Ten greatest players of all time?

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I think you need to put Guga in that list, to win the FO 3 times is a remarkable accomplishment. By far the toughest slam to win, and greatest depth of players on clay.

A player with only 3 slam titles, who has never been past the quarters of a slam on any surface other than clay. That is top ten all time worthy? If Guga was indeed a top ten all-time, Roger Federer would be #1 all-time.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Ken Rosewall was a great player but I definitely think you regard him a little too highly. Yes, he had great longevity & won majors close to 20 years apart, but I don't think he ever was clearly the best player in the world at any time in his career(even on the pro circuit) Connors also had longevity, but clearly was the best for a time.

Actually I thought there was a period on the pro circuit that Rosewall was indeed established as clearly the best, for about 3 or 4 years. If I am indeed mistaken, you are right I have him far too high, despite his longevity, and greatness in the sport. The information I gathered indicated he was clearly the best for a 3 or 4 year period, quite dominant for that span of time. I was thinking along those terms as I did my rankings.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Don't be fooled by Goolagong's Aussie titles, she was a great all surface player & matched up very well with the best players of her time(you should check her head-to-heads). She was only 19 & a relative unknown when she beat Court & King back-to-back(both in straight sets, both still great players) to win Wimbledon in '71. She gave Evert a lot of trouble from '75 to '76 beating her, I believe 5 times in a row. Their rivalry received a lot of attention in '76(Goolagong was on the cover of SI when she seemed to have the "indomitable" Evert's number)
Plus she left the tour to have a baby & was able to return to win Wimbledon in 1980(beating Evert)
I'm not saying she deserves to be mentioned in a top 10 list of the greatest players, but I can't see how she's in the same level as a Sanchez-Vicario, accomplishments wise. Plus if you're undervaluing her career based on Australian Open success, you should do the same to Court, she won half of her majors there.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Don't be fooled by Goolagong's Aussie titles, she was a great all surface player & matched up very well with the best players of her time(you should check her head-to-heads). She was only 19 & a relative unknown when she beat Court & King back-to-back(both in straight sets, both still great players) to win Wimbledon in '71. She gave Evert a lot of trouble from '75 to '76 beating her, I believe 5 times in a row. Their rivalry received a lot of attention in '76(Goolagong was on the cover of SI when she seemed to have the "indomitable" Evert's number)
Plus she left the tour to have a baby & was able to return to win Wimbledon in 1980(beating Evert)
I'm not saying she deserves to be mentioned in a top 10 list of the greatest players, but I can't see how she's in the same level as a Sanchez-Vicario, accomplishments wise. Plus if you're undervaluing her career based on Australian Open success, you should do the same to Court, she won half of her majors there.

Fair enough. I could be underestimating her ability as a player. Her head to head with top players also could be a bit misleading though, since as I mentioned she seemed susceptable to bad losses to journeywoman in early rounds more than other players of her greatness, and she also had trouble coming up big in big finals particularly at the U.S open, and to a lesser extent Wimbedon her two impressive titles notwithstanding(she lost 7 straight finals at the U.S open and Wimbledon between her 71 and 80 titles).

I did look at her Aussies a bit differently than Court, since Court was able to prove more so than Goolagong that she could alot of majors at other slams.

Sanchez Vicario probably would not have been able to do the equilavent on clay of beating King and Court back to back to win Wimbledon as Goolagong did in 71 though; for example she wouldnt ever be able to beat Seles and Graf back to back to win the French I dont think. She also would never reach 4 straight U.S open finals, or win 4 straight Australians had the field been depleted by loss of importance today as it was then. So probably I am undervaluing Goolagong a bit, to put her on par with Sanchez Vicario, Mandilikova I still think is though.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Some random opinions and musings

Lendl didn't win Wimbledon but have a look at his record there. Semi's and finals abound. His problem was that his very best grass game vs Edberg/Becker/Cash/s very best grass game could not quite win. These guys were natural serve volleyers while Ivan was robotic and inflexible, but mainly really compared to them. Their best clay game would be devoured by Ivan and his very finest hard court tennis beats them all in my opinion. On topic as well, Borg didn't win the US, Mac the French, Connors too, Wilander Wimbledon, Sampras French etc. Wimbledon may be the most prestigous but the French was if anything harder to win for most. Lendl's record at Wimbledon is vastly superior to most if not all of the above at the others.

When looking at Wilander i cannot find a way to rate him above Lendl, Connors, Borg or Mac. When all is taken in he ranks just below them but still very highly. When the others weren't quite at their best, Wilander cleaned up. He never really had off days and whoever played him knew if they didn't play superbly they wouldn't win. Much like Hewitt.

Borgs Wimbledon and French records are simply astonishing. To win so many times on such different surfaces is almost inconcievable. Admittedly their wasn't as many grass threats as say in the mid and later 80's but still in all. Tho he won many times on hardcourts just one win in the US would have eased him even higher. Like Lendl at the W tho, he did perform well there many times.

Davis Cup should i think enter discussions. Becker has close to the finest singles record ever in live rubbers. He was nigh well unbeatable in a live singles rubber no matter what. While still an unrounded kid he hammered Wilander and Edberg in a final.

If Seles wasn't stabbed she would surely be number one. She was closing in on total domination of Graf when stabbed. Graf may well have rebounded to rechallenge, she was stale and struggling on many fronts. Seles had her measure however, and i for one think Graf is top 5 at the very worst. At the moment it looks like she might get the William's gals on longevity.


Mandlikova could have been anything with less fraility. She could rise to the heights of anyone, but didn't get there often enough and was quite often dismal. With any ofr her higher rated opponents heads and hearts aboard she might well have been even better than Evert and Martina. If only. Her career performances were at the 85 US where she beat Evert and Martina back to back, simply playing too good. There was nothing she couldn't do except perform consistently and justify her talent. Leconte was similar to a lesser extent.

Agassi deserves marks for winning on all four slam surfaces in the modern day. He has something all the modern day male players don't.

Fed is vary hard to rank at the moment. Many will want him number one, many will want him held back until he has been around longer. Nobody could argue he isn't the potential number one, and possibly in the near future. He might just be the most argued player at present. As far as his best tennis against everyone elses - he might already be the greatest ever. He has the talent to be a master of every surface. His big test will be the French Open battle of attrition. His weapons are more easily blunted there, and many can give him a good battle on clay whereas only Safin seems to be able to elsewhere at the moment. He could still easily succeed on clay tho. This year will be very interesting since he failed to win the AO. He will be very hungry.

Guga can't be included on the strength of the 3 FO's. Considering his talents he has been an underacheiver away from clay for mine. Injury or other he has been almost invisible for some time. He showed what he can do last year on clay yes, i thought he would have taken it further to a possible title after beating Fed tho.



John

 

[hyperwarrior]

Who would you choices be for the ten greatest players of all time, per gender? These would be mine in order:


Men

1. Pancho Gonzales
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Rod Laver
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Pete Sampras
6. Bill Tilden
7. Don Budge
8. Ken Perry
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Jack Kramer

I predict by the end of 2006 Roger will be on this list, somewhere between #7 and #10.



Women

1. Steffi Graf.
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Margaret Court
4. Suzanne Lenglen
5. Maureen Connoly
6. Monica Seles
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Chris Evert,
9. Billie Jean King
10. Serena Williams

Pardon my ignorance, but why Pancho is first on your personal list?

 

[Yours!05]

Calling Richard Parnell and Jet Rink re. Hoad

...I was lucky enough to be taught tennis by Lew (I live next to his tennis ranch)...
Richard

...I love these debates too. It gets everyone thinking about the heritage of this great sport.
Hoad - I hit regularly with a guy that trained under Lew in Australia, as a boy. Amazin' stories.
Jet

Richard and Jet -
How about sharing some of your impressions and stories with us?
I saw Lew play a few times in Australia when I was young and can still remember being stunned into silence by what I saw.
On this board now, where there are quite a few experts of all ages, and many fans, about all I ever see is Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall on the best lists from the Kramer Pro era, and then one, or all of them, take an automatic entry into the GOAT 10 being discussed.
I didn't intend to be one of Lew's champions on this board, but it is evident to me that he is slipping into a grossly unjust obscurity.
As Crosscourt quoted: Whenever this topic comes up at my club, the greybeards say "You think Laver was good? You should have seen Hoad."

If "the heritage of this great sport" is to be protected, then one of its legends deserves to be more often remembered and celebrated.

 

[Hops]

[Lendl] made more GS finals & semifinals than anyone in the open era.

Connors has the most SF.

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/semifinals_openera.html

 

[JohnThomas1]

Kev may have meant combined.

 

[AndrewD]

Its really nice to see people bringing up the name of Lew Hoad. Too often forgotten by those who didn't see him (even here in Australia) and a player who definately suffered due to injury and entering the pro tour (Gonzalez suffered even more so in terms of major titles but had longevity, something Hoad's back wouldnt allow him). However, if you read the opinions of Hoad's contemporaries you aren't left with much doubt as to his greatness. Every one of the Aussie players, including Laver (2 grand slams) and Emerson (second most major titles) say he was the best they ever saw and opinions like that carry a great deal of weight.

Recently a few people at our club were chatting to Mal Anderson (former US Open winner) and Trevor Laver (Rod's brother) and asked them who was the best they'd seen. Both said, 'Lew Hoad first, daylight second'. Trevor politely suggested his brother was 'pretty handy' as well . Talk about understated LOL.

Interestingly, they both felt that Pete Sampras was the best player they'd seen in the last 20 years. Not the most talented but, day in, day out the best. They also mentioned a top 10, in no order, but the only ones I can recall are Laver, Hoad, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Gonzalez and that they rated Connors higher than Borg or McEnroe.

Also, if anyone has read 'A Handful of Summers' by Gordon Forbes ( a player on the circuit in the 50's and 60's) he wrote, in comparing Hoad and Laver,

"At his best, I truly swear that he was unbeatable. Unplayable. Some players do this, and others that. Lew Hoad did everything. Select, if you like, the best tennis match ever played, and you will find quite unquestionably that Hoad played in it. And then brushed it aside with an understatement. Rod Laver is a carbon coply of the original Hoad. Only lefthanded and without the full majesty. The mighty power".

 

[urban]

ten greatest players of all time

The question of the greatest player ist a matter of personal choice. I want to make some notes on behalf of the professional tours in the fifties and sexties. I refer to the book of Joe McCauley: The History of Professional Tennis, who compiled a complete record of the pro tours from the twenties to 1968.
First: Laver was a great professional champion as well as amateur champion. Indeed, he was beaten initially by Rosewall, when he turnd pro in 1963 (like all other former amateurs, who had to adjust to the different format and conditions of pro tennis), but only for half a year. He finished 1963 with one of the best rookie records in history as number 2 behind Rosewall. In 1964 he ranked alongside Rosewall, both had 7 tournament wins, but Laver won the two most prestigous tournaments (Wembley, US Pro) and had a 12:3 personal record vs. Rosewall. 1965-1970 Laver was clearly Nr. 1 and won by far the most tournaments and money on the pro tour, including 4 Wembley, tournaments, 5 US Pros. In 1967 he won between 18 tournaments a sort of Pro Grand Slam, which means all the big pro tourneys (Wembley, US Pro, the Wimbledon Pro, French Pro,Madsion Square Garden Pro, Forst Hills Pro). In all he won over 150 tournamnts in his career, alone 45 in open competition, when he was over 30 years of age. Laver was not a pure grass court specialist. In 1969 he won the two biggest hard court tourneys outside the grand slam (South Africa, Boston). In 1962 he had the best clay court record of all time (better than Muster in 1995), 1971 he beat French champion Kodes in Rome, even 1974 he beat a 'good' clay-court player named Borg on clay in Houston.
Second: Gonzales was pro champion from 1954-1960. As great as he was, he was a specialist for fast courts and the one-on-one-series on indoor courts in the US. The fresh amateur champions he faced (Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad) had no experience on indoor courts. In the tournaments in Europe he was not as dominant, so he never won the Roland Garros Pro in the fifties vs. Rosewall or Trabert.
Third: Hoad was a mythical player in the fifties, he almost won the grand slam as amateur in 1956, but he never won a big pro tournament. He always lost the finals to Gonzales and Rosewall, so you cannot rank him above Rosewall.
Fourth: Rosewall was undisputed pro champion 1960 to 1963. He had extraordinary longlivety, but he never was as dominant as Laver in 1962, 1967 and 1969. All these truly great players were hampered by the segregation in amateurs and pros up to 1968 and would have won many more mayors in their respective careers.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Pardon my ignorance, but why Pancho is first on your personal list?

Actually it was based on his record in the pro ranks, where all the best players played from 50-68. He won a load of pro slams between 51-60.

Upon some closer examination though, I think I should not have ranked him 1.
He never won the French pro, and he only won the London pro and U.S pro in the same year once, even though one or the other was cancelled several years.

Rosewall on the other hand has won both the London pro and U.S pro in the same year 4 times, won the French, London, and U.S pro in the same year once, a sort of slam sweep, and even excluding any post-67 pro titles, has won the same number of pro slams as Gonzales, that is in addition to all hsi incredable accomplishments at the traditional slams. I would actually change Rosewall to the best of all time, and drop Gonzales to 3 or 4.

I agree on Hoad. I have seen his matches on tape, and he probably played the best tennis ever when he was on. However due to a back injury early in his pro career he lost a head to head tour with the indomitable Gonzales, he probably would have won, and never won a major pro title. He only won 4 traditional slams as an amateur. I just felt I couldnt put him in the top 10 since he didnt have the luck with health, other factors to accomplish enough.
I could understand people disagreeing with my philosophy on him though. Like I said I agree when he played well I have never seen anything better.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Food for thought

I have an Ellsworth Vines book in which he ranks his top ten since Budge. He took this very seriously. Connors and Borg were not considered as they were still achieving strongly. I notice that the majority of raters from this era rated Budge ahead of Kramer and Kramer ahead of Pancho. It is almost carved in stone. Here are his ratings

1. Budge
2. Kramer
3. Pancho
4. Laver
5. Segura
6. Riggs
7. Rosewall
8. Hoad
9. Sedgman
10. Trabert

 

[Northerly]

This so called "asterix" over Graf's career is incredibly unfair and very shortsighted. It wasn't Graf's fault that Seles was stabbed. And it assumes that Graf would have been incapable of mounting a serious resurgence or that Seles wouldn't have come back to the field through injury, illness etc. You cannot simply assume that Graf would not have lifted her game the 5% required, or that Seles would have necessarily maintained her level.

Seles was ravaged by injury when she returned - and this had nothing to do with the stabbing. It could have easily happened in 1993 or 94 too!

Recall that Navratilova had a period where she dominated Evert, but then Evert turned things back around.

And it's not like Seles was beating Graf 2 and 2 each time they met. On arguably Seles best surface - clay - Graf took her to 10-8 in the third in the French Open.

On arguably Seles worst surface she was decimated by Graf 6-2 6-1 in the Wimby final!

 

[scoot]

I agree that Graf may have eventually found a way to challenge Seles for slams (other than wimby) and the #1 ranking, but who knows how long that would have taken? All indications at the time of the stabbing is it would have taken quite a bit longer. The way Seles dismantled Graf in the AO final of 93 after Graf played an unbelievable 1st set is a pretty good indication that Seles had the upperhand. Her serve was improving and she was adding more to her game. I think for sure Seles would have won more than her share (half) of the slams Graf collected in her absence in the rest of 93-96 given the way she had been dominating the slams just prior to the Hamburg stabbing (7 out of previous 10 slams).

As for the notion that injuries hurt Seles in her comeback after the stabbing, that is true. But to discount the impact that the stabbing had on her psyche (requiring 2.5 years just to step on a tennis court competitively & years of therapy) is unfair. There is no question the stabbing ruined her mentally - before the stabbing she was lean & tough as nails mentally. After the stabbing, she turned to food to cope, became fat, and fragile in tough matches.

There is no comparison.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

There were 15 slams played from 93-96, after the stabbing incident. If what Seles would have won is only "atleast half" according to you, that would mean 8 I assume you mean, which means Graf winning 7, since nobody else would have won any slams with both of them playing. Graf would still have 18, the same number as Evert and Navratilova, or 19 if she won a slam in 99 anyway since she contended at both the French and Wimbledon in 99. Also had Seles played from 93-96 we would be saying Graf had tougher competition than Evert or Navratilova, since as I already mentioned they were not really among their peaks at the same time anyway.

In order for Graf to be a level altogether below Evert and Navratilova Seles would have had to have won three quarters of 93-96 slams to reduce Graf's count to 15 or so. Then again also had Seles been there and Graf less dominanting, she may have been smarter as far as not overplaying feeling the pressure to hold up the tour on her own, and been healthy to continue playing well and contending through 99 and 2000, which she wasnt as it was.

The 93 Australian was the most lopsided win Seles had over Graf in a grand slam, but it is Graf's worst surface by far, worse than clay, and Seles best by far, better than clay. Looking at that one match as the best indicator is if somebody chose the 92 Wimbledon final where Seles was humiliated as the best indicator, but then again that was on grass, which favors Graf the most.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Food for thought

I have an Ellsworth Vines book in which he ranks his top ten since Budge. He took this very seriously. Connors and Borg were not considered as they were still achieving strongly. I notice that the majority of raters from this era rated Budge ahead of Kramer and Kramer ahead of Pancho. It is almost carved in stone. Here are his ratings

1. Budge
2. Kramer
3. Pancho
4. Laver
5. Segura
6. Riggs
7. Rosewall
8. Hoad
9. Sedgman
10. Trabert

Segura and Riggs ahead of Rosewall, Hoad, or even Sedgman and Trabert? What was this guy smoking, and yes I am aware Segura was a tough player on the pro circuit, and even gave Gonzales fits from time to time, but still.....Also isnt #4 on that group a little low for Laver.

 

[Richard Parnell]

I have read above that Lew Hoad never won a major.I think that you will find that he won Wimbledon in 58 and 59.I believe he also won the doubles.
All the best,
Richard

 

[scoot]

The 93 Australian was the most lopsided win Seles had over Graf in a grand slam, but it is Graf's worst surface by far, worse than clay, and Seles best by far, better than clay.

Its a bit much to say rebound ace is Graf's worst surface "by far." She may have not have won as many AOs as wimby's but she still won, what 4? Steffi was amazing on all surfaces; its splitting hairs trying to identify what was her worst surface. When she was playing well she was just as deadly on rebound ace as on clay. Look at how she totally crushed ASV in the '94 final 6-0 6-2. That was one of the most dominating grand slam finals ever. I saw that match, Graf was absolutely on fire - and the surface sure wasn't hurting her there. (she was hitting topspin backhands for winners in that final!) In truth, you wont find a player as effective on all surfaces as Graf was.

At the same rate, it is splitting hairs identifying whether clay or rebound ace was monica's best surface before the stabbing. She was great on both of them (and did win 3 RGs and 3 AOs in a row each).

 

[joesixtoe]

you cant really determine who is the best of all time, you can only determine who is the best of their own era. here is why, in every sport you grow up adapting and learning the game the way it is played at the time. say babe ruth plays baseball these days, he wouldnt have been out of shape. so if laver or conners plays now, they would have adapted to the game. same as in vice versa. so you cant really say who is better.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I think rebound ace was Graf's worst surface since her slice backhand and slice serve sat up more on the surface. Also she had problems with the heat. She won 4, but she was lucky to win in 1990 when almost nobody of note showed up, Sabatini and Garrison both lost, and Sukova should have beaten her in the semis but choked.

As for Monica I thinks he liked the high bounce, she timed it extremely well, she also seemed to like the atmosphere. Look at how easily she went through her opponents at the 92 and 93 Australian compared to the 92 French. There is no comparision.

 

[scoot]

It's still splitting hairs. You find 1 example, I can find another. Monica had just as dominating a FO in '91 as she had an AO in 93. Also, Monica's AO 91 was difficult (ala her RG of 92).

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Fair enough. I always felt Graf liked even clay obviously more than rebound ace, and Seles rebound ace even more than clay. It is just my opinion though. The only surface either was suspect was Monica on grass, but she did make the final in 92 somehow.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Well I remember the 91 French and I was not impressed with the level of tennis. Sabatini struggled the whole tournament, and was lucky to even get to the semis to play Monica(Novotna choked in the quarters). Capriati, Mary Joe Fernandez, and even Steffi Graf, were quite sluggish that tournament, I think Mary Joe and Steffi both lost 6-0 sets to Sanchez Vicario who while great on clay is far too defensive to do something like that unless the tennis is shaky. Seles and Sanchez Vicario were the only top players playing well.

On the other hand the 92 Australian and 93 Australian I recall the level being quite optimum, unlike the lackluster 91 French Open tennis.

 

[scoot]

This is all true. My point, is it's splitting hairs b/c each tournament had its own variables (who was playing well, who was sluggish, the draw, etc.). We only saw the beginning of it - the infancy snapshot of seles & we will never know what would have happened. Its a shame b/c as tennis fans we were robbed. Honestly, it was the dramatic Graf-Seles matches that got me hooked on tennis in the first place. (& I was a diehard graf fan up till the stabbing)

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Well the two most interesting things to me would have been:

1)Whether Graf could have challenged Seles more on hard courts and clay, meaning winning a few of the slams on those surfaces or not.

2)Whether Seles could have mastered grass enough to win a Wimbledon title or two in her career.

Also it would have been interesting to see how, and how long, Seles would have dealt with the new generation from 97 on if Graf still went down with injuries. I think she would have mopped the floor with Hingis. It would have been interesting to see how she would have fared against Venus, Serena, Davenport, perhaps continuing after that.....

Womens tennis was bad for awhile because there was no distinct rivalry.
Sanchez Vicario is not a real rival to Graf IMO, more of a challenger. Davenport and Hingis were not dominant enough to meet in enough big matches when they had their rivalry, and were the two top players for a period. The Williams had too many strange inter issue to be enjoyable. Henin owns Clijsters nowadays, it was a joke of a rivalry when they met in 3 straight slam finals, with only one being close after Henin choked twice during the match. Graf-Seles in the early 90s was the last recognizable rivalry for fans.

 

[scoot]

I totally agree about seles wrt hingis. I dont think she would have let her fitness go the way she did if she were not stabbed, & a lean monica would have had her way with hingis (maybe after a match or 2 of getting used to hingis' style & anticipation).

I think Davenport & the Williams would have been a struggle for seles even had she not been stabbed. I think the head to heads would have been closer but she would have lost more than she won to them.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Well Davenport didnt move that well, Seles wasnt the best mover neccessarily, but she was still a very good mover. I think that could have played a role. Also Davenport , while mentaly tough to some extent, does not quite have the do-or-die hunger that Seles or the Williams have.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

By the way did you used to post on CNN/SI message boards?

 

[scoot]

yes, did you?

 

[lagranwilly]

Without any order:
Pete Sampras,Boris Becker,John Mc Enroe,Bjorn Borg,Jimmy Connors,Guillermo Vilas,Roger Federer,Rod Laver,Andre Agassi,Ivan Lendl

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Yeah I used to be david-r.

 

[scoot]

ah LOL! I used to be scootad. de ja vu!

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

That is what I thought.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I totally agree about seles wrt hingis. I dont think she would have let her fitness go the way she did if she were not stabbed, & a lean monica would have had her way with hingis (maybe after a match or 2 of getting used to hingis' style & anticipation).

I think Davenport & the Williams would have been a struggle for seles even had she not been stabbed. I think the head to heads would have been closer but she would have lost more than she won to them.

Hingis totally dominated Seles throughout her career. Hingis wasn't exactly a fitness freak herself. If both Seles and Hingis had been fitter, I think the same results would have occured.

http://www.monica-seles.com/en/headtohead.asp

..so she had over 20 matches to get used to Hingis's style, and lost most of them.

 

[spirit]

The question of the greatest player ist a matter of personal choice. I want to make some notes on behalf of the professional tours in the fifties and sexties. I refer to the book of Joe McCauley: The History of Professional Tennis, who compiled a complete record of the pro tours from the twenties to 1968. ...

Urban has truly given us some good information. We many not all agree with him, but the information is detailed and interesting. I'll have to read the McCauley book.

 

[Coria]

To not have Agassi--who has the greatest groundstrokes in the history of the sport is ridiculous. He's won all four majors, 8 overall, has won 60 professional tournaments and won a Gold Medal. Plus, what he has done past age 30. He's better than Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Rosewall and some others. He's top five of all time in my book.

 

[JohnThomas1]

Hoad - 2-time Wimbledon winner (1956-57); won Australian, French and Wimbledon titles in 1956, but missed capturing Grand Slam at Forest Hills when beaten by Ken Rosewall in 4-set final.

Fedfan, Vines played most of those. Take a look at how guys like Kramer, Budge, Pancho etc rated Riggs and Segura. These are the guys that directly played many of these players we are trying to rate and are very well qualified to give an opinion. Segura and Riggs are two of the most underrated players ever.

 

[Northerly]

You guys have shown that the *asterix* has so many complications and ifs and buts.

That's why the majority of people who compare the all time greats simply have to go with runs on the board.

Interesting point about Rebound being Graf's worst surface. I believe if it were not for injury/illness Graf would have likely won 6 or 7 Aussie Opens (and maybe another Slam in 95 and 96 when she missed the Aussie Open). I think clay was her worst surface for the record.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Fedfan, Vines played most of those. Take a look at how guys like Kramer, Budge, Pancho etc rated Riggs and Segura. These are the guys that directly played many of these players we are trying to rate and are very well qualified to give an opinion. Segura and Riggs are two of the most underrated players ever.

I am sorry but I am not going to base all my opinions on what a few former champions say. If I had proof they all felt that way, I might, but there could just as easily be other champions who disagree with them. Everybody has an opinion, and even the true insiders dont have the same one often. I have seen Riggs and Segura play on tapes against these people, and I am aware of their combined amateur/pro record. I dont see how they can be rated as among the top few players of that time period.

I agree Riggs is underrated, but not because I think he is an all-time great, just that most dont seem to even recognize him as 3-time slam winner caliber, which is about all he is, just as the guy who as an old man lost to Billie Jean Kean in that overhyped cheese-gender fest.

 

[JRoss]

Great thread; thanks to all.

I came of age during the late 50’s, so the players of that era will always be special to me. Pancho is my all-time favorite (along with Roger), but Rosewall, Laver and Hoad were all wonderful. Hoad was truly awesome; I’m sure he would have been near the top of all lists if back problems had not effectively cut short his career in his mid-20s.

What makes this discussion particularly fascinating is all the “what ifs”—what if Monica was not stabbed, what if Hoad, Mo Connolly and Tracy Austin had full, healthy careers (Tracy would certainly have cut in to Chris and Martina’s slam totals), what if open tennis had arrived 20 years earlier (Pancho might have the all-time slam record).

It’s also interesting that all of the greats had weaknesses in their resumes—Borg never won the USO, Mac and Pete never won the FO, Lendl never won Wimbledon. Even Laver’s record is a bit suspect. Compared with most of the greats, he was something of a late bloomer. I think it is doubtful that he would have won any of his first 6 slams if they were “open.” In support of this, consider the following account (from a lengthy article making the case that Pancho was the GOAT) of his introduction to the pros (the year after his first Grand Slam, when he was 24-25 and Hoad and Rosewall were about 30):

"Contracted to play Hoad 13 best-of-five set matches, Laver won the first set of the first match, but was unable to win another. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that this meant that Hoad won 39 consecutive sets from Laver. . . . Hoad at that time had virtually retired from the game, was suffering with a chronically bad back, and had had only three weeks to practice before the match. . . . It rather makes nonsense of Laver's first grand slam."

"Dave Anderson adds another brush stroke to the thoroughness of Laver's introduction to the pro tour, talking about how Laver reacted after being trounced by Ken Rosewall in his next match: "Laver was thrashed [by] and rated Hoad as 'the best I've ever played against.' The next day he lost to Rosewall. 'I thought Lew was good, Laver said . . ., 'but Kenny is twice as good as Lew. . . . If I'm going to beat [Rosewall] consistently, I've got to learn how to play tennis all over again.'"

Of course, “what if” all slams were open after 1962? It’s likely that Rod would have won many of them.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Hoad really is an interesting case. If he won that US Open final in '56, I'm sure his name would come up more in these types of discussion. All the "Calendar Grand Slam" winners are still given their due today.

 

[urban]

This board is interesting, because all contributors have good knowledge of tennis history. I dont want that records of past players should be diminished, especially in the era of the old pro and amateur circuits, which is often overlooked. I statet before, that Laver was beaten on the introduction as pro in 1963 by Rosewall and Hoad. Indead Laver lost to Hoad the first 8 matches in the beginnig of 1963 and nevertheless ended 1963 as number 2 behind Rosewall. But that was the fate of all great amateur champions, who later became pro champions. Look at Pancho himself who was initially badly beaten by Kramer 96-27 in 1950. I nevertheless rank Pancho above Kramer, who concentrated alone on the one-on-one tours. Hoad by his own account in his autobiography won his first 2 matches as a pro in 1957 and lost the following 16 matches to Trabert, Rosewall, Segura e.o. He made a great effort leading on the championship tour against Gonzales in 1958, because he had 6 month of pro tennis under his belt and they startet in Australia on grass; later they played indoors in US and the tide changed in favor of Gonzales 50-37. I will say, that all former amateurs had to adjust to the different format - one-on-one, indoor play etc.- of the old pro circuit. A propos Laver: He had the all time best season as amateur in 1962 (Grand Slam and 21 titles, 9 clay court titles in Europe alone), as a Kramer pro in 1967 (18 Titels, all significant pro tourneys) and in open competition in 1969 (Grand Slam, 18 titels on clay, hard, indoor and grass). I think that is a pretty good, solid resume without any dubious aspects. And a lot for Federer to emulate.

 

[katarddx]

Graf was incomplete - had no backhand. Not nr 1 material.

......Well, this is absolutely unbeliavable!!!!!!!!

 

[fastdunn]

OK, Laver was corbon copy of Hoad. And then Sampras reportedly copied
Laver and also studied Hoad. And then whom does Federer mold his game after ?
Is he on his own ? I've heard Sampras was only *one* of his idols...

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

It is interesting to read that Laver ended 63 as the #2 rated pro behind Rosewall, because I read Hoad, and to an extent Gonzales, regularly beat him that year. Was he really the second-best practically or just the #2 on some flawed computer system ala Hingis #1 rank for several years?

 

[Misiti99]

here's my list...Just Men because i don't know women enough...but two seperate lists here and i want to stir up some controversey....Top Ten Most Talented Players of all time...and Top 10 Best Clay Courters of all Time..since we're in the French Open season....Here we go:

Most Talented : Best Clay Courters:
1. Roger Federer 1. Gustavo Kuerten
2. Pete Sampras 2. Bjorn Borg
3. Andre Agassi 3. Ivan Lendl
4. Marcelo Rios 4. Mats Wilander
5. Marat Safin 5. Jim Courier
6. Rod Laver 6. Sergi Bruguerra
7. John McEnroe 7. Thomas Muster
8. Gustavo Kuerten 8. Carlos Moya
9. Ivan Lendl 9. Marcelo Rios
10. Rafael Nadal 10. Juan-Carlos Ferrero

 

[Misiti99]

Most Talented : Best Clay Courters:
1. Roger Federer 1. Gustavo Kuerten
2. Pete Sampras 2. Bjorn Borg
3. Andre Agassi 3. Ivan Lendl
4. Marcelo Rios 4. Mats Wilander
5. Marat Safin 5. Jim Courier
6. Rod Laver 6. Sergi Bruguerra
7. John McEnroe 7. Thomas Muster
8. Gustavo Kuerten 8. Carlos Moya
9. Ivan Lendl 9. Marcelo Rios
10. Rafael Nadal 10. Juan-Carlos Ferrero

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

What makes Kuerten better on clay than Borg for you, or even Lendl and Wilander for that matter?

 

[JRoss]

Urban—
I did not mean to diminish Rod at all. I think your point about the transition from amateur to pros in those days is significant. Pro tennis was cut throat; if you didn’t win often, your career was over; and the best played the best, and nothing but the best, time and time again. I’m sure that made the survivors better players. Imagine if the top half-dozen players today played only each other, and had to retire if they lost too often—it would certainly concentrate Safin’s mind.
I also wonder if the incredible longevity of Gonzales and Rosewall—each excelling into their 40’s—was due to the arrival of open tennis. They played so long in obscurity; then when open tennis finally arrived they had a fresh incentive to continue (not to mention the money).