Tennis Channel's "100 Greatest of All Time"
- Thread starter Tony48
- Start date
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Serena is and was a great player. But many on this list are far more accomplished.
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
No Cheryl Miller or Cynthia Cooper?
C
celoft
Guest
The 5-night special (which started yesterday, IIRC) is counting down the 100 greatest tennis players...a list which, interestingly enough, includes both men and women.
No one's going to agree with the list (or even if they should be compared at all, something Serena mentioned during the special), but....it's here anyway!
100 Greatest of All Time (Male & Female)
1. Roger Federer, M, SUI
2. Rod Laver, M, AUS
3. Steffi Graf, F, GER
4. Martina Navratilova, F, USA/CZE
5. Pete Sampras, M, USA
6. Rafael Nadal, M, ESP
7. Bjorn Borg, M, SWE
8. Margaret Court, F, AUS
9. Chris Evert, F, USA
10. Billie Jean King, F, USA
Laver is the only one who didn't win 6 or 7 times at least at the same slam in that top 10. His 2 CYGS are a huge achievement but Federer's 16 trumps everyone.
Men's tennis is way more competitive than women's tennis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Take Fed's 2006-2010 seasons away and how many slams would he have? 6
The top 2 might be a reasonable choice. But much of the rest of the list is crazy and takes away its credibility. I suppose this arises from whatever criteria was used. It looks like it was a mixture of media popularity and just counting “slams” or something. McEnroe and Agassi don't belong in the top 10, and not above Connors and Lendl, much less above players like Rosewall. And Nadal at number 4 doesn’t make any sense either. But the most ludicrous ranking has to be Pancho Gonzalez, who regularly appears in the top 5-6 in most serious lists, and here he appears at 22, below guys like Ashe, Wilander, Becker, Emerson, Newcombe. Then Vines, Cochet and Renshaw are also relegated to basements because they don't ring a bell loud enough.
There are various lists of world number 1 players by year, compiled by the work of tennis experts, that could have been given for reference and may have helped make a more credible list.
Number one male players: 1877 to 2011
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295675
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
What an AWESOME point.
Overall, I thought it was a great week of programs. They had the right people involved, they had some great insights, and they distributed credit over eras.
I wonder where chopin is...
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
And he's perfectly entitled to his opinion. However, Wimbledon 2001 tells us that he is probably wrong...
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Of course he would. I mean the 4-time defending champ Sampras easily dismantled a teenage Federer at Wimbledon back in 2001.
No, wait.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Agree with you. There are several disgraceful calls in that list, but Pancho really takes the cake (also, Rosewall behind Emerson, really--like, *really????*). Lendl and Connors sure should both be above Agassi and McEnroe, so yeah, some of their joices are really asinine--Noah above Johnston, hellooooo? :roll:
luckyguy
Rookie
Maybe you have no idea what 'prime' means, sadly.
And he's perfectly entitled to his opinion. However, Wimbledon 2001 tells us that he is probably wrong...
luckyguy
Rookie
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Only way to compare Fed and Laver. And if three of the four slams were still on fast grass? And everyone used wood? And sat on changeovers. And no one used poly? And got paid
Take Fed's 2005-09 seasons away and how many slams would he have? 4.
Not mention Rosewall was denied to compete in 4 majors events for 11 years in his prime. How many majors would Federer have if he were not allowed to compete for 11 years in slams in his prime? Maybe 0?
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
not the ppl i named.....maybe evert and slightly bjk, but not agassi, no way and connors was overrated accomplishment wise.
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Laver turned pro when he was 24 and 30 at the start of open tennis. Just realize now how old Laver and Rosewall were when they played one of the greatest matches of all time in 72.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
but look who she played.....and 100 singles titles isn't that big of a deal when you look at her era, outside of nav who did she really play? maybe early graf. but the reason she and nav made so many finals is weak competition. they had no henin, hingis, venus,etc. all these players have 20+ singles titles...
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
but look at her competition....
He would have five - one in 2003, 3 in 2004 and 1 in 2010 - and his career is not over.
In any event, Federer's reputation is not based solely on the number of majors that he has won. Here are some of his career achievements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer
I would still be inclined to rank Laver marginally ahead as the all-time GOAT. Federer's achievements are remarkable, however, and it makes no sense to denigrate them.
Yes. When Sampras was announced as #5, Steve said Pete would beat Federer. He also said Graf at best would beat anyone.
Chris was playing against one of the goat(Navratilova). Despite many slams were denied by Navratilova, Chris accomplishments so much that Serena can't even compare to her pinky !
Last edited:
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
At least Chris has one goat player while Serena has none. And you've been bashing Henin(2nd best player in her era), which doesn't help your Serena.
Larrysümmers
Hall of Fame
pretty good list, kept me entertained for a couple of days, nice to see fed GOATing as he should be
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, and that would be - Navratilova , Mandalikova, Austin, Goolagong, young Graf and others .......
Fact is Evert's singles career is so by some distance superior to Serena's , it isn't even close .....
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf were hardly pushovers.
TJfederer16
Hall of Fame
Anyone know where to find the full program on the players 10-1, the only one i cd find was on the players 100-71 on youtube, i guess the rest havn't been uploaded yet
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
1 GOAT in 1 round is easier than playing 4 or 5 great players to win a tournament. evert was the renshaw of the 80's. i never bashed henin, the 3rd best player, i just put her rightfully behind the ws. outside of her shaddy antics, henin was very talented.
here's a game for you name the five best players in evert's era and i will name the 5 best in serena's...let's see who had better competition.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
2 players vs 5 or 6.....be real.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
over venus, henin, mauresmo, dementieva, clijsters, capriati, davenport, sharapova, hingis.
and you are not lumping goolagong in evert's era......she was a contemporary of bjk and court. stop stealing rivals. tracy austin got burned out and mandalikova was very overrated.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
So.. Madlikova was overated and Mauresmo & Dementieva was fierce competition?
just because she won 4 slams doesn't make you an all-time great......mauresma and demented weren't serena's main rivals, they were more like 4th round/quaterfinal opponents before she played hingis,venus, capriati or henin.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
You know, of course, you're not getting anywhere with this kind of half-baked reasoning, because you have to take it a little bit farther than you're doing here. And when you do, it generally turns back on itself to bite you in the... ahem.
Of course, if your goal is just some aimless Fed-bashing a la LOLville and devila (you know, "Federer shouldn't even be in the top 500"), fair enough. However, if you're doing this to try and push Laver forward as a GOAT-candidate, you're actually doing him a disservice. At the moment, depending on people's opinions, Federer and Laver are either #1 and #2 or #2 and #1, and both are perfectly fair. However, if you insist on taking out the pro-year equivalent to try and make up for them, you're just going to turn Laver (and just about all the players from the open era, for that matter) into a bunch of slamless (or close to) wonders.
So, let's start: first, if you want to take the pros into consideration, you also have to do so when it doesn't help your cause. Which means, incidentally, that you have to dismiss most, if not all, of the 6 slams that Laver won before he turned pro (on the basis that the pros were much better than him at that stage). So it's fair enough to imagine that a player like Pancho Gonzales would have won more, in the end. But that's not all.
Big Bill Tilden turned pro in 1931, and in '41, he was still playing professionnally vs Budge. So if you want to be fair *to everyone*, you have to shave off the last 11 years of eveerybody's career, too, or you can't compare theirs to Tilden's.
As a reminder, before he turned pro, Tilden won 10 majors, in a day and age where there were less majors than today (the French Open was only for French players for the major part of his amateur career, for example).
Okay, then. We've already discussed that Laver should probably lose his first six majors. Now, if you shave off the last 11 years of his career (to be fair to Tilden), he loses everything he won from '66 to '76 inclusive (so his last remaining five majors, including his second GS, just went out the window, well done!).
On the other hand, he's left with 3 years (1963-65) in which to beat Big Bill's tally. Which seems pretty improbable (to say the least) with players like Gonzales, Rosewall, and Hoad in the neighborhood.
So yeah, the "let's rewrite history and shave the pro-career years equivalent from everybody's career" argument is prety shaky, and it actually hurts Laver more than it does help him. Leaving things as they are actually adds to Laver's mystique, as there's this big "what if" added to his resume. However, if you want to be "fair" to the pros (your way, I mean), then the GOAT debate can only take place between Tilden, Gonzales, and Rosewall. Laver's career was just much too short to make an impression...
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Mandlikova over-rated ? wut ? She was probably better than all those Serena faced minus Venus/Henin
Stealing rivals ? Really ???? Are you even aware of how many times Goolagong and Evert played each other ? 39 times .......
Henin also got burnt out, otherwise she was beating Serena consistently before that in 2007 ....:twisted:
Capriati/Hingis factors only in the beginning of Serena's prime years ....
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
This is a funny argument you and terrastar are having, btw, as comparing Evert to Serena is really like comparing, I don't know, Federer to Agassi. Evert's career is so vastly superior to Serena's that it's not even a contest. There *are* definitely some (serious) issues with this list, but ranking Evert higher than Serena sure isn't one of them...
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
This is a funny argument you and terrastar are having, btw, as comparing Evert to Serena is really like comparing, I don't know, Federer to Agassi. Evert's career is so vastly superior to Serena's that it's not even a contest. There *are* definitely some (serious) issues with this list, but ranking Evert higher than Serena sure isn't one of them...
18 < 13
157 < 39
89,96 < 83%
that is terrastar opinion...
C
celoft
Guest
Even with the NCYGS Serena was not included in the top 10. Despite the double digits at the slams.
She needs more titles overall than just 39 and more AOs, like 6 or 7 titles there.
She needs more titles overall than just 39 and more AOs, like 6 or 7 titles there.
TMF, indulge in this for second. Because it was a very unique (not a tennis related injury or burnout) and psychologically horrific even for her where do you rank Seles if she had not been stabbed. when she was stabbed she took time off because she was in fear and grew three inches. When she came back all the angles were different due to her growth spurt, plus the weight gain caused by the trauma. If this had not happened she would have naturally adjusted to the increase in height she would have not noticed it. So she could no longer beat Steffi. Would you have her top 5? Top 3?
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
You know, of course, you're not getting anywhere with this kind of half-baked reasoning, because you have to take it a little bit farther than you're doing here. And when you do, it generally turns back on itself to bite you in the... ahem.
Of course, if your goal is just some aimless Fed-bashing a la LOLville and devila (you know, "Federer shouldn't even be in the top 500"), fair enough. However, if you're doing this to try and push Laver forward as a GOAT-candidate, you're actually doing him a disservice. At the moment, depending on people's opinions, Federer and Laver are either #1 and #2 or #2 and #1, and both are perfectly fair. However, if you insist on taking out the pro-year equivalent to try and make up for them, you're just going to turn Laver (and just about all the players from the open era, for that matter) into a bunch of slamless (or close to) wonders.
So, let's start: first, if you want to take the pros into consideration, you also have to do so when it doesn't help your cause. Which means, incidentally, that you have to dismiss most, if not all, of the 6 slams that Laver won before he turned pro (on the basis that the pros were much better than him at that stage). So it's fair enough to imagine that a player like Pancho Gonzales would have won more, in the end. But that's not all.
Big Bill Tilden turned pro in 1931, and in '41, he was still playing professionnally vs Budge. So if you want to be fair *to everyone*, you have to shave off the last 11 years of eveerybody's career, too, or you can't compare theirs to Tilden's.
As a reminder, before he turned pro, Tilden won 10 majors, in a day and age where there were less majors than today (the French Open was only for French players for the major part of his amateur career, for example).
Okay, then. We've already discussed that Laver should probably lose his first six majors. Now, if you shave off the last 11 years of his career (to be fair to Tilden), he loses everything he won from '66 to '76 inclusive (so his last remaining five majors, including his second GS, just went out the window, well done!).
On the other hand, he's left with 3 years (1963-65) in which to beat Big Bill's tally. Which seems pretty improbable (to say the least) with players like Gonzales, Rosewall, and Hoad in the neighborhood.
So yeah, the "let's rewrite history and shave the pro-career years equivalent from everybody's career" argument is prety shaky, and it actually hurts Laver more than it does help him. Leaving things as they are actually adds to Laver's mystique, as there's this big "what if" added to his resume. However, if you want to be "fair" to the pros (your way, I mean), then the GOAT debate can only take place between Tilden, Gonzales, and Rosewall. Laver's career was just much too short to make an impression...
My only real point is that it is nearly impossible to compare the two.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
Point1- hingis was better than her. mauresmo as well. you think 4 slams is everything? it just goes back to who you played. nobody thinks roy emerson is better than lendl, borg, agassi or novak just because he won more majors.....the same goes for margaret court. maddy played the same weak field that nav and evert played. the point is 1-7 serena had tougher competition. the 2 strongest eras in women's tennis were the 60's and the 2000's, no tennis analyst says the 80's.
point2- post 2003, serena had knee surgery and movement wise wasn't the same. henin beat a weaker serena.....
point3- the height of serena's career she had the deepest field fact.
abmk
Bionic Poster
jeez, what a joke ..... Hana Mandlikova had to go through BOTH evert and navratilova to win slams and that was/is probably the most toughest thing to do in the WTA history ...
In no way was Mauresmo better than Hana. Hingis you could argue....
Regarding Emerson, that's because the best players at that were in the pros, he did not face the full strength fields. That's why.
Court's case is slightly different as she won quite a few AOs which did not have full strength fields. Yet, she's a tad under-rated IMO, and clearly top tier GOAT candidate
Hana on the other did face full strength fields ....
Evert might not have faced as much "depth" in the field as Serena did, but not as much of a difference in the top level competition. In fact Evert's toughest competitor , Navratilova was by some distance better than Serena's , Henin/Venus ....Her consistency at the slams and in all events, Serena can/could only dream of matching. No of titles wise, it isn't even close.
Its one thing if you're arguing/talking peak-peak. But career-wise, it isn't close ....
umm, forgot the FO 2003 loss ? So we should only consider Serena from 2002-03, nothing afterwards ? really ?
yet, she amassed slams in one of the most weakest eras post 2008. Clijsters beat her in her 3rd tournament back at the USO in 2009
Last edited:
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
This is a funny argument you and terrastar are having, btw, as comparing Evert to Serena is really like comparing, I don't know, Federer to Agassi. Evert's career is so vastly superior to Serena's that it's not even a contest. There *are* definitely some (serious) issues with this list, but ranking Evert higher than Serena sure isn't one of them...
depends on how you define better.....agassi underachieved and probably could have won 10 or 12 majors, so numbers don't tell the whole story.
as far as evert goes, show me a draw where she ever played a draw as strong as kuzzy(headcase but all-court player), schiavone( junk and technical queen), mauresmo( great variety and power) and demented(weak serve, headcase but strong groundstrokes). outside of navratilova you don't see competition like that in the 80's.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
He had also a couple of very opportunistic victories (RG '99 comes to mind, but you could also mention Wimb '92) and was, in the end, extremely lucky to end up with a career slam after basically throwing his career down the drain in the mid-90's. So I would be surprised if he felt he had been handed the short end of the stick, in the end...
The *field* was admitedly much weaker at the time, but it still doesn't really matter nowadays anyway (I mean, when does a ladies' GS ever start before the QF? You might increasingly argue the same for men, I know...). But Hana Mandlikova was anything but a sparring-partner, and when you add the Austins, Jaegers, and Shrivers of the time, you have some pretty decent competition for the top spots...
And almost all of this is moot with Navratilova around, anyway. I mean, Serena never had to contend with a player or Graf's of Navratilova's caliber. Evert had. And Navratilova, one of the top 3 female players ever by any reckoning (and #1 for many people), had to change her whole game to beat her, as she was getting spanked repeatedly in the first 5 or 6 years of their rivalry (Evert ended up leading 43-37, although Navratilova won more big matches than her, but at one stage in '78, she was leading 21/4, ie they were in Fed/Roddick territory until Martina underwent a massive overhaul to turn it around :shock
.So, no, I definitely wouldn't say that Serena faced stonger competition.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
point 1- no it isn't, 2 really strong opponents isn't the same as 4(mauremso, capriati, venus and pierce) especially in the physical era we are in today. you take the pain with you into the next match more than in the 80's. the 80's wasn't nearly as physically taxing as today. fact.
point2- mauresmo had a better game, but also had better competition. hana is a poor man's radwanska......
point3- the emerson and court argument is apt because it's about weaker competition. today tennis is the most popular sport amongst women, so serena faces not 1 or 2 individuals, but whole country blocks: the belgians( clijsters, henin), the serbs( ivanovic, jankovic), the italians( penneta, frankie), the russians( kournikova, sharapova, safina, kuzzy, demented, petrova,etc) and the chinese amongst others.....pick 5 of them and add it to davenport, venus, etc and compare it to evert's field.
point4- henin cheated in 03 and admitted. after 03 serena was a weaker player due to injury.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, its more taxing today, so ? That in no way is anywhere close to compensate for the vast difference in no of titles/winning %/consistency.
You'd have point if each of the 4 strong opponents of Serena was about equal tor slightly lesser than the 2 strong opponents of Evert ...... But when Evert's strongest competitor , Navratilova, was WAYYYYY better than Serena's, it doesn't hold ..
ok, this is *totally* clueless. You haven't even watched Hana play even once ......Mandlikova had MUCH MUCH more power than radwanska. Mauresmo didn't have a better game either ...
Like I said the depth is more, but not necessarily the competition at the top ......Kournikova ????? You mention Kournikova , one who hasn't won a singles title, really ????
I could mention plenty of others from Evert's era, but seeing as you know nothing about one of her main competitors, Hana, there's no point ....
yeah,right. We should only consider Serena from 2002 FO to 2003 AO, right ? What next ? :lol:
Similar threads
