to defeat Nadal??? My guess is that he will be straight setted, only Borg perhaps could win a set or 2
Chopin is right, the context does matter
So put your number 1 of your list playing against peak 2008 Nadal in Phillippe Chatrier in a best of 5 playing with modern racquets...
Are you sure your pick is going to defeat Nadal??? My guess is that he will be straight setted, only Borg perhaps could win a set or 2
Chopin is right, the context does matter
Okay. Here is the place to post your peak-play GOATs list.
As the title implies, this is about the individual's level of play on their very best day at the peak of their career. To put it in modern vernacular, when this person was "in the zone" for one whole match and everything was going this person's way. Everything clicked.
Cumulative achievements do not matter; longevity does not count; years at no. 1 are not relevant.
1. Hoad
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Federer
5. Vines
6. Kovacs
7. Sampras
8. Tilden
9. Borg
10. Budge
(I have not thought in these terms before, but here's my "first-thoughts" list.)
As much as I enjoy watching Nadal... I have to say that given OP's criteria...
Lukas Rosol's win against Nadal in Wimbledon was one of the greatest displays of "in the zone" tennis in the history of the sport. That last set alone was absolutely out of this world.
Rosol's face even had a "glazed over/dazed" expression the entire match. Like the guy didn't even know where he was or what time it was.
I'm sure that historically... there have been other great "in the zone" examples. But IMHO... Rosol is the best example in the last 30 years at least.
For just one match: I'd say Evert v Navratilova Houston 87. Both players produced amazing tennis, but Evert when she needed it most.
Not sure how many matches are won where the topspin lob truly plays plays a pivotal and decisive role. This was one. I wish I could see more than that 12 minute highlight clip. Evert just hit them perfectly time and time again in the late stages of those sets.
Not sure how many matches are won where the topspin lob truly plays plays a pivotal and decisive role. This was one. I wish I could see more than that 12 minute highlight clip. Evert just hit them perfectly time and time again in the late stages of those sets.
The other thing I also consider is first strike tennis. By that I mean things like a huge first serve and powerful attack weapons for peak level. To give an example I will use a player I don't care for and that's John Isner. Isner has one of the most devastating serves I've ever seen. Because of that serve he actually came very close to defeat Nadal at the French a few years ago! If you looked at skill level it's not even close but Isner's first strike serve allowed him to hold his serve even against Nadal on clay. There have been players in tennis history that have had comparable serves to Nadal but are far better in other strokes. A Lew Hoad had a huge serve but his groundies, volley and movement were far better. He was also known for going into the zone. How would he do in one match against Nadal? I have no doubt Nadal would win the majority of matches against him on red clay but against Hoad in the zone on clay versus Nadal in the zone? I'm not sure but Hoad had the big serve plus he could hit the ball on the rise very well with great pace.
I mean it's fun to theorize and look at all the possibilities. There is another super famous clay court player that I would think would have absolutely no chance against Nadal because he just didn't have the weapons to bother Nadal even playing at peak level. Actually there are a few of them.
ARFED, at peak level do you have choices on other surfaces like current grass, fast hard court and slower hard court? Let's add old Wimbledon fast grass.
Pc1, my guess is that you should go watch again 2008 Nadal version
But you are right, is all debatable. I am not 100% sure (as nobody could ever be about this topic), but IMO 2008 Nadal on clay is the deadliest force on a particular surface. When you have a guy that is hitting with amazing depth on both groundies, with that much heavy spin, good luck trying to overpowering him. If someone like Hoad tries to go for the lines from the get go on every point against the kind of balls Nadal would be throwing at him, well if he ends up with less than 60 unforced errors in that match he is not human...
For a slower-modern type of grass my pick would be either Laver or Federer. All court tennis adapts perfectly to this grass we have nowadays at Wimby, and i can`t think of 2 better all courters than this 2
For anything faster than a medium paced court, be it carpet, wood, fast hard or old Wimby grass : Sampras, Pancho, Hoad
Stich is my personal preference, but i know that i would be flamed if i pick him over the names previously mentioned
For a slow hard court: 2011 Djokovic, but my guess is that a 78-80 Borg would be pretty close, sadly we never got to see him play on plexi or rebound ace
Actually I do watch it (2008 French Final) because I enjoy virtuoso performances by players as well as great exciting matches.
Stich is actually a very nice and imo a very knowledgeable pick. I may not agree with it personally but I like it. If someone asked me who was more talented (and who knows what is talent) between Becker and Stich, I would say Stich. Beautiful backhand and serve.
Nice choices of players on different surfaces.
I have the whole match on DVD- and the tennis is outstanding. The lob definitely won evert the match. The commentators lamented they hadn't kept a stat on just how many winning lobs she hit. For me, their best match in terms of tennis alone.
Chopin it's opinion for who's the greatest for one match. What's your list? Nadal's one of the greatest I've seen but is his highest level among the top few of all time?
The problem is that "peak level" is dependent on a context, and more specifically, on a ball coming over the net. There's only one shot in tennis that you have complete control over: the serve. All other shots are in response to something your opponent did. Federer can't achieve his "peak" play against Nadal on clay--a more precise way of saying this is that he can't respond to Nadal's ball to his backhand in the way he can against most other players. There's no all-encompassing, winning "trump card" in all surfaces in all matches. All of this "peak" levels are going to be dependent on the individual matches and surfaces. That's what tennis is, and that reality makes this thread and the analysis in it a little suspect in my opinion.
You miss the point again.
Sedgman WHEN PUMPED played in the stratosphere.
He whipped Gonzales at Wembley in 1953 by 6-1, 6-2, 6-2.
He whipped Gonzales in the 1959 Kooyong final 6-4, 9-7, 6-4.
These were probably Sedgman's two most important wins, and show a level of peak play probably beyond Sampras.
That was the issue, in case you have forgotten.
When Sedgman was very rusty, he lost a marathon Wembley final to Gonzales in 1956, and a close five set Forest Hills decider to Gonzales in 1957.
Keep things in perspective, please.
Yes, leading up to 1953 Wembley, Gonzales played several warm-up tournaments.
No excuse.
I agree.While Gonzales,Rosewall,Trabert,Kramer,Segura were more consistent players, as for mere peak play Sedgman was only second to Hoad in the whole 50´s.Gonzales himself knew that bottom up.
^I agree. I'm by no means saying that we shouldn't have these discussions, just saying that the premise is not completely "logical."
It's good to hear from you again. I've been thinking about these message boards a bit, and I feel a bit bad about some of the arguments I got into with Datacipher and a few others over the years. I really wish everyone on these boards well and I'm happy that I presented challenging opinions to posters in the past, but on a few occasions, the arguments with a few select posters became "over the top." Well, I won't dwell on it, but I just wanted to say sorry to any poster, active, retired or banned, who was offended by some of the more crass moments over the years ha!