Ten Greatest Of Allll Times

halbrikj · Feb 1, 2014

hoodjem said:
Unimaginably original.

The irony of sarcasm followed by a wise man quote appears to be lost on you.

Day Tripper · Feb 1, 2014

CyBorg said:
No, it isn't.

There is no doubt that as physical specimens todays players are far superior to those of 20/30/40 years ago. They are bigger/stronger/faster and have superior movement. You are going to be hard pressed to find many who work in my profession (sports science) who will disagree with this view.

Whether they are more skillful is debatable. Generally I would say that the top players of the 1990's would beat the top players of the 1960's. Similarly I would say that the top players of the 2000's would beat the top players of the 1970's. 25+ years would generally ensure a relatively large gap between the players in regard to their key performance markers - speed strength, etc

This is of course why there are very few Olympic records from the 1960's 1970's still standing ( the east german drugs aided records withstanding)

I believe that Rosewall, Laver & Gonzales would really struggle against Federer and Nadal. They just wouldn't be able to compete on a physical level regardless of how skillful they were.

Manus Domini · Feb 1, 2014

BobbyOne said:
Manus Domini, most of this is correct. But two corrections: Rosewall did not start as a CC specialist. His first major title was the Australian Championship on grass. Two years before, at mere 16, he won his first tournament, also on grass.

Don't insult Muscles regarding his serve! Having such a slow serve you never win 23 majors!!

Oh, really? I thought he started off back court, so I assumed CC. Wasn't he really good on clay? Did he have to develop that surface?

I never meant to insult!

His serve was extremely accurate. But I thought it was really that slow. McEnroe's was really slow, too, right? Which is why he complained about the speed monitors?

As I said, I got my information too much of Wikipedia and this forum (as well as the few matches and clips I find on YouTube). Unfortunately, my ability to know how great Muscles was is limited

BobbyOne said:
Manus Domini,

Thanks. I don't hate Federer at all but I believe he is overrated by many.

Fair enough

BobbyOne said:
M D, my English is rather bad. Therefore I don't know if you agree or disagree...

I agree

kiki · Feb 2, 2014

CyBorg said:
Okay, and my point remains. Was Laver not superior to Rosewall from 1964 to 1969?

Yes, we know that Kenny beat Rod in those Dallas WCT matches, but this speaks more to Rosewall's superior longevity than his dominance.

The turning point being 1964, although I think Laver´s clear dominance was 1965-1970.In 1971 Newcombe and Rosewall were ahead of him.In 1972 Nastase and Smith were ahead of him.

Flash O'Groove · Feb 2, 2014

Manus Domini said:
Oh, really? I thought he started off back court, so I assumed CC. Wasn't he really good on clay? Did he have to develop that surface?

I never meant to insult! His serve was extremely accurate. But I thought it was really that slow. McEnroe's was really slow, too, right? Which is why he complained about the speed monitors?

As I said, I got my information too much of Wikipedia and this forum (as well as the few matches and clips I find on YouTube). Unfortunately, my ability to know how great Muscles was is limited

Wikipedia allows to know that Rosewall won more majors than Laver. That's a good clue of how great he was.

Manus Domini · Feb 2, 2014

Flash O'Groove said:
Wikipedia allows to know that Rosewall won more majors than Laver. That's a good clue of how great he was.

I've known that for a while, actually. 4 in amatuer, 15 pro slams (the record) and 4 in Open Era.

But it's one thing seeing the stats, another thing watching him live, at the time.

DMP · Feb 2, 2014

Day Tripper said:
There is no doubt that as physical specimens todays players are far superior to those of 20/30/40 years ago. They are bigger/stronger/faster and have superior movement. You are going to be hard pressed to find many who work in my profession (sports science) who will disagree with this view.

I believe that Rosewall, Laver & Gonzales would really struggle against Federer and Nadal. They just wouldn't be able to compete on a physical level regardless of how skillful they were.

I'd be interested in your views therefore on this

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=482610

in particular on the speed calculation (btw Laver was 34, Djokovic is 26).

Also on my posts #8 and #21 in this thread

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=484174

Also, do you believe that players reflexes now are better than they were in the past, and what evolutionary pressures there might be to make them quicker. Or is it possible that, as we move into increasingly becoming divorced from nature, evolutionary pressures might actually be driving us the other way? And how important are characteristics such as reflexes and anticipation in a sport like tennis?

FWIW I think players now are probably slightly stronger than they were in the past, because modern rackets reward power more than the past, but the difference is slight and virtually all the differences with the past are technology-driven (including PEDs).

lima · Feb 2, 2014

I don't think that the game has changed so much but players did. They have never been so physically powerfull as now, I mean, not just in tennis, almost in every sport.

And yes, Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever

hoodjem · Feb 2, 2014

halbrikj said:
The irony of sarcasm followed by a wise man quote appears to be lost on you.

Irony? Moi?

Sarcasm? Never.

Now, on the other hand if you were being ironic or sarcastic, then yes, it was lost.

SamprasisGOAT · Feb 2, 2014

halbrikj said:
Tennis is constantly improving, to the extent that an argument could be made that at any given time, based on ability/efficacy as opposed to records, the top ten players in the world are in fact the 10 GOATs.

That said, when ranking the all time greats, a balance must be struck between ability/efficacy and records, e.g. grand slam wins, head to head results, etc.

So, here goes my top 10, with bases for their positions:

1) Rafael Nadal

Far and away the best clay courter ever. Only 13 slams compared to Roger's 17, but can't rank Roger above, given that Rafa has beaten him better than 2 to 1 over the past 10 years...

2) Roger Federer

All time leader in slams. Best fast court player of all time.

3) Novak Djokovic

Only six slams (only...) but won 5 of the 6 beating #1 and 2 on the list. Probably the best medium court player ever.

4) Pete Sampras

14 slams. Great athlete; greatest serve.

5) Andre Agassi

Career slam and a gold. Timed the ball better than anyone on the list. Beat Connors, Federer and everyone in between.

6) Rod Laver

2 grand slams. One of the all time best volleyers, and as mentally tough as the come (guess you'd have to be to win the grand slam...twice)

7) Ivan Lendl

Some of you might think that Connors and/or McEnroe should be ranked above Ivan. Connors: Vitas Gerulaitis once said "no one beats Gerulaitis 17 times in a row," but someone beat Connors 17 times in a row - Lendl...; "McEnroe: 8 slams to Mac's 7. Also Lendl won head to head 21 - 15, including 9 of their last 10.

8 ) Boris Becker

6 slams over an 11 year period. One of the best ever indoors. Dominant head to head records over the two players ranked below.

9) Stefan Edberg

6 slams, beating #4 Sampras in one final, #8 Becker in two finals. Proved to be a better serve and volleyer than #10 (Wimbledon '89, '91) One of the two best serve and volleyers of all time (Rafter).

10) John McEnroe

7 slams. Greatest touch player ever, and one of the all time greats indoors.

What about Connors?

Lost his last 10 matches against Borg, his last 17 matches against Lendl, and 12 of his last 14 matches with #10 McEnroe.

What about Borg?

Retired in part because he knew he could'nt beat an in-form McEnroe (#10) (lost last 3 slam finals against)

1.pete sampras

2.rafael nadal

3.roger federer

4.bjorn borg

5.john mcenroe

6.andre agassi

7.novak djokovic

8.ivan Lendl

9.jimmy connors

10.stefan edberg

Just missing out
Becker and wilander

halbrikj · Feb 2, 2014

hoodjem said:
Irony? Moi?

Sarcasm? Never.

Now, on the other hand if you were being ironic or sarcastic, then yes, it was lost.

Try to stay with me, hoodjem. Again, I was referring to your "unimaginably original" post, which you later said was to show the "ubiquity" :? of my topic. Thus, your post was not meant to be taken literally, i.e. not complimentary, thus was... sarcastic. Because sarcasm is generally not a quality associated with wise men, and because your sarcasm was followed by a "wise man" quote, your post is ironic.

BobbyOne · Feb 3, 2014

Manus Domini said:
Oh, really? I thought he started off back court, so I assumed CC. Wasn't he really good on clay? Did he have to develop that surface?

I never meant to insult! His serve was extremely accurate. But I thought it was really that slow. McEnroe's was really slow, too, right? Which is why he complained about the speed monitors?

As I said, I got my information too much of Wikipedia and this forum (as well as the few matches and clips I find on YouTube). Unfortunately, my ability to know how great Muscles was is limited

Fair enough

I agree

Manus Domini, You are right that Rosewall was very strong on clay very early as he won the 1953 French Championships as well. It's also correct that he improved his serve and volley game only in the course of the years but as early as in the 1954 Wimbledon final the reporter marvelled about Ken's "remarkable Rosewall volleys".

Rosewall never came to the net as often as f. i. Laver but still is regarded as one of the all-time greatest volleyers alongside Laver, Gonzalez, Newcombe, Roche, McEnroe and Edberg.

BobbyOne · Feb 3, 2014

kiki said:
The turning point being 1964, although I think Laver´s clear dominance was 1965-1970.In 1971 Newcombe and Rosewall were ahead of him.In 1972 Nastase and Smith were ahead of him.

kiki, You are growing older...

Which facts show that Laver clearly dominated in 1970? None.

BobbyOne · Feb 3, 2014

lima said:
I don't think that the game has changed so much but players did. They have never been so physically powerfull as now, I mean, not just in tennis, almost in every sport.

And yes, Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever

lima, Maybe for people of Lima...

hoodjem · Feb 3, 2014

halbrikj said:
Try to stay with me, hoodjem. Again, I was referring to your "unimaginably original" post, which you later said was to show the "ubiquity" of my topic. Thus, your post was not meant to be taken literally, i.e. not complimentary, thus was... sarcastic. Because sarcasm is generally not a quality associated with wise men, and because your sarcasm was followed by a "wise man" quote, your post is ironic.

Ahh, Sensei, I am most sorry you did not appreciate my use of irony. (It is not one of my most practiced traits.)

halbrikj · Feb 3, 2014

hoodjem said:
Ahh, Sensei. I am most sorry.

no worries, mate.

hoodjem · Feb 3, 2014

^^^Thanks.

hoodjem · Feb 3, 2014

Valdez737 · Feb 3, 2014

Super Fail list Djok at 3 yea right nice try kid djok not even top ten

CyBorg · Feb 8, 2014

Day Tripper said:
There is no doubt that as physical specimens todays players are far superior to those of 20/30/40 years ago. They are bigger/stronger/faster and have superior movement. You are going to be hard pressed to find many who work in my profession (sports science) who will disagree with this view.

Whether they are more skillful is debatable. Generally I would say that the top players of the 1990's would beat the top players of the 1960's. Similarly I would say that the top players of the 2000's would beat the top players of the 1970's. 25+ years would generally ensure a relatively large gap between the players in regard to their key performance markers - speed strength, etc

This is of course why there are very few Olympic records from the 1960's 1970's still standing ( the east german drugs aided records withstanding)

I believe that Rosewall, Laver & Gonzales would really struggle against Federer and Nadal. They just wouldn't be able to compete on a physical level regardless of how skillful they were.

Luckily we're talking tennis and not weighlifting. Yes, they stronger. That's about it.

BorisBeckerFan · Feb 8, 2014

SamprasisGOAT said:
1.pete sampras

2.rafael nadal

3.roger federer

4.bjorn borg

5.john mcenroe

6.andre agassi

7.novak djokovic

8.ivan Lendl

9.jimmy connors

10.stefan edberg

Just missing out
Becker and wilander

I like your list because I am biased but would swap in Becker for Edberg because I am biased.

kiki · Feb 8, 2014

BobbyOne said:
kiki, You are growing older...

Which facts show that Laver clearly dominated in 1970? None.

world series?

On mere slam results, it´s got to be Rosewall with Newcombe close.

SamprasisGOAT · Feb 8, 2014

BorisBeckerFan said:
I like your list because I am biased but would swap in Becker for Edberg because I am biased.[/QUOT

Thanks for the complement on my list. Yeh it's close between Becker and edberg. But I just thought edberg won the big matches between them. I prefer beckers style over edbergs. Power serve and volley is great to watch.

BobbyOne · Feb 8, 2014

kiki said:
world series?

On mere slam results, it´s got to be Rosewall with Newcombe close.

kiki, It's true that Laver dominated Rosewall in pro tournaments but altogether Rosewall was al least as good then than Laver. Bud Collins ranked the Rocket (his nearest friend among the players) only at No.4. I rank Rosewall, Newcombe and Laver tied No.1 for 1970.

kiki · Feb 9, 2014

BobbyOne said:
kiki, It's true that Laver dominated Rosewall in pro tournaments but altogether Rosewall was al least as good then than Laver. Bud Collins ranked the Rocket (his nearest friend among the players) only at No.4. I rank Rosewall, Newcombe and Laver tied No.1 for 1970.

Yes, it is pretty fair.

SamprasisGOAT · Feb 12, 2014

BorisBeckerFan said:
I like your list because I am biased but would swap in Becker for Edberg because I am biased.

My GOAT list has been changing daily but I'm sticking with this one and I think it takes some beating.

1. Sampras

2. Nadal

3. Borg

4. Federer

5. Lendl

6. Agassi

7. Djokovic

8. Connors

9. McEnroe

10. Becker

11. Edberg

12. Wilander

Anti-Fedal · Feb 12, 2014

SamprasisGOAT said:
My GOAT list has been changing daily but I'm sticking with this one and I think it takes some beating.

1. Sampras

2. Nadal

3. Borg

4. Federer

5. Lendl

6. Agassi

7. Djokovic

8. Connors

9. McEnroe

10. Becker

11. Edberg

12. Wilander

That moronic tennis channel list is still better than your one.

SamprasisGOAT · Feb 12, 2014

Anti-Fedal said:
That moronic tennis channel list is still better than your one.

I base a lot on peak level and I think Sampras nadal and Borg are above federer. I'm sorry

Anti-Fedal · Feb 12, 2014

SamprasisGOAT said:
I base a lot on peak level and I think Sampras nadal and Borg are above federer. I'm sorry

Any list without Laver, Gonzales or Tilden in the top 10 has no credibility.

BobbyOne · Feb 12, 2014

Anti-Fedal said:
Any list without Laver, Gonzales or Tilden in the top 10 has no credibility.

Anti-Fedal, You forgot Rosewall. He is often forgotten but I don't know why...

SamprasisGOAT · Feb 12, 2014

Anti-Fedal said:
Any list without Laver, Gonzales or Tilden in the top 10 has no credibility.

Its an open era list

Flash O'Groove · Feb 12, 2014

Here is my list based on peak level of play.

1. Sam Querrey
2. Samuel Groth
3. John McEnroe

Anti-Fedal · Feb 12, 2014

SamprasisGOAT said:
Its an open era list

Oh my bad, well either way Agassi has no business being above Connors or Mac.

hoodjem · Feb 12, 2014

Anti-Fedal said:
That moronic tennis channel list is still better than your one.

Ouch! That's rather damning.

BobbyOne · Feb 12, 2014

hoodjem said:
Ouch! That's rather damning.

hoodjem, Yes but the true scandal of the Tennis Channel list is the fact that it was compiled by "experts", not by erring posters or fans...

Vensai · Feb 12, 2014

hoodjem said:
Ouch! That's rather damning.

The tennis channel rankings were pretty ridiculous. Emerson over Gonzales?

hoodjem · Feb 12, 2014

Vensai said:
The tennis channel rankings were pretty ridiculous. Emerson over Gonzales?

Yes, absurdly ridiculous.

Choosing addition over calculus--Emerson over Gonzales.

poofytail · Feb 13, 2014

SamprasisGOAT said:
My GOAT list has been changing daily but I'm sticking with this one and I think it takes some beating.

1. Sampras

2. Nadal

3. Borg

4. Federer

5. Lendl

6. Agassi

7. Djokovic

8. Connors

9. McEnroe

10. Becker

11. Edberg

12. Wilander

Sampras might be the GOAT on grass, fast hard courts, and carpet, but even if he is, he still is nowhere near being the GOAT. Simply put you cant be totally incompetent on a major surface ( clay) and ever be GOAT.

Blocker · Feb 14, 2014

poofytail said:
Sampras might be the GOAT on grass, fast hard courts, and carpet, but even if he is, he still is nowhere near being the GOAT. Simply put you cant be totally incompetent on a major surface ( clay) and ever be GOAT.

The Italian Open says hello.

Ten Greatest Of Allll Times

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Professional

Similar threads