Rivalries than define an era

[kiki]

1920's: Tilden, Cochet, Lacoste. Tilden king of the Decade.
1930's: Vines, Perry, Budge (shared rulership of the decade between those three - with perhaps Budge ahead by a tad).
1940's: Budge, Riggs, Kramer (Shared rule of the decade by those three) Note: Gonzales and Kramer only played for a few months late in 1949 - so couldn't be considered a 1940's rivalry
1950's: Kramer (early in the decade), Seguera, Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad (and possibly Trabert). Pancho Gonzales king of the decade
1960's: Rosewall, Laver. Laver king of the decade
1970's: Smith, Newcombe, Connors, Borg. Borg king of the decade.
1980's: Borg (early in the decade), McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg. McEnroe and Lendl shared kingship of the decade (though I think that Lendl was ahead by a little).
1990's: Sampras, Agassi. Sampras king of the decade
2000's: Hewitt, Federer, Nadal. Federer king of the decade.

While I agree on most, my comments are:

1930: Vines over Crawford? seems that Vines is favoured because american
1970´s: I add Nastase, at least on equal terms as Smith
1980: Wilander counts as much as Edberg or Becker

I agree on every king of decade: Tilden,Budge,Kramer,Gonzales,Laver,Borg,Sampras,Federer and Mac/Lendl for the 80´s ( I don´t think any of them had a clear advantage over the other)

 

[kiki]

While I agree on most, my comments are:

1930: Vines over Crawford? seems that Vines is favoured because american
1970´s: I add Nastase, at least on equal terms as Smith
1980: Wilander counts as much as Edberg or Becker

I agree on every king of decade: Tilden,Budge,Kramer,Gonzales,Laver,Borg,Sampras,Federer and Mac/Lendl for the 80´s ( I don´t think any of them had a clear advantage over the other)

Honestly, after all the Daugherty and Renshaw, the only difficult point to understand is that Vines ( one of the greatest servers anytime) is ALWAYS prefered to Crawford.

Is there anything that justifies that ( other than Vines is an American and Crawford a poor wallabie-

 

[pc1]

Honestly, after all the Daugherty and Renshaw, the only difficult point to understand is that Vines ( one of the greatest servers anytime) is ALWAYS prefered to Crawford.

Is there anything that justifies that ( other than Vines is an American and Crawford a poor wallabie-

Vines was the dominant player in the Pros for many years and even when he was seemingly more interested in golf than tennis he was battling Budge closely on a Pro Tour.

But you are right that Jack Crawford was a fantastic player. There was a poll of tennis experts around 1970 or so and I will see how Crawford ranked in that poll compared to Vines.

 

[pc1]

Honestly, after all the Daugherty and Renshaw, the only difficult point to understand is that Vines ( one of the greatest servers anytime) is ALWAYS prefered to Crawford.

Is there anything that justifies that ( other than Vines is an American and Crawford a poor wallabie-

In a poll late in 1969, an international panel of tennis writer picked the greatest players of all time, they were 1. Tilden 2. Budge 3. Laver 4. Gonzalez 5. Kramer 6. Perry 7. Cochet 8. Lacoste 9. Hoad 10. Vines 11. Rosewall 12. R L Doherty 13. Brookes 14. Sedgman and Johnson 15. W Renshaw 16. Jack Crawford 17. Gottfried von Cramm, Pancho Segura, Tony Wilding and Roy Emerson were all tied.

So in 1969, when I'm sure more people remembered Crawford and Vines that Vines were still ranked a bit ahead of Crawford. Interesting how how Kramer is up there and he is not often mentioned now which is a shame. Why Hoad is ahead of Rosewall is beyond me but I guess people were impressed by his great ability.

 

[urban]

Vines turned pro in his prime after the 1933 season. His last amateur season was far from great. Similar to Connors in 1975, after doing unbelievable things in 1932, he lost the big amateur championships 1933 to Crawford at Wim (greatest pre war final) and US to Bitsy Grant. In contrast to Crawford (who stayed amateur), he probably reached his peak at the pros, wehre he was champion 1934-1938, beating Tilden, Ramillon, Nuesslein and then the great amateur champ Perry in cross country tours.

 

[pc1]

Vines turned pro in his prime after the 1933 season. His last amateur season was far from great. Similar to Connors in 1975, after doing unbelievable things in 1932, he lost the big amateur championships 1933 to Crawford at Wim (greatest pre war final) and US to Bitsy Grant. In contrast to Crawford (who stayed amateur), he probably reached his peak at the pros, wehre he was champion 1934-1938, beating Tilden, Ramillon, Nuesslein and then the great amateur champ Perry in cross country tours.

Here's a short video of the great Vines-Crawford Wimbledon match which Crawford won in five sets.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=4059

 

[urban]

Nice film clips, pc 1. The 1969 poll consisted - if i remember it right- of people like Hopman, Danzig, Tingay, Judith Elian, Bud Collins and other long time writers then. The only one who is still active is Bud Collins. In those days the experts were real experts and held the tradition of the game very high. Today it would be imo impossible, that so called experts would pick so many greats from 50 years gone among the greatest ten.
By the way a question to pc 1 or others: Has anyone read the new book of Sidney Wood, who died a short time ago. I am considering to buy it for christmas. I have read, that he always ranked Budge as the best of alltime.

 

[pc1]

Nice film clips, pc 1. The 1969 poll consisted - if i remember it right- of people like Hopman, Danzig, Tingay, Judith Elian, Bud Collins and other long time writers then. The only one who is still active is Bud Collins. In those days the experts were real experts and held the tradition of the game very high. Today it would be imo impossible, that so called experts would pick so many greats from 50 years gone among the greatest ten.
By the way a question to pc 1 or others: Has anyone read the new book of Sidney Wood, who died a short time ago. I am considering to buy it for christmas. I have read, that he always ranked Budge as the best of alltime.

I have the Sidney Wood book. It's interesting and it has some interesting insights on the game as well as discussions about the many players he had seen and played.

 

[kiki]

Nice film clips, pc 1. The 1969 poll consisted - if i remember it right- of people like Hopman, Danzig, Tingay, Judith Elian, Bud Collins and other long time writers then. The only one who is still active is Bud Collins. In those days the experts were real experts and held the tradition of the game very high. Today it would be imo impossible, that so called experts would pick so many greats from 50 years gone among the greatest ten.
By the way a question to pc 1 or others: Has anyone read the new book of Sidney Wood, who died a short time ago. I am considering to buy it for christmas. I have read, that he always ranked Budge as the best of alltime.

...and Rex Bellamy, of the Times.I think those traditionalistic experts tended to enhance pre world war players vs post world war in the mood of protecting them and respecting their great feats and accomplishments.

 

[pc1]

Nice film clips, pc 1. The 1969 poll consisted - if i remember it right- of people like Hopman, Danzig, Tingay, Judith Elian, Bud Collins and other long time writers then. The only one who is still active is Bud Collins. In those days the experts were real experts and held the tradition of the game very high. Today it would be imo impossible, that so called experts would pick so many greats from 50 years gone among the greatest ten.
By the way a question to pc 1 or others: Has anyone read the new book of Sidney Wood, who died a short time ago. I am considering to buy it for christmas. I have read, that he always ranked Budge as the best of alltime.

I find that it's a shame that the "experts" of today tend to weigh the best ever so heavily in favor of the present or very recent past. The past greats like a Kramer, Perry or a Tilden have done so much but often are forgetten in favor of for example an Agassi (not there is anything wrong with Agassi but I'm using him as a recent example) and others.

Incidentally Urban, Wood seems to be Budge on a pedestal and rates him in certain categories higher than he normally would be ranked by others. Kramer for example ranks Budge as the best he had seen but in many areas of the game he ranks Budge not nearly as high as Wood.

 

[kiki]

I find that it's a shame that the "experts" of today tend to weigh the best ever so heavily in favor of the present or very recent past. The past greats like a Kramer, Perry or a Tilden have done so much but often are forgetten in favor of for example an Agassi (not there is anything wrong with Agassi but I'm using him as a recent example) and others.

Incidentally Urban, Wood seems to be Budge on a pedestal and rates him in certain categories higher than he normally would be ranked by others. Kramer for example ranks Budge as the best he had seen but in many areas of the game he ranks Budge not nearly as high as Wood.

So, while it is a very entertaining game imagining a Perry vs Daugherty or a Crawford vs Brookes or a Budge vs Tilden contest, we will never known.I can´t see why should we go by what other people said in the past, their onlook could be as biassed as us...let´s talk about what we have seen from early 70´s till today, that is what we can talk about with a sound knowledge...

 

[pc1]

So, while it is a very entertaining game imagining a Perry vs Daugherty or a Crawford vs Brookes or a Budge vs Tilden contest, we will never known.I can´t see why should we go by what other people said in the past, their onlook could be as biassed as us...let´s talk about what we have seen from early 70´s till today, that is what we can talk about with a sound knowledge...

I have no doubt some of these experts from the past would be somewhat bias because we are all human and I have no doubt some of the experts of today are somewhat bias. However there are some who aren't that bias and can reasonably discuss the players of the past and present logically. I actually think Sidney Wood was pretty good in examining the the past and present players. He has a number of players from the recent past on his all time greats list and he respected Roger Federer tremendously. I don't think he had Federer on his list yet but I'm sure he eventually would have. He also respected Nadal and Agassi.

These former players and experts have had the chance to see so many of the greats. We can't afford not to listen to their opinions and observations whether we agree with them or not.

 

[kiki]

I have no doubt some of these experts from the past would be somewhat bias because we are all human and I have no doubt some of the experts of today are somewhat bias. However there are some who aren't that bias and can reasonably discuss the players of the past and present logically. I actually think Sidney Wood was pretty good in examining the the past and present players. He has a number of players from the reason past on his all time greats list and he respected Roger Federer tremendously. I don't think he had Federer on his list yet but I'm sure he eventually would have. He also respected Nadal and Agassi.

These former players and experts have had the chance to see so many of the greats. We can't afford not to listen to their opinions and observations whether we agree with them or not.

Sis Wood played in the 30´s right? so, how old is he ?

 

[pc1]

Sis Wood played in the 30´s right? so, how old is he ?

He passed away in January of 2009 at the age of 97.

 

[kiki]

He passed away in January of 2009 at the age of 97.

This is very touching.I know he played the Fields,Vines,Perry and Allison of the 30´s, in his early 20´s...and then he has seen Federer...and I hope his sight and mind was still good enough...and his memory too...

 

[kiki]

1900: The Doh bros

1910: Brookes vs Wilding

1920: Tilden against Borotra,Lacoste and Cochet.In second term: any match between the 3 frenchies

1930: Perry vs Crawford and Budge vs Von Cramm

1950: Gonzales vs kramer at the pro level and Hoad vs Rosewall at the amateur level

1960: Laver vs Rosewall

1970: Borg vs Connors, Nastase vs Smith

1980: the best era for rivalries.Lendl vs Mac is the greatest, but almost as close Borg vs Mac, Mac vs Connors, Lendl vs Wilander and Edberg vs Becker

1990: Sampras vs Agassi.on fast courts, Sampras vs Rafter and Sampras vs Becker were very interesting, so was the Agassi vs Courier rivalry on clay

2000: Nadal vs Federer.Kuerten vs Safin would have been great if they could have played more regularly

WOMEN

1920: Lenglen vs Mills

1940-50: Fry vs Gibson, Connolly vs Marble or Betz

1960: Court vs Bueno and Court vs King

1970: Evert vs Cawley, Evert vs King almost as good

1980: Evert vs Navratilova and, later on, Navratilova vs Graf

1990: Graf vs Seles.I also enjoyed Davenport vs Hingis later on

2000´s: the Williams sisters.But coming in the mix, the 2 Belgians and Sharapova had also very interesting rivalries.Very split.