Rate the first tier all time greats in terms of their competition

[jaystarhair]

Do this for both the women and men if you can. I see it something like this.

Women

1. Serena- It is true her competition the last few years has been pretty weak, but still none of the greats faced a field as deep as Serena's from 1999-2008 where she won many of her slams and other achievements as well. And even todays weak field has more depth than past weak fields, which in womens tennis are plentiful.

2. Graf- The Seles stabbing takes something away from her competition, but she still faced a very strong prime/near prime Navratilova in 86-89, peak Seles in 90-93, and then 93-96 absolute peak Sanchez who is the combination of a very good player and an extremely bad match up for Graf which makes her a tougher opponent than Graf than she would be for others. So at every point in time either another major all time great playing at an extremely high level, or one who while not at that level comes across as the equivalent for Graf due to match up difficulty (Sanchez in the mid 90s), and an overall deep field with a consistently strong top 5/top 8 at all times.

3. Evert- She did peak when Court and King were winding down and before Navratilova and Austin began hitting their apex, but she still faced a very deep overall field with Goolagong at her best, Wade at her best, aging but still dangerous King, overweight and immature but still threatening Martina, and other formidable foes like Casals, Stove, Barker, Melville, Morozova, Turnbull, for awhile an aged Court. Then later on facing a peak Austin for the brief 2 year period or so she existed, and most of all a peak Navratilova, and a prime Mandilikova who was also very good at times. The only reason I dont rank her higher in 1st or 2nd is she generally faced quite weak competition on clay where she won 10 of her 18 slams. However she was denied winning more than 18 slams by her strong competition on other surfaces.

4. Court- Like Evert, Court had her prime in a diverse and strong period for the womens game facing Jones, Wade, Bueno, Turner, Richey, King for years, and towards the end of her career quite a bit of Goolagong and Evert. Like Evert there is a specific reason I dont rank her higher, and that is the Australian Open, a practically fruadelent non slam where on average 2 or 3 of the top 10 in the world woud play, and where she amassed 11 of her 24 slams.

5. Seles- Peaked at a generally advantageous time with Graf mired in a slump, Navratilova quite old, and no new stars of the game emerging. Along with most of the top players at the time besides Graf- Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, Capriati, Huber being naturally quite easy match ups for her. Novotna was an exception to this too, but they only played twice from 90-93 so it barely mattered although pre prime Novotna still took Seles to 3 super hard sets on rebound ace which is Jana's worst surface by a long ways, even over clay, and Jana had to choke a 6-4, 3-0 to lose to her in the 92 YEC quarterfinal. This also has created an unfortunate myth many seem to have that Seles would have continued to lord over and dominate the womens game for many years to come, and this simply is a total myth.

6. Connolly- Peaked at a decent time for the womens game with Hart, Bueno, Fry all formidable at the time. The distant past eras I cant really reflect as much on as eras I lived through.

7. King- Generally picked up the pieces during periods Court was away from the game, and also barely faced any of Bueno at her best, and Ann Jones was also significantly older and past most of her prime when King began dominating. Wade was never a particularly difficult opponent for her either, and she didnt even bother to test herself at the toughest venues like playing on clay that often, or going to Australia to face Court and Goolagong with home court advantage.

8. Wills Moody- Significantly harder competition than what Lenglen had.

9. Navratilova- About the only positive thing I can say about her competition was she faced Evert, and even Chris mired in a deep slump from about mid 82-mid 84, and now in her 30s in 85-86, which covers most of the Navratilova era. She faced Hana who was pretty good in 80, 81, 85, and 86 too. That is about it, Shriver was a decent fast courts only player. it speaks volumes a 17 year old Graf who was not as early a riser as Seles, Austin, took over #1 so easily with all the Navratilova era players minus Chris, including Martina herelf, still being completely in their primes, and copped only 2 losses for the year while still nowhere near her own 88-89 level yet.

10. Lenglen- Her competition sucked. Not her fault but it is what it is. Clearly last. Still one of the greats and arguably the greatest female player ever so this isnt dumpage of her. You cant control who you play, only if you win.

 

[jaystarhair]

Men

1. Laver- Just look at the draws for his 1969 Calendar Grand Slam, and the fields at the Pro Events from 63-68. That is enough to explain putting him on top.

2. Connors- While his dominant 74 had some weak competition, he had incredibly tough competition most of his career. Facing prime Borg and prime McEnroe for years, and then prime Lendl for a long time, including when Jimmy himself was past his own prime which deeply cut into his potential success in this period. Also faced Vilas at his peak, numerous grass and clay specific specialists (remember he reached 3 straight U.S Open finals and won the U.S Open on green clay), Ashe in his best year ever, and lots of prime Wilander and Newcombe.

3. Borg- His competition on clay was pretty weak but his competition on grass, hard courts, and indoors was very tough. Faced prime Connors and later McEnroe for years. Retired to early to face hardly any of Lendl, but Vilas would be a formidable clay opponent for anyone not named Borg.

4. McEnroe- His competition was weakened by the early retirement of Borg, and the age gap to Connors, Vilas, Wilander. The toughest aspect he had was probably having to face Lendl for so many years, Lendl cutting into McEnroe's success in his own era in 80-84, and all but ending McEnroe's slam winning days single handedly, along with McEnroe's own decline, 85 onwards.

5. Rosewall- Faced formidable competition in both the amateur, pro, and Open era circuits through his whole career. However his main period on top in 61-63 was during a lull between the Gonzales and Laver days. His incredible longevity also allowed him to mooch off the weakened and confusing period for the mens game in 72-74 where he capatilized on depleted slam fields and a generally weaker time for the mens game at the end of his career.

6. Gonzales- The mens field in the pro game in the 50s was overall quite strong with people like an aged Kramer, Sedgeman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others to contend with and Gonzales stayed on top for a good 7 or 8 years against such formidable opponents, winning most of the major pro events and nearly every head to head tour he participated in. Still not as deep as the 60s mens pro field which is why I am ranking him lower than both Laver and Rosewall here.

7. Lendl- He did face a strong field still not but not as strong as what Connors, McEnroe, Borg had all had to face. He benefitted from those all being aged, past their primes, or retired. His main competition, apart from McEnroe and to a lesser degree Connors whom he had a large age gap with, would be Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and in the cast of Becker and Edberg he had alot of his success before they arrived at full blow too.

8. Sampras- I dont think his competition is particularly impressive overall. I rank him higher than the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic trio since he atleast faced a lot more surface specific specialists in the far less homogenized playing conditions of the time.

9. Nadal- I am ranking him higher than Federer and Djokovic here for the simple reason he peaked roughly in between those guys, so suffered, particularly in terms of time at #1 facing the absolute best of both for many years each, mostly which were years he was almost but not quite at his very best which was probably 2008-2010 minus half a year in 2009 he dealt with injury issues. And maybe 2011 where Djokovic simply ripped things away from him, arguably still at his very best. The biggest problem with regards to his competition is his competition on clay isnt great at all, although it isnt any worse than what Borg had. Djokovic and Federer for instance are both as good or better than Vilas, and Vilas is by a giant margin the best Borg faced on the surface. Really Borg's competition on clay is even worse than Nadal's, but his overall competition on non clay surfaces is overall much higher than Nadal's.

10. Federer- Barely over Djokovic since Nadal was overall a bit better in 2005-2008 than 2011-2014 I guess (?). Nadal was much stronger on hard courts the latter period so it is close. Most of the rest is a wash.

11. Djokovic- Read above.

12. Tilden- Like Lenglen his competition sucked, relatively speaking. He didnt even face the Musketeers at their best, which is one reason he was so dominant as he really struggled once they emerged.

 

[dgold44]

Tough one

Budge and pancho had tough eras

Rosewall and laver- but 60s kind of weak!!

Connors , Borg , Mac Lendl great era

Sampras faced Agassi and Becker

Fed nadal and djoker is greatest era ever

 

[Steve132]

How do we measure strength of competition? This looks like a purely subjective exercise. To put it as mildly as possible, many people will disagree with these assessments.

 

[MasterZeb]

Couldn't really tell very accurate as this is based upon names. A great player would make his competition look weak. This list would all be based upon the names of the players.

 

[BobbyOne]

Men

1. Laver- Just look at the draws for his 1969 Calendar Grand Slam, and the fields at the Pro Events from 63-68. That is enough to explain putting him on top.

2. Connors- While his dominant 74 had some weak competition, he had incredibly tough competition most of his career. Facing prime Borg and prime McEnroe for years, and then prime Lendl for a long time, including when Jimmy himself was past his own prime which deeply cut into his potential success in this period. Also faced Vilas at his peak, numerous grass and clay specific specialists (remember he reached 3 straight U.S Open finals and won the U.S Open on green clay), Ashe in his best year ever, and lots of prime Wilander and Newcombe.

3. Borg- His competition on clay was pretty weak but his competition on grass, hard courts, and indoors was very tough. Faced prime Connors and later McEnroe for years. Retired to early to face hardly any of Lendl, but Vilas would be a formidable clay opponent for anyone not named Borg.

4. McEnroe- His competition was weakened by the early retirement of Borg, and the age gap to Connors, Vilas, Wilander. The toughest aspect he had was probably having to face Lendl for so many years, Lendl cutting into McEnroe's success in his own era in 80-84, and all but ending McEnroe's slam winning days single handedly, along with McEnroe's own decline, 85 onwards.

5. Rosewall- Faced formidable competition in both the amateur, pro, and Open era circuits through his whole career. However his main period on top in 61-63 was during a lull between the Gonzales and Laver days. His incredible longevity also allowed him to mooch off the weakened and confusing period for the mens game in 72-74 where he capatilized on depleted slam fields and a generally weaker time for the mens game at the end of his career.

6. Gonzales- The mens field in the pro game in the 50s was overall quite strong with people like an aged Kramer, Sedgeman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others to contend with and Gonzales stayed on top for a good 7 or 8 years against such formidable opponents, winning most of the major pro events and nearly every head to head tour he participated in. Still not as deep as the 60s mens pro field which is why I am ranking him lower than both Laver and Rosewall here.

7. Lendl- He did face a strong field still not but not as strong as what Connors, McEnroe, Borg had all had to face. He benefitted from those all being aged, past their primes, or retired. His main competition, apart from McEnroe and to a lesser degree Connors whom he had a large age gap with, would be Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and in the cast of Becker and Edberg he had alot of his success before they arrived at full blow too.

8. Sampras- I dont think his competition is particularly impressive overall. I rank him higher than the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic trio since he atleast faced a lot more surface specific specialists in the far less homogenized playing conditions of the time.

9. Nadal- I am ranking him higher than Federer and Djokovic here for the simple reason he peaked roughly in between those guys, so suffered, particularly in terms of time at #1 facing the absolute best of both for many years each, mostly which were years he was almost but not quite at his very best which was probably 2008-2010 minus half a year in 2009 he dealt with injury issues. And maybe 2011 where Djokovic simply ripped things away from him, arguably still at his very best. The biggest problem with regards to his competition is his competition on clay isnt great at all, although it isnt any worse than what Borg had. Djokovic and Federer for instance are both as good or better than Vilas, and Vilas is by a giant margin the best Borg faced on the surface. Really Borg's competition on clay is even worse than Nadal's, but his overall competition on non clay surfaces is overall much higher than Nadal's.

10. Djokovic- It is really close betweeen him and Federer. In their best 6 year stretches each had a few years it was pretty good (2011-2013 and 2004, 2009) and equally so other years not so good (2014-2016, 2006 and 2007). I guess I would go with Djokovic since I think Nadal of 2011-2014 is overall a tougher opponent than Nadal of 2005-2008, even if the latter is probably better on clay, he is weaker when factoring in all surfaces. And Nadal was the toughest and most significant foe of both in their dominant periods.

11. Federer- read above.

12. Tilden- Like Lenglen his competition sucked, relatively speaking. He didnt even face the Musketeers at their best, which is one reason he was so dominant as he really struggled once they emerged.

jaystarhair, It's wrong that the 1972 to 1974 period was weak. It had Connors, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Vilas and other great players.

I contradict that the 1950's had a weaker competition than the 1960's. The pro field of mid-1950's to end-1950's was the strongest field before open era or of all times because six giants of tennis, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert and Segura played often against each other - not "disturbed" by weaker players.

Gonzalez did not win most of the pro majors. He rather often failed to win Wembley, French Pro, Australian Pro and L.A. Masters.

Tilden DID face the Musketeers at their best.

You mean pro events 1963 to 1967.

 

[BobbyOne]

Do this for both the women and men if you can. I see it something like this.

Women

1. Serena- It is true her competition the last few years has been pretty weak, but still none of the greats faced a field as deep as Serena's from 1999-2008 where she won many of her slams and other achievements as well. And even todays weak field has more depth than past weak fields, which in womens tennis are plentiful.

2. Graf- The Seles stabbing takes something away from her competition, but she still faced a very strong prime/near prime Navratilova in 86-89, peak Seles in 90-93, and then 93-96 absolute peak Sanchez who is the combination of a very good player and an extremely bad match up for Graf which makes her a tougher opponent than Graf than she would be for others. So at every point in time either another major all time great playing at an extremely high level, or one who while not at that level comes across as the equivalent for Graf due to match up difficulty (Sanchez in the mid 90s), and an overall deep field with a consistently strong top 5/top 8 at all times.

3. Evert- She did peak when Court and King were winding down and before Navratilova and Austin began hitting their apex, but she still faced a very deep overall field with Goolagong at her best, Wade at her best, aging but still dangerous King, overweight and immature but still threatening Martina, and other formidable foes like Casals, Stove, Barker, Melville, Morozova, Turnbull, for awhile an aged Court. Then later on facing a peak Austin for the brief 2 year period or so she existed, and most of all a peak Navratilova, and a prime Mandilikova who was also very good at times. The only reason I dont rank her higher in 1st or 2nd is she generally faced quite weak competition on clay where she won 10 of her 18 slams. However she was denied winning more than 18 slams by her strong competition on other surfaces.

4. Court- Like Evert, Court had her prime in a diverse and strong period for the womens game facing Jones, Wade, Bueno, Turner, Richey, King for years, and towards the end of her career quite a bit of Goolagong and Evert. Like Evert there is a specific reason I dont rank her higher, and that is the Australian Open, a practically fruadelent non slam where on average 2 or 3 of the top 10 in the world woud play, and where she amassed 11 of her 24 slams.

5. Seles- Peaked at a generally advantageous time with Graf mired in a slump, Navratilova quite old, and no new stars of the game emerging. Along with most of the top players at the time besides Graf- Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, Capriati, Huber being naturally quite easy match ups for her. Novotna was an exception to this too, but they only played twice from 90-93 so it barely mattered although pre prime Novotna still took Seles to 3 super hard sets on rebound ace which is Jana's worst surface by a long ways, even over clay, and Jana had to choke a 6-4, 3-0 to lose to her in the 92 YEC quarterfinal. This also has created an unfortunate myth many seem to have that Seles would have continued to lord over and dominate the womens game for many years to come, and this simply is a total myth.

6. Connolly- Peaked at a decent time for the womens game with Hart, Bueno, Fry all formidable at the time. The distant past eras I cant really reflect as much on as eras I lived through.

7. King- Generally picked up the pieces during periods Court was away from the game, and also barely faced any of Bueno at her best, and Ann Jones was also significantly older and past most of her prime when King began dominating. Wade was never a particularly difficult opponent for her either, and she didnt even bother to test herself at the toughest venues like playing on clay that often, or going to Australia to face Court and Goolagong with home court advantage.

8. Wills Moody- Significantly harder competition than what Lenglen had.

9. Navratilova- About the only positive thing I can say about her competition was she faced Evert, and even Chris mired in a deep slump from about mid 82-mid 84, and now in her 30s in 85-86, which covers most of the Navratilova era. She faced Hana who was pretty good in 80, 81, 85, and 86 too. That is about it, Shriver was a decent fast courts only player. it speaks volumes a 17 year old Graf who was not as early a riser as Seles, Austin, took over #1 so easily with all the Navratilova era players minus Chris, including Martina herelf, still being completely in their primes, and copped only 2 losses for the year while still nowhere near her own 88-89 level yet.

10. Lenglen- Her competition sucked. Not her fault but it is what it is. Clearly last. Still one of the greats and arguably the greatest female player ever so this isnt dumpage of her. You cant control who you play, only if you win.

jaystarhair, I cannot agree regarding Navratilova. She yet had tough competition.

 

[jaystarhair]

jaystarhair, It's wrong that the 1972 to 1974 period was weak. It had Connors, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes, Orantes, Vilas and other great players.

I contradict that the 1950's had a weaker competition than the 1960's. The pro field of mid-1950's to end-1950's was the strongest field before open era or of all times because six giants of tennis, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert and Segura played often against each other - not "disturbed" by weaker players.

Gonzalez did not win most of the pro majors. He rather often failed to win Wembley, French Pro, Australian Pro and L.A. Masters.

Tilden DID face the Musketeers at their best.

You mean pro events 1963 to 1967.

Tilden did not dominate when the Muskuteers were at their best which was 1927 to 1932. In fact he hardly won anything at all. In fairness to him he was old and had a big age disadvantage by that point, but it also would have been interesting to see him play Cochet and Lacoste at their best. His chief rival was Bill Johnson and Vinnie Richards. Not exactly impressed.

1972 to 1974 were not neccessarily super weak but they were crazy disorganized with people skipping slams for money exhibitions and two different tours fighting. It amounted to some very weak draws in the slams, and even when players showed up they were often tired from some of the popular rival tours and exhibitions, which a very old Rosewall capatilized on, although credit to him for having such amazing longevity that he was even able to do that at nearly 40.

 

[jaystarhair]

jaystarhair, I cannot agree regarding Navratilova. She yet had tough competition.

Oh please. Besides Chris who else did she have? Hana was in a slump most of the Martina era (82-86), only reemerging again towards the end. Shriver is a capable enough fast court player I guess but still isnt that good overall, an old Wendy Turbull certainly isnt that good, Bettina Bunge, Jo Durie, Barbara Potter, Kohde Kilsch, Sylvia Hanika, Kathy Rinaldi, a teenaged Zina Garrison, please. Mostly a joke top 10. Remember Austin was dunzo after the 81 U.S Open for all practical purposes, and Jaeger dunzo as a real force by late 82/early 83 even if she made the 83 Wimbledon final due to a joke draw which reflected the sad sack state of the game at the time. Navratilova actualy ran out crying at a press confference at the 83 U.S Open since reporters badgered her about the horrible state of the womens game, the video I believe is still up on youtube if you want to see it yourself. It only started to improve marginaly in mid 85 thanks to Hana's reemergence, Chris's resurgence, and the start of the rise of baby 14 and 15 year old Graf and Sabatini, and 17/18 year old Sukova.

Chris in the 70s while on top faced a way tougher field than Martina faced in the 80s, even if Chris's clay competition was weak. Also have to factor in that despite their glorified rivalry, Chris was an incredibly easy match up for a prime Navratilova which both Martina and Chris admit themselves, prime Navratilova had more trouble with Sukova in big matches than Evert which says it all, and it amounts to weak competition relative to other greats. People forget you have to factor in match ups when evaluating players competition, just like Federer as competition for Nadal isnt that great, especialy on clay, just due to the match up. Chris Evert of course is a better player than Sanchez Vicario, but Sanchez Vicario is actualy a much tougher opponent for Graf than Evert for a truly prime Navratilova, just due to the respective match ups. And when the womens tour was only Chris and Martina, it pretty much left Martina to face nothing, it is pretty much a miracle she managed to somehow goof up an easy Grand Slam in 83, 84, and to a lesser degree 82.

 

[PMChambers]

I'd lower Graf a lot. She had solid competition at the beginning and end of her career but most of it was poor, worst in Open history.

ATP That 2009 Period was probably the strongest in open history and 1980 second. You devalue this too much. I can't comment outside open era.

 

[jaystarhair]

I'd lower Graf a lot. She had solid competition at the beginning and end of her career but most of it was poor, worst in Open history.

ATP That 2009 Period was probably the strongest in open history and 1980 second. You devalue this too much. I can't comment outside open era.

If it werent for the Chris on clay factor and Court Australian Open factor, I would clearly have ranked Graf behind both. Unfortunately for Court the fact is 11 of her 24 slams were at the Australian Open, basically a non slam at the time which was allowed to count as being a slam. And the clay court field, especialy pre Navratilova emerging as a clay giant in 84-86, was the worst in history outside of the Sugarpova/Serena RG reign period, and that is where Chris won 10 of her 18 slams. Those are the only reasons I rank both behind Graf.

I agree Graf's competition isnt that great at all, and in 93-96 was quite poor, but I still have a hard time ranking her lower than 2nd overall for the specific reasons I just stated above. And Navratilova who mostly lorded the super weak 82-87 (apart from 85 and to some degree 87 I guess, and yet 87 is one of the Graf era's weakest years competition wise which already sums up the comparision), King who won most of her titles when Court was away, or for a real laugh Lenglen, Wills, and Connolly certainly cant be rated as having harder competition overall than Graf. That Graf rates 2nd is more a reflection the overall competition in womens tennis is rarely that high, than anything else. There is a reason 6 women have 18 or more majors, but only 1 man.

 

[dgold44]

Clearly the 80s had the best depth ,I think

Connors
Mac
Lendl
Edberg
Becker
Wilander

Scary talent

Early 90s you got the Agassi and samp

 

[dgold44]

70s had good depth but 50s and 60s did not

 

[NatF]

For the men...

I'd move Sampras down below the current big 3 - and very clearly so. His main rival was mostly MIA and the myth of specialists is well overstated. I think the Big 3's competition is pretty much interchangeable depending on your outlook and vastly superior.

I would move Gonzalez ahead of Laver, I believe Rosewall had the weakest competition in his most dominant period e.g. 60-63 but he also had tougher competition than Laver in the late 50's + Laver himself in his late prime. So potentially Rosewall a smidge a head of Laver, Rosewall actually won slams deeper into the Open Era than Laver which counts for something as well. Frankly I'd move all those guys nearer to the bottom for the sole reason that tennis wasn't open.

I'd probably have it as;

1) 70's to 80's era - in some order
2) 00' to 10's era - in some order
3) 90's
4) Pro era
5) Tilden

 

[Druss]

Men

1. Laver- Just look at the draws for his 1969 Calendar Grand Slam, and the fields at the Pro Events from 63-68. That is enough to explain putting him on top.

2. Connors- While his dominant 74 had some weak competition, he had incredibly tough competition most of his career. Facing prime Borg and prime McEnroe for years, and then prime Lendl for a long time, including when Jimmy himself was past his own prime which deeply cut into his potential success in this period. Also faced Vilas at his peak, numerous grass and clay specific specialists (remember he reached 3 straight U.S Open finals and won the U.S Open on green clay), Ashe in his best year ever, and lots of prime Wilander and Newcombe.

3. Borg- His competition on clay was pretty weak but his competition on grass, hard courts, and indoors was very tough. Faced prime Connors and later McEnroe for years. Retired to early to face hardly any of Lendl, but Vilas would be a formidable clay opponent for anyone not named Borg.

4. McEnroe- His competition was weakened by the early retirement of Borg, and the age gap to Connors, Vilas, Wilander. The toughest aspect he had was probably having to face Lendl for so many years, Lendl cutting into McEnroe's success in his own era in 80-84, and all but ending McEnroe's slam winning days single handedly, along with McEnroe's own decline, 85 onwards.

5. Rosewall- Faced formidable competition in both the amateur, pro, and Open era circuits through his whole career. However his main period on top in 61-63 was during a lull between the Gonzales and Laver days. His incredible longevity also allowed him to mooch off the weakened and confusing period for the mens game in 72-74 where he capatilized on depleted slam fields and a generally weaker time for the mens game at the end of his career.

6. Gonzales- The mens field in the pro game in the 50s was overall quite strong with people like an aged Kramer, Sedgeman, Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others to contend with and Gonzales stayed on top for a good 7 or 8 years against such formidable opponents, winning most of the major pro events and nearly every head to head tour he participated in. Still not as deep as the 60s mens pro field which is why I am ranking him lower than both Laver and Rosewall here.

7. Lendl- He did face a strong field still not but not as strong as what Connors, McEnroe, Borg had all had to face. He benefitted from those all being aged, past their primes, or retired. His main competition, apart from McEnroe and to a lesser degree Connors whom he had a large age gap with, would be Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and in the cast of Becker and Edberg he had alot of his success before they arrived at full blow too.

8. Sampras- I dont think his competition is particularly impressive overall. I rank him higher than the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic trio since he atleast faced a lot more surface specific specialists in the far less homogenized playing conditions of the time.

9. Nadal- I am ranking him higher than Federer and Djokovic here for the simple reason he peaked roughly in between those guys, so suffered, particularly in terms of time at #1 facing the absolute best of both for many years each, mostly which were years he was almost but not quite at his very best which was probably 2008-2010 minus half a year in 2009 he dealt with injury issues. And maybe 2011 where Djokovic simply ripped things away from him, arguably still at his very best. The biggest problem with regards to his competition is his competition on clay isnt great at all, although it isnt any worse than what Borg had. Djokovic and Federer for instance are both as good or better than Vilas, and Vilas is by a giant margin the best Borg faced on the surface. Really Borg's competition on clay is even worse than Nadal's, but his overall competition on non clay surfaces is overall much higher than Nadal's.

10. Djokovic- It is really close betweeen him and Federer. In their best 6 year stretches each had a few years it was pretty good (2011-2013 and 2004, 2009) and equally so other years not so good (2014-2016, 2006 and 2007). I guess I would go with Djokovic since I think Nadal of 2011-2014 is overall a tougher opponent than Nadal of 2005-2008, even if the latter is probably better on clay, he is weaker when factoring in all surfaces. And Nadal was the toughest and most significant foe of both in their dominant periods.

11. Federer- read above.

12. Tilden- Like Lenglen his competition sucked, relatively speaking. He didnt even face the Musketeers at their best, which is one reason he was so dominant as he really struggled once they emerged.

Not a bad list, except I'd swap Federer with Djokovic and place Sampras dead last.

 

[thrust]

Tough one

Budge and pancho had tough eras

Rosewall and laver- but 60s kind of weak!!

Connors , Borg , Mac Lendl great era

Sampras faced Agassi and Becker

Fed nadal and djoker is greatest era ever

Gonzalez and Hoad were top pro players into the mid 60's. Ken beat Pancho in the French pro final in 61 and Hoad in 3 other pro slam finals 60-63. Laver peaked in 64 but he was still a top player on the tour by mid 63 with only Rosewall able to dominate him that year. From 68 on Ken won the FO over Laver, lost to Rod in the 69 final. Ken won the 70 USO beating Newcombe and Roche. He lost the 70 Wimbledon, in 5 sets to Newcombe. Laver was still a top player in the early 70's along with Newcombe Roche, Ashe, Okker and others. The seventies was Not a weak era. The 71 AO was very competitive. Laver, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe Roche etc. all competing. Ken won that AO, beating Ashe in the finals and Emerson in the quarters.

 

[NatF]

Gonzalez and Hoad were top pro players into the mid 60's. Ken beat Pancho in the French pro final in 61 and Hoad in 3 other pro slam finals 60-63. Laver peaked in 64 but he was still a top player on the tour by mid 63 with only Rosewall able to dominate him that year. From 68 on Ken won the FO over Laver, lost to Rod in the 69 final. Ken won the 70 USO beating Newcombe and Roche. He lost the 70 Wimbledon, in 5 sets to Newcombe. Laver was still a top player in the early 70's along with Newcombe Roche, Ashe, Okker and others. The seventies was Not a weak era. The 71 AO was very competitive. Laver, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe Roche etc. all competing. Ken won that AO, beating Ashe in the finals and Emerson in the quarters.

Gonzalez and Hoad were much better at the end of the 50's compared to the early 60's, Gonzalez wasn't even playing the big events in 1960 and 1962-1963. Hoad was never the same after 1959.

I'm not so impressed with the early 70's but I think the mid to late 70's was strong once you had Borg/Connors and at the end Mac.

 

[boredone3456]

So Martina is #9, but yet Evert is #3? Martina and Evert were contemporaries on the tour for 14 years, so by and large for the majority of both of their career's they faced the exact same people. The only difference is Martina arguably didn't get in full shape until the 1980's, but she made her first major finals in 1975, and won her first major in 1978 (beating Chris by the way). If you want to dump on Martina for being out of shape, fine, I'd agree with you there, but that doesn't change the bodies of the people on the tour with her. Plus, from 1975 when she made her first major finals (losing them to Goolagong and Evert) all the way to her last major won in 1990, she only failed to make it to at least the QF of any major she entered 5 times.

It makes no sense at all to praise Evert for all the competition she faced, then dump all over Martina saying hers was horrible when the reality of the situation is they faced THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE for the majority of both of their careers.

 

[NatF]

I guess I would go with Djokovic since I think Nadal of 2011-2014 is overall a tougher opponent than Nadal of 2005-2008, even if the latter is probably better on clay, he is weaker when factoring in all surfaces.

On this point, Nadal in 05-08 was also clearly much better on grass. So it's clay and grass vs HC.

 

[jaystarhair]

On this point, Nadal in 05-08 was also clearly much better on grass. So it's clay and grass vs HC.

Ooops you are right. I had a real brain cramp there. Although it could be fairly close since Nadal in 2010 and 2011 was really good on grass. Nadal in 2007 and 2008 was really good on grass, and 2006 he was pretty good on grass. Every other year of his career either didnt play or was basically useless.

Still I flipped Federer and Djokovic on my list now upon further reflection. Also 2006 was a really weak year, but 2015, 2016, and even 2014 to some extent were all weak years.

 

[jaystarhair]

So Martina is #9, but yet Evert is #3? Martina and Evert were contemporaries on the tour for 14 years, so by and large for the majority of both of their career's they faced the exact same people. The only difference is Martina arguably didn't get in full shape until the 1980's, but she made her first major finals in 1975, and won her first major in 1978 (beating Chris by the way). If you want to dump on Martina for being out of shape, fine, I'd agree with you there, but that doesn't change the bodies of the people on the tour with her. Plus, from 1975 when she made her first major finals (losing them to Goolagong and Evert) all the way to her last major won in 1990, she only failed to make it to at least the QF of any major she entered 5 times.

It makes no sense at all to praise Evert for all the competition she faced, then dump all over Martina saying hers was horrible when the reality of the situation is they faced THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE for the majority of both of their careers.

Evert won a bunch of things and 2/3rds of her slams in 74-81, along with nearly all her time at #1. Martina won almost all her slams (14 of 18, even 15 of 18 sort of as the Aussie ended in 82), all her non Wimbledons, over 80% of her time at #1, and had the vast majority of her success in 82-87. And now with that said I dont think it needs to be explained to anyone how the 74-81 field was WAY deeper and stronger overall than 82-87. 82-84 has to be in contention for the worst stretch in tennis history, and that is really Martina hitting her peak really vultured/feasted, while Chris in addition to having to deal with unbeatable Martina who was also an awful match up for her when Martina was in top form, wasnt even in high form for her own standards either. Martina also wasnt usually even coming that close to more success in 74-81. Outside of the 2 slam finals she reahed in 75 which were only due to the Aussie and French being virtual non slams that year and depleted fields with mostly absentees, which she never reaches otherwise; her only losing slam final outside her 2 Wimbledon wins and the 81 Aussie win, was the 81 U.S Open final. So in addition to having very little of her bigtimme percentile career success in this period, she didnt even suffer much from the much greater depth and competition of this period the way Chris suffered from a nearly unbeatable Martina in 82-85, as she was rarely even coming that close. I do think Martina of 82-87 would have achieved a lot even in the much more competitive 70s, but that really is meaningless in the end, what happened matters.

Even in 82-87 where Chris just added a few final French Opens and her lone couple Aussies after having willingly skipped out for years, Chris faced Martina while Martina faced Chris, and since Martina was way better than Chris a lot of this time, through that alone Chris's competition even this period was harder.

 

[NatF]

Ooops you are right. I had a real brain cramp there. Although it could be fairly close since Nadal in 2010 and 2011 was really good on grass. Nadal in 2007 and 2008 was really good on grass, and 2006 he was pretty good on grass. Every other year of his career either didnt play or was basically useless.

Well only in 2011 could you consider Nadal competition for peak Djokovic on grass. For Federer he has 3 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (including Nadals 2 best). I would actually call 2011 Nadal's worst Wimbledon final - it's at best equal to 2006. I understand why you have the cut off at 2008 for equal number of years but it seems unfair to not include the 2009 AO as competition for Federer - considering it was in his last multi slam year.

One thing in Federer's favour is he has more meetings with Nadal and Djokovic in majors then they have with each other.

 

[jaystarhair]

Well only in 2011 could you consider Nadal competition for peak Djokovic on grass. For Federer he has 3 Wimbledon finals against Nadal (including Nadals 2 best). I would actually call 2011 Nadal's worst Wimbledon final - it's at best equal to 2011. I understand why you have the cut off at 2008 for equal number of years but it seems unfair to not include the 2009 AO as competition for Federer - considering it was in his last multi slam year.

One thing in Federer's favour is he has more meetings with Nadal and Djokovic in majors then they have with each other.

Yes that is true. A fair comparision would be Nadal from say 2005 RG-2009 AO vs 2011 AO-2014 RG, and here the former probably comes out higher on further reflection. I already switched Djokovic and Nadal on my list now.

I notice you liked the post of the people who disagreed with my seperation of Evert and Navratilova. I think you should read my last post for further explanation on that in case you have any confusion, despite not ommenting on it yet.

 

[NatF]

Yes that is true. A fair comparision would be Nadal from say 2005 RG-2009 AO vs 2011 AO-2014 RG, and here the former probably comes out higher on further reflection. I already switched Djokovic and Nadal on my list now.

I notice you liked the post of the people who disagreed with my seperation of Evert and Navratilova. I think you should read my last post for further explanation on that in case you have any confusion, despite not ommenting on it yet.

I'll have a gander.

I also think you're overrated pro tennis in comparison to the open era. Sampras should clearly be below the big 3 as well. He had only a few quality years of Agassi competing at his best level. His early competition at the beginning of the 90's was fierce, but when he started to dominate it clearly wasn't that great. And it got quite lacklustre in the later 90's.

 

[Druss]

Do this for both the women and men if you can. I see it something like this.

Women

1. Serena- It is true her competition the last few years has been pretty weak, but still none of the greats faced a field as deep as Serena's from 1999-2008 where she won many of her slams and other achievements as well. And even todays weak field has more depth than past weak fields, which in womens tennis are plentiful.

2. Graf- The Seles stabbing takes something away from her competition, but she still faced a very strong prime/near prime Navratilova in 86-89, peak Seles in 90-93, and then 93-96 absolute peak Sanchez who is the combination of a very good player and an extremely bad match up for Graf which makes her a tougher opponent than Graf than she would be for others. So at every point in time either another major all time great playing at an extremely high level, or one who while not at that level comes across as the equivalent for Graf due to match up difficulty (Sanchez in the mid 90s), and an overall deep field with a consistently strong top 5/top 8 at all times.

3. Evert- She did peak when Court and King were winding down and before Navratilova and Austin began hitting their apex, but she still faced a very deep overall field with Goolagong at her best, Wade at her best, aging but still dangerous King, overweight and immature but still threatening Martina, and other formidable foes like Casals, Stove, Barker, Melville, Morozova, Turnbull, for awhile an aged Court. Then later on facing a peak Austin for the brief 2 year period or so she existed, and most of all a peak Navratilova, and a prime Mandilikova who was also very good at times. The only reason I dont rank her higher in 1st or 2nd is she generally faced quite weak competition on clay where she won 10 of her 18 slams. However she was denied winning more than 18 slams by her strong competition on other surfaces.

4. Court- Like Evert, Court had her prime in a diverse and strong period for the womens game facing Jones, Wade, Bueno, Turner, Richey, King for years, and towards the end of her career quite a bit of Goolagong and Evert. Like Evert there is a specific reason I dont rank her higher, and that is the Australian Open, a practically fruadelent non slam where on average 2 or 3 of the top 10 in the world woud play, and where she amassed 11 of her 24 slams.

5. Seles- Peaked at a generally advantageous time with Graf mired in a slump, Navratilova quite old, and no new stars of the game emerging. Along with most of the top players at the time besides Graf- Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, Capriati, Huber being naturally quite easy match ups for her. Novotna was an exception to this too, but they only played twice from 90-93 so it barely mattered although pre prime Novotna still took Seles to 3 super hard sets on rebound ace which is Jana's worst surface by a long ways, even over clay, and Jana had to choke a 6-4, 3-0 to lose to her in the 92 YEC quarterfinal. This also has created an unfortunate myth many seem to have that Seles would have continued to lord over and dominate the womens game for many years to come, and this simply is a total myth.

6. Connolly- Peaked at a decent time for the womens game with Hart, Bueno, Fry all formidable at the time. The distant past eras I cant really reflect as much on as eras I lived through.

7. King- Generally picked up the pieces during periods Court was away from the game, and also barely faced any of Bueno at her best, and Ann Jones was also significantly older and past most of her prime when King began dominating. Wade was never a particularly difficult opponent for her either, and she didnt even bother to test herself at the toughest venues like playing on clay that often, or going to Australia to face Court and Goolagong with home court advantage.

8. Wills Moody- Significantly harder competition than what Lenglen had.

9. Navratilova- About the only positive thing I can say about her competition was she faced Evert, and even Chris mired in a deep slump from about mid 82-mid 84, and now in her 30s in 85-86, which covers most of the Navratilova era. She faced Hana who was pretty good in 80, 81, 85, and 86 too. That is about it, Shriver was a decent fast courts only player. it speaks volumes a 17 year old Graf who was not as early a riser as Seles, Austin, took over #1 so easily with all the Navratilova era players minus Chris, including Martina herelf, still being completely in their primes, and copped only 2 losses for the year while still nowhere near her own 88-89 level yet.

10. Lenglen- Her competition sucked. Not her fault but it is what it is. Clearly last. Still one of the greats and arguably the greatest female player ever so this isnt dumpage of her. You cant control who you play, only if you win.

I don't get why you placed Serena at No1! Yes you are correct in saying 1999-2008 was the golden years of WTA, with the likes of Henin, Clijsters, prime Venus, Hingis, Cappriati, Davenport, those years were utterly crazy, but remember Serena was not as dominant then, in fact Henin spent more years at No1 than Serena IIRC. Serena has hugely inflated her resume since 2010/11 thanks to a pathetic weak WTA. So that surely says something?

 

[boredone3456]

Evert won a bunch of things and 2/3rds of her slams in 74-81, along with nearly all her time at #1. Martina won almost all her slams (14 of 18, even 15 of 18 sort of as the Aussie ended in 82), all her non Wimbledons, over 80% of her time at #1, and had the vast majority of her success in 82-87. And now with that said I dont think it needs to be explained to anyone how the 74-81 field was WAY deeper and stronger overall than 82-87. 82-84 has to be in contention for the worst stretch in tennis history, and that is really Martina hitting her peak really vultured/feasted, while Chris in addition to having to deal with unbeatable Martina who was also an awful match up for her when Martina was in top form, wasnt even in high form for her own standards either. Martina also wasnt usually even coming that close to more success in 74-81. Outside of the 2 slam finals she reahed in 75 which were only due to the Aussie and French being virtual non slams that year and depleted fields with mostly absentees, which she never reaches otherwise; her only losing slam final outside her 2 Wimbledon wins and the 81 Aussie win, was the 81 U.S Open final. So in addition to having very little of her bigtimme percentile career success in this period, she didnt even suffer much from the much greater depth and competition of this period the way Chris suffered from a nearly unbeatable Martina in 82-85, as she was rarely even coming that close. I do think Martina of 82-87 would have achieved a lot even in the much more competitive 70s, but that really is meaningless in the end, what happened matters.

Even in 82-87 where Chris just added a few final French Opens and her lone couple Aussies after having willingly skipped out for years, Chris faced Martina while Martina faced Chris, and since Martina was way better than Chris a lot of this time, through that alone Chris's competition even this period was harder.

Welcome back NadalAgassi...nice little selective Cherry picking you did there, typical

 

[BobbyOne]

Gonzalez and Hoad were top pro players into the mid 60's. Ken beat Pancho in the French pro final in 61 and Hoad in 3 other pro slam finals 60-63. Laver peaked in 64 but he was still a top player on the tour by mid 63 with only Rosewall able to dominate him that year. From 68 on Ken won the FO over Laver, lost to Rod in the 69 final. Ken won the 70 USO beating Newcombe and Roche. He lost the 70 Wimbledon, in 5 sets to Newcombe. Laver was still a top player in the early 70's along with Newcombe Roche, Ashe, Okker and others. The seventies was Not a weak era. The 71 AO was very competitive. Laver, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe Roche etc. all competing. Ken won that AO, beating Ashe in the finals and Emerson in the quarters.

thrust, Rosewall beat Hoad even in four majors 1960 to 1963 (3 Wembley, 1 French Pro). Rosewall dominated Laver also at end-1963 and was world champion even in 1964.

 

[BobbyOne]

Gonzalez and Hoad were much better at the end of the 50's compared to the early 60's, Gonzalez wasn't even playing the big events in 1960 and 1962-1963. Hoad was never the same after 1959.

I'm not so impressed with the early 70's but I think the mid to late 70's was strong once you had Borg/Connors and at the end Mac.

NatF, Hoad was still great at least in 1960.

 

[BobbyOne]

Oh please. Besides Chris who else did she have? Hana was in a slump most of the Martina era (82-86), only reemerging again towards the end. Shriver is a capable enough fast court player I guess but still isnt that good overall, an old Wendy Turbull certainly isnt that good, Bettina Bunge, Jo Durie, Barbara Potter, Kohde Kilsch, Sylvia Hanika, Kathy Rinaldi, a teenaged Zina Garrison, please. Mostly a joke top 10. Remember Austin was dunzo after the 81 U.S Open for all practical purposes, and Jaeger dunzo as a real force by late 82/early 83 even if she made the 83 Wimbledon final due to a joke draw which reflected the sad sack state of the game at the time. Navratilova actualy ran out crying at a press confference at the 83 U.S Open since reporters badgered her about the horrible state of the womens game, the video I believe is still up on youtube if you want to see it yourself. It only started to improve marginaly in mid 85 thanks to Hana's reemergence, Chris's resurgence, and the start of the rise of baby 14 and 15 year old Graf and Sabatini, and 17/18 year old Sukova.

Chris in the 70s while on top faced a way tougher field than Martina faced in the 80s, even if Chris's clay competition was weak. Also have to factor in that despite their glorified rivalry, Chris was an incredibly easy match up for a prime Navratilova which both Martina and Chris admit themselves, prime Navratilova had more trouble with Sukova in big matches than Evert which says it all, and it amounts to weak competition relative to other greats. People forget you have to factor in match ups when evaluating players competition, just like Federer as competition for Nadal isnt that great, especialy on clay, just due to the match up. Chris Evert of course is a better player than Sanchez Vicario, but Sanchez Vicario is actualy a much tougher opponent for Graf than Evert for a truly prime Navratilova, just due to the respective match ups. And when the womens tour was only Chris and Martina, it pretty much left Martina to face nothing, it is pretty much a miracle she managed to somehow goof up an easy Grand Slam in 83, 84, and to a lesser degree 82.

jaystarhair, Navratilova had the same opponents as Evert. Even if we only take Evert and Austin, it's very tough competition for Martina.

 

[NatF]

NatF, Hoad was still great at least in 1960.

According to Dan he was even #1

Lew was strong enough to make the final of the French Pro but I do tend to think the Pro fields in those years weren't as strong as they had been.

 

[BobbyOne]

Tilden did not dominate when the Muskuteers were at their best which was 1927 to 1932. In fact he hardly won anything at all. In fairness to him he was old and had a big age disadvantage by that point, but it also would have been interesting to see him play Cochet and Lacoste at their best. His chief rival was Bill Johnson and Vinnie Richards. Not exactly impressed.

1972 to 1974 were not neccessarily super weak but they were crazy disorganized with people skipping slams for money exhibitions and two different tours fighting. It amounted to some very weak draws in the slams, and even when players showed up they were often tired from some of the popular rival tours and exhibitions, which a very old Rosewall capatilized on, although credit to him for having such amazing longevity that he was even able to do that at nearly 40.

jaystarhair, I'm sorry but I must contradict you in several points. You make many claims but you don't back them with historical facts.

You also change your argumentation at will: Firstly your wrote that Tilden "did not even FACE the Musketeers at their best", in your new post you write he "did not DOMINATE" them and "hardly won anything at all".

The Musketeers were at their best probably from 1926 to 1929 (Lacoste's last year). Tilden met them often in big events (Davis Cup and Grand Slam tournaments) and was able to defeat them there rather often: He beat Borotra 5 times, Cochet 2 times and Lacoste once. Furthermore he lost the 1927 French final to Lacoste when having matchpoint only by a wrong call from the linesman who actually was Henri Cochet...

Tilden did win the 1929 US Championships and the 1930 Wimbledon. He also lost several big matches to Cochet and Lacoste only in five sets. All this when being an old man at 33 to 37!

In his prime (1920 to 1925) he had to deal with the great Johnston (not Johnson) and other great players like Richards and Patterson, also Borotra and Lacoste in Davis Cup. He beat them all and never lost a big match at all!!

Regarding Ken Rosewall you seem to make the same big mistake that several posters and other experts are doing: You underestimate his greatness.

You don't show due respect for Rosewall's great achievements as an old and as a very old player. He did NOT capitalize from schedule or tiredness of his victims. Your claim reminds me to another poster's absurd claim. That man ("kiki") wrote that probably Newcombe "gave" Muscles the win at Wimbledon because Ken had not yet won Wimbledon...

Please tell me why the three top Rosewall victims at Wimbledon, Tanner (the US Open semifinalist), Newcombe (the world's No.1) and Smith (who beat Connors by 4-6, 6-2, 6-0 the week before Wimbledon at Nottingham and won that event) have been tired or more tired than Methuselah Rosewall? Why was Newcombe in the US Open SF tired when he again lost to Rosewall?

Please be aware that Rosewall did extraordinary things rather often as an old player from 1965 till 1980. The 1974 wins over Newcombe and Smith were no flukes: The year before, when Rosewall was already 38/39, he beat Smith in the "World Cup" by 6-7, 6-0, 6-4 and Newcombe in the Japan Open's final by 6-1, 6-4. He also reached the SF stage at the year's most important tournament, US Open. Also the 1971 and 1972 big wins (AO and WCT Finals) were not flukes. They testify that Rosewall is one the the greatest players at all (one of my two GOATs together with Laver).

 

[jaystarhair]

jaystarhair, Navratilova had the same opponents as Evert. Even if we only take Evert and Austin, it's very tough competition for Martina.

Austin was barely around anyway, despite being a way weaker player Shriver is more relevant as competition (the tiny bit she even provides for a great that is) than Austin as she was atleast around at her best for 12 years, not 2 years. And the tiny bit she was around without being a 14 year old prepubscent or a walking corpse for a bit before retiring with injuries, Evert faced much more of Austin than Navratilova did, as Evert was a much bigger force in 80 and most of 81 (79 both were a big force) than Navratilova was.

 

[pc1]

For the men...

I'd move Sampras down below the current big 3 - and very clearly so. His main rival was mostly MIA and the myth of specialists is well overstated. I think the Big 3's competition is pretty much interchangeable depending on your outlook and vastly superior.

I would move Gonzalez ahead of Laver, I believe Rosewall had the weakest competition in his most dominant period e.g. 60-63 but he also had tougher competition than Laver in the late 50's + Laver himself in his late prime. So potentially Rosewall a smidge a head of Laver, Rosewall actually won slams deeper into the Open Era than Laver which counts for something as well. Frankly I'd move all those guys nearer to the bottom for the sole reason that tennis wasn't open.

I'd probably have it as;

1) 70's to 80's era - in some order
2) 00' to 10's era - in some order
3) 90's
4) Pro era
5) Tilden

Gonzalez and Hoad were much better at the end of the 50's compared to the early 60's, Gonzalez wasn't even playing the big events in 1960 and 1962-1963. Hoad was never the same after 1959.

I'm not so impressed with the early 70's but I think the mid to late 70's was strong once you had Borg/Connors and at the end Mac.

Thing is that it's very hard to rate quality of competition. A lot of it is opinion and knowing the names. I have read many a writer who felt the quality of competition in the 1920s was superior to many decades.

Tilden is hard to rate (as would Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Federer and others who played many years) for competition. Let's not forget that Tilden had a major knee injury around 1926. Apparently it was so bad that you could hear loud clicking of the knee when he was running! Yet the guy played greats like Vines, Perry, Budge, Nusslein, Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra and even Pancho Gonzalez! He was very competitive with Vines on tour despite being I believe 41 years old in winning 26 of 73 matches. Tilden faced many all time greats in their primes yet was able to defeat them at times at least.

For what it's worth Vines I believe ranked Tilden the greatest ever as of 1978.

Look at Federer as another example. Federer has defeated Agassi, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Kuerten, Nalbanian, Tsonga, Wawrinka, del Potro, Roddick and others. IMO he defeated all of them at their peaks at times at least with the exception of Agassi and Sampras.

Connors also has defeated Borg, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Vilas, Edberg, Dibbs, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Roche, Lendl, Orantes, Pancho Gonzalez, Mayer, Noah, Mecir.

Pancho Gonzalez defeated Kramer, Laver, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Connors, Smith, Roche, Buchholz, Emerson, Riggs, Frank Parker, Gimeno, Borg. Gonzalez had a plus record against virtually all of these players (despite having a negative age differential and often large age differential against many) with the exception of Kramer, Laver and maybe Connors.

Rosewall defeated Laver, Gonzalez, Ashe, Smith, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Hoad, Nastase, Vilas, Kodes, Roche, Newcombe, Emerson and even Connors among others.

The fact that they defeated such a powerful assortment of players over a period of decades shows the excellence of these greats.

 

[pc1]

I mean what do you call quality of competition? Some thought Connors as a baseliner instead of a serve and volleyer would never make it. Connors were really more of an all court player but still I think they were wrong. Some thought Borg's style of play was odd and he couldn't make it, especially on fast courts. Now Borg's style is considered perfect and the model often for modern tennis.

Some look at some eras in tennis and call it strong like the early Open Era but was it strong or was it because we recognize the names?

Was Connors, Borg, Lendl and McEnroe a quantum leap in tennis development or was it a negative?

It's really hard to rate.

 

[NatF]

Thing is that it's very hard to rate quality of competition. A lot of it is opinion and knowing the names. I have read many a writer who felt the quality of competition in the 1920s was superior to many decades.

Tilden is hard to rate (as would Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Federer and others who played many years) for competition. Let's not forget that Tilden had a major knee injury around 1926. Apparently it was so bad that you could hear loud clicking of the knee when he was running! Yet the guy played greats like Vines, Perry, Budge, Nusslein, Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Borotra and even Pancho Gonzalez! He was very competitive with Vines on tour despite being I believe 41 years old in winning 26 of 73 matches. Tilden faced many all time greats in their primes yet was able to defeat them at times at least.

Look at Federer as another example. Federer has defeated Agassi, Sampras, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Kuerten, Nalbanian, Tsonga, Wawrinka, del Potro, Roddick and others. IMO he defeated all of them at their peaks at times at least with the exception of Agassi and Sampras.

Connors also has defeated Borg, McEnroe, Gerulaitis, Nastase, Smith, Ashe, Vilas, Edberg, Dibbs, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, Roche, Lendl, Orantes, Pancho Gonzalez, Mayer, Noah, Mecir.

Pancho Gonzalez defeated Kramer, Laver, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Connors, Smith, Roche, Buchholz, Emerson, Riggs, Frank Parker, Gimeno, Borg. Gonzalez had a plus record against virtually all of these players (despite having a negative age differential and often large age differential against many) with the exception of Kramer, Laver and maybe Connors.

Rosewall defeated Laver, Gonzalez, Ashe, Smith, Sedgman, Segura, Cooper, Hoad, Nastase, Vilas, Kodes, Roche, Newcombe, Emerson and even Connors among others.

The fact that they defeated such a powerful assortment of players over a period of decades shows the excellence of these greats.

Indeed, no one can question how great these players are when their spread of wins spans so many generations of players.

It's also important that we're judging competition in the same way. Are we looking at just wins? Or are also including who they were defeated by? For example Rosewall should get credit for being stopped only by Connors in 1974 at Wimbledon and the USO.

 

[jaystarhair]

I don't get why you placed Serena at No1! Yes you are correct in saying 1999-2008 was the golden years of WTA, with the likes of Henin, Clijsters, prime Venus, Hingis, Cappriati, Davenport, those years were utterly crazy, but remember Serena was not as dominant then, in fact Henin spent more years at No1 than Serena IIRC. Serena has hugely inflated her resume since 2010/11 thanks to a pathetic weak WTA. So that surely says something?

I rated her #1 by default since who else is there? Graf some dont even agree with me ranking her #2 so it probably isnt her, and 93-96 were just as weak as the last few years of the WTA. I already explained why it would not be Court (Australian Open) or Evert (clay competition) otherwise I would probably have put them ahead. Winning roughly have their slams at either a non slam which had 20% of the worlds elite people attending on average (Court) or on a surface that except 84-86 had no competition at the time (Evert) makes it impossible to rank either #1. And obviously thinking it would be any of Connolly, Navratilova, Lenglen, or Wills would simply be a bad joke. So by default it is Serena, unless you can suggest a better suggestion for me. King who mostly shone when Court was taking a leave from the game, and didnt really experience Bueno at her best, or Evert or Navratilova at their best until she was well past her own prime? Seles?

 

[70sHollywood]

Indeed, no one can question how great these players are when their spread of wins spans so many generations of players.

It's also important that we're judging competition in the same way. Are we looking at just wins? Or are also including who they were defeated by? For example Rosewall should get credit for being stopped only by Connors in 1974 at Wimbledon and the USO.

If we count losses then basically the player who ranks last in your GOAT list had the toughest competition. So yeah, Rosewall had the toughest competition.

 

[NatF]

If we count losses then basically the player who ranks last in your GOAT list had the toughest competition. So yeah, Rosewall had the toughest competition.

Rosewall GOAT confirmed

 

[70sHollywood]

In terms of individual years for the men I would look at 1939, 1959, 1979, 1995 and 2011.

I think only once has an all time great played arguably their highest level and not finished the year as number 1, and that was Agassi in 1995. Feel free to argue he didn't or that other players did. Maybe Connors in 1978.

 

[pc1]

In terms of individual years for the men I would look at 1939, 1959, 1979, 1995 and 2011.

I think only once has an all time great played arguably their highest level and not finished the year as number 1, and that was Agassi in 1995. Feel free to argue he didn't or that other players did. Maybe Connors in 1978.

I felt Agassi overall for the year may of had a higher average level of play then Pete Sampras. The games won percentage in 1995 for Andre Agassi was the highest of his career and that's saying something. He was a pretty decent amount ahead of Sampras in that area. It's usually a very good indicator of the dominance of a player.

That being said you have to give credit to Pete Sampras for winning when it counts!

 

[BobbyOne]

If we count losses then basically the player who ranks last in your GOAT list had the toughest competition. So yeah, Rosewall had the toughest competition.

70sHollywood, This only can be an odd joke as Rosewall wone more often big events than any other male player...

 

[Phoenix1983]

Ways to spot a NadalAgassi account:

1. Rambling paragraphs.
2. Insistence on some kind of ranking system.
3. Hatred of Navratilova.

So be it.

 

[pc1]

In terms of individual years for the men I would look at 1939, 1959, 1979, 1995 and 2011.

I can interpret this in several ways. Could you clarify?

 

[Druss]

I rated her #1 by default since who else is there? Graf some dont even agree with me ranking her #2 so it probably isnt her, and 93-96 were just as weak as the last few years of the WTA. I already explained why it would not be Court (Australian Open) or Evert (clay competition) otherwise I would probably have put them ahead. Winning roughly have their slams at either a non slam which had 20% of the worlds elite people attending on average (Court) or on a surface that except 84-86 had no competition at the time (Evert) makes it impossible to rank either #1. And obviously thinking it would be any of Connolly, Navratilova, Lenglen, or Wills would simply be a bad joke. So by default it is Serena, unless you can suggest a better suggestion for me. King who mostly shone when Court was taking a leave from the game, and didnt really experience Bueno at her best, or Evert or Navratilova at their best until she was well past her own prime? Seles?

I tend to agree with @BobbyOne on this one. Navratilova had it tough sandwiched between 2 ATGs (Evert & Graf), besides other great players she faced in her relatively long prime years. I would place her and also Seles above Serena.

 

[Mr.Lob]

1) Evert
2) Navratilova
3) Graf
4) Seles
5) Court
6) King
7) Hellen Willis Moody
8) Sharapova
9) Venus
10) Serena

 

[70sHollywood]

I can interpret this in several ways. Could you clarify?

Just toughest competition but narrowed down to individual years. Though I only picked one for each period. There is not much to choose between 58 and 59, or 2009, 2011, 2012.

1927 and 1964 possibly two others. Not sure about the 40's and the 80's. Maybe 1942 and 1985.

But this is just based on who were the top players and how well they were playing. If we look a little deeper at who players actually beat things might be different.

 

[BobbyOne]

1) Evert
2) Navratilova
3) Graf
4) Seles
5) Court
6) King
7) Hellen Willis Moody
8) Sharapova
9) Venus
10) Serena

You surely mean Helen Wills Moody.

 

[pc1]

Just toughest competition but narrowed down to individual years. Though I only picked one for each period. There is not much to choose between 58 and 59, or 2009, 2011, 2012.

1927 and 1964 possibly two others. Not sure about the 40's and the 80's. Maybe 1942 and 1985.

But this is just based on who were the top players and how well they were playing. If we look a little deeper at who players actually beat things might be different.

I'll look at it over the next couple of days. I think 1939 is tough to decide because Vines was hurt and burnt out. I'm pretty sure if Vines was not as great as he was just a few years before.

 

[dgold44]

Mid 70s to early 90s was the best 15 yrs of tennis depth

 

[dgold44]

Best 15 yrs of tennis creativity

However today's big 3 are the best ever along with Sampras