Ten greatest players of all time?
- Thread starter federerhoogenbandfan
- Start date
gugafanatic
Hall of Fame
federerhoogenbandfan said:
Guga epitomises the great quality of clay-court tennis. The two other guys are before my era soo I wont comment, but to become Trichampion of RG and to win the FO being unseeded deserves uttermost respect. Furthermore Guga's wins at RG came at a time during a plethora of talented clay-courter such as: Berasategui, Mantilla, Muster, Moya, Corretja, Ferrero, Medvedev etc. Furthermore hes languid flowing groundstrokes are probably far superior to look at and effective when compared to Bjorg and Lendl. I remember when he won RG in 97, a tall skinny dude who loved surfing and such a bubbly character always with a smile on hes face. He always stood out from the rest due to hes funky attire and headbands, hes backhand was just soo unique at the time.
M
Misiti99
Guest
3 time champion that guga is ...in a time when there were dozens of spaniards..south americans...and agassi to deal with....what did borg and lendl and wilander have to deal with besides each other...and Mcenroe the serve and vollyer????
JohnThomas1
Professional
Obviously you have never heard of Vilas. Noah was ok too, beating both Wilander and Lendl for a title. Clerk, Gomez and plenty more.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Borg faced Vilas, Panatta, Nastase, on clay. He by far had tougher competition than Kuerten.
Kuerten's biggest three rivals on clay were Moya, Rios, and Ferrero. His three French Open titles were 97, 2000, 2001. Moya was not even in the top 10 in 2000 and 2001, probably his two worst years, so was only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Rios was not a top player anymore by 2000 and 2001, he was a top tenner alot of 96-99, so again only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Ferrero was not yet a top tenner in 2000, and not even on the tour in 97, so he too was only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Rios, Moya, and Ferrero are not at the level of Borg's top rivals on clay to begin with, or when Lendl, Wilander, and a couple others faced off against each other either.
Muster and Bruguera were both far below their level of 91-96 from 97 onwards on clay. Brugera took advantage of a very weak draw to make the final in 97, in one of the worst quality French Opens in history.
There is no comparision between Borg and Kuerten on clay, Borg is far superior IMO. Wilander and Lendl are also a cut above, they also have 3 titles but a far better overall record, and definitely faced tougher top opposition than Kuerten did.
Kuerten's biggest three rivals on clay were Moya, Rios, and Ferrero. His three French Open titles were 97, 2000, 2001. Moya was not even in the top 10 in 2000 and 2001, probably his two worst years, so was only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Rios was not a top player anymore by 2000 and 2001, he was a top tenner alot of 96-99, so again only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Ferrero was not yet a top tenner in 2000, and not even on the tour in 97, so he too was only a top player 1 of those 3 years. Rios, Moya, and Ferrero are not at the level of Borg's top rivals on clay to begin with, or when Lendl, Wilander, and a couple others faced off against each other either.
Muster and Bruguera were both far below their level of 91-96 from 97 onwards on clay. Brugera took advantage of a very weak draw to make the final in 97, in one of the worst quality French Opens in history.
There is no comparision between Borg and Kuerten on clay, Borg is far superior IMO. Wilander and Lendl are also a cut above, they also have 3 titles but a far better overall record, and definitely faced tougher top opposition than Kuerten did.
35ft6
Legend
I disagree with this. One might be able to say this about grass, that the competition was tougher 25 years ago, if for no other reason than that there were more grass court tournaments then therefor more players who honed and possessed the skills needed on grass, but as far as the clay court game goes, I think today's field is way tougher.federerhoogenbandfan said:
Clay is a very very physical game. Today's players are taller, stronger, quicker, and their shots consistently have way more sting. Back in the day, Lendl was always cited as the state of art player in terms of physical conditioning, but now half the top 100 equals or surpasses him.
I have a match on VHS of Lendl playing Mecir in the French Open semis, and there's just no comparison. Today's clay court game destroys the clay court game of the late 70's and early 80's.
Yeah, at their best I might put my money on Kuertan over Borg or Lendl. But aside from that, I'm not sure if he should be considered to be as great as above poster does.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
35ft6,
anyway I can get a copy of that Lendl-Mecir match? willing to pay/trade. I have a large collection of matches from the 80s to today.
anyway I can get a copy of that Lendl-Mecir match? willing to pay/trade. I have a large collection of matches from the 80s to today.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Of course tennis from the 70s and 80s does not look as good. They were playing with less technology, lesser resources, less coaching developments, etc....
Swimmers and track stars in the 70s and 80s are all much slower than today's journeyman and journeywomen who dont even make finals, it doesnt mean they are lesser obviously. I am talking about how they were in their own times, and Borg, Lendl, and Wilander were all greater in their own times on clay than Kuerten. Kuerten
born 25 years earlier would not have done well against Borg.
Swimmers and track stars in the 70s and 80s are all much slower than today's journeyman and journeywomen who dont even make finals, it doesnt mean they are lesser obviously. I am talking about how they were in their own times, and Borg, Lendl, and Wilander were all greater in their own times on clay than Kuerten. Kuerten
born 25 years earlier would not have done well against Borg.
35ft6
Legend
By this standard, yeah, Borg and Lendl are greater, but not so sure about Wilander. They both won 3 Frenchies, so I give the slight edge of greatness to Guga, who had to dispose of a much more dangerous field in order to hold the winner's trophy.federerhoogenbandfan said:
This is what makes these types of comparisons both fun and frustrating. On one hand, you're talking about judging them solely on the basis of how great they were in their time, and I 66% agreed with you on those terms, but then you end it by saying that 25 years earlier Kuerten couldn't hang with Borg. So you're trying to have it both ways. How would Borg do if he had to go 25 years into the future into Guga's time?
If we're talking about displacing one or the other from their respective eras, I'll take Guga over Borg.
I think something we haven't mentioned so far is the amount of influence a great player in one generation has one the players that follow him.
If it hadn't been for Borg, no Guga, Wilander, etc, etc
If it hadn't been for Lendl no power baseliners (list to long to mention)
If it hadn't been for Kramer, no Hoad, Laver, Gonzalez, Newcombe, McEnroe
If it hadn't been for Laver and McEnroe, no Sampras
If it hadn't been for Vilas, no Guga or South American explosion
If it hadn't been for Tilden, no Kramer
etc,
etc.
The greatest, of all time or on one particular surface, is always in some way a copy of a past 'great'. So when we do finally arrive at this mythical player, the 'best of all time', he won't just be some freak occurance. He will be an amalgam, of sorts, formed by everything that has come before him.
If it hadn't been for Borg, no Guga, Wilander, etc, etc
If it hadn't been for Lendl no power baseliners (list to long to mention)
If it hadn't been for Kramer, no Hoad, Laver, Gonzalez, Newcombe, McEnroe
If it hadn't been for Laver and McEnroe, no Sampras
If it hadn't been for Vilas, no Guga or South American explosion
If it hadn't been for Tilden, no Kramer
etc,
etc.
The greatest, of all time or on one particular surface, is always in some way a copy of a past 'great'. So when we do finally arrive at this mythical player, the 'best of all time', he won't just be some freak occurance. He will be an amalgam, of sorts, formed by everything that has come before him.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
35ft6 said:
No I am not wanting it both ways. If I felt Kuerten would have taken Borg I would still put Borg ahead, based on his dominance in his time. That sort of thing comes into my factoring more strongly, as the dominance and accomplishment gets closer(Borg only slightly more dominant than Sampras at Wimbledon, but Pete would have had him for lunch in their primes together so I would put Pete above on grass).
I dont think putting Kuerten back 25 years, or Borg ahead 25, would make a difference. Borg I would favor highly either way, way too consistent, too strong defensively, too tough mentaly. Kuerten has faced nothing like a Borg or Wilander on clay, or even Lendl, players who didnt have the most power(Lendl had more power than the other two though), but who could keep points going over 30 shots regularly, and were so hard to hit winners past, and who made very few errors in point construction, and had such an animalistic hunger to win.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Nobody was hitting the ball as hard as todays players in the late 70s and early 80s because it was almost impossable, they were playing with wooden raquets. Kuerten and company would not have been able to hit groundstrokes that hard had they played back then. If you look at tapes Evert and Austin didnt hit the ball nearly as hard on clay as todays top clay court women, would they have been outclassed on clay by the current group of women though?
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Maybe so. Even with the modern raquets Kuerten would be a superior power hitter to Borg probably, and that is a more prominent part of the modern game than the former, not to so it was ever irrelevant then, or it is the entirety of the game now; just it is far more of a principal factor today with the new raquets.
The book of Joe McCauley, The History of Professional Tennis (with forewords by Tony Trabert and Bud Collins), Windsor 2000, you can get it on the webside of 'thetennisgallery.co.uk' in London, Wimbledon. Another good statistical book about the pre-open-era and early open era, which are not or partly false representated on the webside of ATP and in most other books is : Michel Sutter: Vanqueurs-Winners 1946-1991(with foreword by Arthur Ashe), Paris 1991. He compiled the records of pre-open tournaments on the basis of the famous french journal 'L'Equipe'. His Ranking of first ten (purely on numbers): 1. Laver 142 titels, 2. J. Drobny 133, 3. Connors 111, 4. Rosewall 107, 5. Emerson 106, 6. Lendl 99, 7. McEnroe 80, 8. Nastase 78, 9. Patty 76, 10. Gonzales 74. As I said its purely on numbers, but it gives credit to the often forgotten greats form that era.
1-Sampras Even Laver agrees with this. 6yrs #1, 14 GS.
2-Borg Fr/Wim back to back 5yrs? never happen again, versatile, quit yng
3-Laver No explanation necessary
4-Connors Career titles, GS, match wins, longevity
5-McEnroe
6-Rosewall
7-Lendl Ahead of AA, 8 cons US Finals, 8 slams, more yrs #1 more wins
8-Agassi Career Slam, but to inconsistent through the career
9-Gonzales Pure offense, intimidation. Longevity
10-Emerson 12 slams are 12 slams no matter what. Only one other did it.
That's my list. Budge, Perry, Hoadall get Honorable mention. There was a guy named Joe Hunt, won Forrest Hills in 1943 over Kramer, Killed in the military in 1945, that both Budge and Kramer say was the best player of his era. Killed young so we can't know, but may well have been on this list.
Women
Steffi
Martina
Chrissie
Court
King
Seles
Little Mo
Suzanne Lenglen
Althea Gibson
There was one american woman in Lenglen's era who's name escapes me, but deserves inclusion.
The Williams sisters and Federer just haven't earned all time status yet. Probably when they are done, but not yet.
2-Borg Fr/Wim back to back 5yrs? never happen again, versatile, quit yng
3-Laver No explanation necessary
4-Connors Career titles, GS, match wins, longevity
5-McEnroe
6-Rosewall
7-Lendl Ahead of AA, 8 cons US Finals, 8 slams, more yrs #1 more wins
8-Agassi Career Slam, but to inconsistent through the career
9-Gonzales Pure offense, intimidation. Longevity
10-Emerson 12 slams are 12 slams no matter what. Only one other did it.
That's my list. Budge, Perry, Hoadall get Honorable mention. There was a guy named Joe Hunt, won Forrest Hills in 1943 over Kramer, Killed in the military in 1945, that both Budge and Kramer say was the best player of his era. Killed young so we can't know, but may well have been on this list.
Women
Steffi
Martina
Chrissie
Court
King
Seles
Little Mo
Suzanne Lenglen
Althea Gibson
There was one american woman in Lenglen's era who's name escapes me, but deserves inclusion.
The Williams sisters and Federer just haven't earned all time status yet. Probably when they are done, but not yet.
rlbjr said:
Nice lists. I can see some good thought went into this. I'm surprised that you are putting Gonzalez so low. He makes the top 5 on most lists I've seen. Is the trait "pure offense" one that helps him make the list or one that puts him down to 9th? I think that the fact that he was closed to the slams during his prime is just a tragedy for the history of tennis. We will never know exactly just how good he really was. But I've never seen anyone who knows anything about tennis and its history who doubts that he truly was one of the greats of all time, just as you do, since he is on your list.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Personaly I have a hard time putting Conners higher than possably the low end of the top 10(I actually didnt even put him in my top ten)since he had such a long streak of winning scant few slams in the midst of his prime. If he were able to win both Wimbledon and the U.S open in 82, over McEnroe and Lendl, when he is a player that went years like 75 and 77 winning no majors, his prime obviously was still active in 82, so atleast from 74-82 was his prime. He won no slams between the 78 U.S open and 82 Wimbledon, a long drought for an all-timer. Also he won only 2 slams between his 74 3-slam year and his 82 Wimbledon title, again a scant collection in such a long span for an all-timer.
Agassi has somewhat of a similar problem to me, going the 95 Australian until the 99 French Open without winning a slam, and from the 92 Wimbledon to 99 French only 2 slams. He did have a major slump during some of these periods though, some would say that is a knock against him, but I think it is telling Conners was near the very top so long either without winning any slams, or winning such a pety amount.
Agassi has somewhat of a similar problem to me, going the 95 Australian until the 99 French Open without winning a slam, and from the 92 Wimbledon to 99 French only 2 slams. He did have a major slump during some of these periods though, some would say that is a knock against him, but I think it is telling Conners was near the very top so long either without winning any slams, or winning such a pety amount.
I have Gonzales on the list because of his longevity and because I think his game would hold up in todays game were he born in 1980. I have him lower on the list because he played so long ago and because he really didn't accomplish anything unusual or great in the game. Just a truly terrific player.
The other older players on my list each accomplished feats or, in the case of Rosewall overcame shortcommings.
Agassi is there because he is showing longevity and because of his career slam, something only five players in history have done. I also think his slam total would be above ten had his career not coincided with Sampras.
The other older players on my list each accomplished feats or, in the case of Rosewall overcame shortcommings.
Agassi is there because he is showing longevity and because of his career slam, something only five players in history have done. I also think his slam total would be above ten had his career not coincided with Sampras.
Unless you were around and playing in the mid seventies, it is hard to understand just how big an impact Connors had on tennis. He was the "Brash Basher From Belleville". The first true power baseliner. He demolished the old guard with ground power. He won the US Open on grass, Clay and Hard. He should/would have won the Grand Slam one year but was banned from the French because of World Team Tennis. He and Chris Evert are the reason the two handed backhand is now universal. He won more singles titles than anyone ever has, something like 117. Later in his career he was able to transform his game into a net charging, shorten the point style to lengthen his career. Had he won the Slam or won a few more majors we would be looking seriously at him as best of all time. He deserves to be high on the list.
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
rlbjr said:
Even though Pancho is my all time favourite male player, I think his S&V style game would translate poorly to the modern game.
I like your women's list, especially with Little Mo on it. She had a huge ground game, the Chris Evert of her times.
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
UpTheT said:
I doubt that because he was at #1 only 72 weeks when S&V was a much more successful style and he did not dominate the tour then.
The demise of S&V is why Andre is still playing and Pete isn't.
Camilio Pascual said:
Todays Tour and Andre are two different things. Pete is not on tour because Pete is not as pure an athelete as Andre-- not to mention Pete's lack of desire to compete toward the end.
I think Edberg was better at the serve and volley game than Petes-- Pete had a better serve obviously but the best overall serve and volley tech would be Edberg.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
rlbjr said:
You are right he dominated the very old gaurd in his greatest year ever, as in 39 year old Ken Rosewall to win 2 of his 3 slams, the very very old gaurd. People say I overrated Graf dominating an old Navratilova and Evert, LOL!
JohnThomas1
Professional
Camilio Pascual - "The demise of S&V is why Andre is still playing and Pete isn't."
Pete won his last tournament, that being the US Open so he wasn't exactly forced out of tennis due to his game not being competitive anymore
Pete won his last tournament, that being the US Open so he wasn't exactly forced out of tennis due to his game not being competitive anymore
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
Kevin Patrick said:
Interesting. I think in the wooden racket era Connors and McEnroe both reached greater levels than Lendl, but the graphite era would have certainly given peak Lendl the edge over peak Connors because of Lendl's far greater firepower on the serve. There was actually an 8 year age gap between them which I think was a big factor in why their rivalry became so one-sided in favour of Lendl from 1985 onwards. McEnroe was similar in age and largely due to ill-discipline got overtaken by Lendl from 1985 onwards, but I think his 1984 form with graphite actually surpassed in performance the heights Lendl reached in 1985-1987. Lendl was a great underrated champion, one of the greats of the open era. He could play on all surfaces. It's a myth he couldn't play on grass. And he's one of the few open era champions to dominate for 3 years or more (along with Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Sampras). I would in the end prefer the careers of Connors and McEnroe because they won Wimbledon and Lendl didn't and also won more US Opens than him. In my view Wimbledon is the greatest tournament to win, followed by the US Open and then the French. Lendl is well behind Connors and McEnroe in the biggest 2, though in terms of overall achievement and dominance there's very little to choose.
Joe McCauley's History of Pro tennis
Finally recieved my copy of McCAuley's book (was out of stock for a while) and have finished reading it. Not all that readable, writing style leaves something to be desired, and is mostly a recitation of tennis match scores year my year, but fascinating none the less.
After finishing the book, to me Gonzalez still stands as a contender for GOAT, but so does Laver. As far as Kramer having a winning record over Gonzalez (mentioned somewhere in this thread), Gonzalez was only 20 at the time, and they were nine years apart in age, but Kramer did win their only pro tour series of matches in 1949, 96-29. But Gonzalez was a rookie to the pro tour that year, and just about any rookie to the pro tour was badly beaten at first. Kramer was never dominant on the pro tour after that, and Gonzalez went on to win a record 8 US pro singles championships.
And this from the International Tennis Hall of Fame site:
By the time Rosewall and Laver were reaching their zeniths during the mid- and late-1960's, the aging Gonzalez hung on as a dangerous foe, still capable of defeating all. In 1964, his last serious bid for his ninth U.S. Pro title, he lost final to Laver in four hard sets. Yet there was much more glory ahead. In 1968, at 40, he beat second-seeded Tony Roche (Wimbledon finalist) to reach the quarters of the initial U.S. Open. A year later, this grandfather (literally) electrified Wimbledon by overcoming Charlie Pasarel in the tournament's longest match, 112 games, a first-rounder that consumed 5 hours, 12 minutes, a major tourney record that stood until 1992, eclipsed by 14 minutes by Michael Chang and Stefan Edberg at the U.S. Open.
The marathon with Pasarell began one afternoon and concluded on the next after darkness intervened. In winning, 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, Gonzalez saved seven match points in the fifth set.
Later that year, he [Gonzalez] beat John Newcombe, Rosewall, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4, in succession to win $12,500, second-highest prize of the year, and the title at a rich tournament at Las Vegas. Early in 1970, in the opener of a series of $10,000 winner-take-all challenge matches leading to a grand final, he toppled Laver. The Aussie, just off his second Grand Slam year (and the eventual winner of this tournament), was clearly No. 1 in the world, but Pancho warmed a crowd of 14,761 at New York's Madison Square Garden with a 7-5, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2 victory.
Now can anyone tell me what the dispute was between Kramer and Gonzalez towards the end of Gonzalez's pro career? Was it strictly money?
Finally recieved my copy of McCAuley's book (was out of stock for a while) and have finished reading it. Not all that readable, writing style leaves something to be desired, and is mostly a recitation of tennis match scores year my year, but fascinating none the less.
After finishing the book, to me Gonzalez still stands as a contender for GOAT, but so does Laver. As far as Kramer having a winning record over Gonzalez (mentioned somewhere in this thread), Gonzalez was only 20 at the time, and they were nine years apart in age, but Kramer did win their only pro tour series of matches in 1949, 96-29. But Gonzalez was a rookie to the pro tour that year, and just about any rookie to the pro tour was badly beaten at first. Kramer was never dominant on the pro tour after that, and Gonzalez went on to win a record 8 US pro singles championships.
And this from the International Tennis Hall of Fame site:
By the time Rosewall and Laver were reaching their zeniths during the mid- and late-1960's, the aging Gonzalez hung on as a dangerous foe, still capable of defeating all. In 1964, his last serious bid for his ninth U.S. Pro title, he lost final to Laver in four hard sets. Yet there was much more glory ahead. In 1968, at 40, he beat second-seeded Tony Roche (Wimbledon finalist) to reach the quarters of the initial U.S. Open. A year later, this grandfather (literally) electrified Wimbledon by overcoming Charlie Pasarel in the tournament's longest match, 112 games, a first-rounder that consumed 5 hours, 12 minutes, a major tourney record that stood until 1992, eclipsed by 14 minutes by Michael Chang and Stefan Edberg at the U.S. Open.
The marathon with Pasarell began one afternoon and concluded on the next after darkness intervened. In winning, 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, Gonzalez saved seven match points in the fifth set.
Later that year, he [Gonzalez] beat John Newcombe, Rosewall, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4, in succession to win $12,500, second-highest prize of the year, and the title at a rich tournament at Las Vegas. Early in 1970, in the opener of a series of $10,000 winner-take-all challenge matches leading to a grand final, he toppled Laver. The Aussie, just off his second Grand Slam year (and the eventual winner of this tournament), was clearly No. 1 in the world, but Pancho warmed a crowd of 14,761 at New York's Madison Square Garden with a 7-5, 3-6, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2 victory.
Now can anyone tell me what the dispute was between Kramer and Gonzalez towards the end of Gonzalez's pro career? Was it strictly money?
Spirit, I had recommended McCauley's book, because it's - together with a French book by Michel Sutter - the only book, which gives solid statistical records of the pre open pro era. You don't find it in the ATP webside or elsewhere. I may not be the best prose, but it's interesting nevertheless. On 'Tennis Server' Ray Bowers does a nice series on the pro game before WWII. It's interesting, that in 1937-38 Ellsworth Vines had the better of Fred Perry at least on US indoor courts. Maybe Vines today is the most underrated player of this era. Gonzales was certainly one of the best all time, especially on fast indoor and grass courts. If i read the book right, Kramer after beating Gonzales in 1950, played few tournaments and concentrated on his head-to-head-series vs. Segura in 1951 and Sedgman 1953. While he was 'official' world champion, the true master in 1952 may have been Segura, who beat Gonzales for the US pro title. Gonzales 'officially' took over the mantle of pro king in 1954.His feud with Kramer developed in that time, and escalated later, when Kramer brought up and subsided contenders like Trabert and Hoad. They got by far the greater percentage of the prize money. On the other hand, Gonzales obviously was a loner, who tried to intimidate people and was not well liked by his peers.
Similar threads
