The 1930s and 1940s plus the 1950s for the Women players.
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tilden wrote about Washer in his book.
the title says for the women's players, so why are all the posts spamming us with men's players?
It would be nice to have in the future a topic similar to the ones for the men's players regarding big titles won. also another one that has as many matches played by the top women in exhibitions. we all know the top players were so competitive that they would still want to beat anyone they play in exhibitions. might shed some more light on the h2h records of some of them.
It would be nice to have in the future a topic similar to the ones for the men's players regarding big titles won. also another one that has as many matches played by the top women in exhibitions. we all know the top players were so competitive that they would still want to beat anyone they play in exhibitions. might shed some more light on the h2h records of some of them.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I did discuss Suzanne Lenglen in post 21 and intend to do more on the Women. Probably do some on the Women tomorrow.
treblings
Hall of Fame
the title is misleading, as i don´t think the thread was meant as a women´s only thread.
i would like to see more threads like the ones you suggest. why don´t you start one yourself?
kramer woodie
Professional
pat200
It appears some people never learned reading comprehension or some simple want it their way, ignore the question, post whatever the
he*l you want. Silly, stupid ain't it?
Aloha
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It possibly could have been the mid to late 1930s when Vines was playing. Vines, Nusslein, Tilden, Kozeluh, Cochet, Lott, Stoefen, Vinnie Richards were excellent in the mid 1930s. Perry and Budge came to the Pros in the late 1930s. So in the late 1930s I have no doubt that at least the top players were better than anyone in the amateurs with Budge, Vines, Perry, Nusslein among others. In the early 1940s Riggs turned pro as well as Kovacs who were superb players and talents. Some believe Kovacs was the most gifted player of them all. Kovacs was well known for his great drive backhand and a super return. We talk about Vines and Hoad being great when "on" but some have argued Kovacs was the best of them all when on his game.
After the war it's clear the Pros were far superior with the great Kramer, Riggs, Segura, Kovacs, Budge, van Horn, Parker and in the late 1940s a decent player named Pancho Gonzalez. In the early 1950s Sedgman was added as well as Ken McGregor.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Alice Marble-Tennis Player and American Spy
Alice Marble was one of the unique tennis players in history. She was not only a great player who played a unique style in that she played great attacking tennis in the 1930s but she led a fascinating life.
When she was young she was a ballgirl for the minor league baseball team the San Francisco Seals. There was a contest with about 20 Women at the stadium for the Seals to pitch for distance. Marble was 13 years old and competed in the contest. Marble threw the ball from centerfield into the stands behind home plate when I believe some have estimated at 400 feet! I'm not sure if it was that far but it does gave an idea of the powerful arm that Marble had when I assume would have helped her with her powerful serve. I have a hunch, considering the story that Marble's serve would be fantastic today for speed and spin.
Most players, men or women played a baseline game in those days with some venturing to the net to put away shots.
Marble was reported to be 5'7" tall and about 140 lbs. Alice had the talent to play a high risk game with hard deep drives with regular approaches to the net where she could take advantage of her great athleticism with great volleys and smashes. Her first serve was powerful and usually flat and she had a great kick second serve. She was one of the few players, men or women who would regularly serve and volley although I don't believe she did it nearly as regularly as a Navratilova, Court or Billie Jean King. Incidentally King was one of Marble's students. Because of Marble's great volley and serve, she was a greatly sort after partner for mixed doubles and women's doubles. She was the best women's doubles player in the game.
Marble was unbeaten in 1939 and 1940 with identical 45-0 records. She had a winning streak of 111 matches starting in 1938 which is second among players in the United States only to Helen Wills with a reported 158 in a row. Not only was she unbeaten in singles n 1939 but she was unbeaten in doubles also with a total 83-0 record according to Bud Collins' Encyclopedia.
Now all this sounds interesting but what is even perhaps more fascinating is how Marble was a spy for the United States during World War II! They trained her (apparently tougher than tennis training), gave her a gun and trained her to use that gun. She was taught how to fight if she got into a difficult situation. She was also given a compact spy camera to photograph documents.
They trained her to be a spy due to some contacts she had made over the years.
It all sounds so surreal and similar to a fictional television show here in the United States called I Spy.
NatF
Bionic Poster
@pc1
Who's the best British player of all time - for relative level of play, and who's the greatest?
I tend not to consider further back than the 20's because the game was so different, I'd probably go with Perry for both but I'm interested in your thoughts. In fact I'd appreciate any great info about Perry and his records that people want to share
Thanks, this seems about right. How do you view the divide in the early 30's once Tilden turned pro?
Who's the best British player of all time - for relative level of play, and who's the greatest?
I tend not to consider further back than the 20's because the game was so different, I'd probably go with Perry for both but I'm interested in your thoughts. In fact I'd appreciate any great info about Perry and his records that people want to share
Thanks, this seems about right. How do you view the divide in the early 30's once Tilden turned pro?
With Tilden turning pro, a transition era begun that ended in 1939.
So until 1930 amateur for sure, after 1938 pro for sure.
In between it's tough to say, I agree with pc1 that Vines could have been the final step for the surpass, but it's borderline. Pro circuit was not very well developed and Vines was too good for the other pro players.
So I would pick 1937-1939 as the real dealbreaker
Not forget Murray.@pc1
Who's the best British player of all time - for relative level of play, and who's the greatest?
I tend not to consider further back than the 20's because the game was so different, I'd probably go with Perry for both but I'm interested in your thoughts. In fact I'd appreciate any great info about Perry and his records that people want to share
Thanks, this seems about right. How do you view the divide in the early 30's once Tilden turned pro?
He won less than Perry, but vs giants of the game. And in an extremely competitive era
NatF
Bionic Poster
I find Murray is a bit overrated at times and especially by the media. But he of course has his arguments for the top honours.
I feel he is underrated
Not easy to win vs Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He could have been number one multiple times in many other eras
7
70sHollywood
Guest
???-1933 = amateurs
1934-1936 = ???
1937-1967 = pros
If Murray played a pro tour against any of the big 3 I can't imagine him doing as well as Perry did against Vines in 1937, and I get the feeling Perry was also a better big match player. However, no doubt Murray had it tougher.
ATG forehand v ATG backhand. Both great movers. Serve/return issues clouded by era differences.
Perry for me.
1934-1936 = ???
1937-1967 = pros
If Murray played a pro tour against any of the big 3 I can't imagine him doing as well as Perry did against Vines in 1937, and I get the feeling Perry was also a better big match player. However, no doubt Murray had it tougher.
ATG forehand v ATG backhand. Both great movers. Serve/return issues clouded by era differences.
Perry for me.
I would say Perry too, but it's not so easy as it could seem to be.
Beating Djokovic at Wimbledon is not easy (Federer and Nadal know that very well), with the pressure as a mountain on him.
Perry did very good in 1937, but from 1938 he was beaten badly, from both Budge and Vines.
Difficult to pick
NatF
Bionic Poster
I feel he is underrated
Not easy to win vs Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He could have been number one multiple times in many other eras
I sense we will have some disagreement here
I have doubts about him being number one multiple times in many other era's. I think he's very much a product of this era, he's had crazy levels of consistency but I believe he's been aided by the lack of young stars emerging. In the 90's I don't see him knocking Sampras off the top spot until around 1998, likewise I think he'd generally be behind Borg, Connors and Mac in the 70's to 80's and then later Lendl and co. Going back to the 70's Ashe and Vilas got to #1 so I do think Murray could as well but I don't think he'd be often battling for the top spot.
There are of course gaps where he could and would grab number one but he'd never a dominant player IMO.
There's also his slam finals record which is quite poor, he has of course largely had very tough opponents in slams finals - however he's rarely given a good account of himself in those big matches either. Of his 11 slam finals IMO he's only given a true accounting of himself in 4 of them - the ones he won plus Wimbledon 2012. I actually think the other Andy of this era (Roddick) has played two slam finals better than any Murray has played e.g. Wimbledon 2004 and 2009. If only Arod had 2013 Djokovic (Novak's worst slam final) and 2016 Raonic instead of Peakerer
Murray has been very good in BO3 as evidenced by his masters record and he's been the gatekeeper for the Big 3 by consistently thrashing the likes of Tsonga, Berdych etc...I don't believe he'd necessarily be an ATG in another era though. Perhaps you think he's an ATG already?
I do wonder what kind of game he'd play if he'd be born 10-15 years earlier, he might have been a S&V player. He has great hands, but he's quite passive and his second serve would be a big liability probably.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I sense we will have some disagreement here
I have doubts about him being number one multiple times in many other era's. I think he's very much a product of this era, he's had crazy levels of consistency but I believe he's been aided by the lack of young stars emerging. In the 90's I don't see him knocking Sampras off the top spot until around 1998, likewise I think he'd generally be behind Borg, Connors and Mac in the 70's to 80's and then later Lendl and co. Going back to the 70's Ashe and Vilas got to #1 so I do think Murray could as well but I don't think he'd be often battling for the top spot.
There are of course gaps where he could and would grab number one but he'd never a dominant player IMO.
There's also his slam finals record which is quite poor, he has of course largely had very tough opponents in slams finals - however he's rarely given a good account of himself in those big matches either. Of his 11 slam finals IMO he's only given a true accounting of himself in 4 of them - the ones he won plus Wimbledon 2012. I actually think the other Andy of this era (Roddick) has played two slam finals better than any Murray has played e.g. Wimbledon 2004 and 2009. If only Arod had 2013 Djokovic (Novak's worst slam final) and 2016 Raonic instead of Peakerer
Murray has been very good in BO3 as evidenced by his masters record and he's been the gatekeeper for the Big 3 by consistently thrashing the likes of Tsonga, Berdych etc...I don't believe he'd necessarily be an ATG in another era though. Perhaps you think he's an ATG already?
I do wonder what kind of game he'd play if he'd be born 10-15 years earlier, he might have been a S&V player. He has great hands, but he's quite passive and his second serve would be a big liability probably.
I'm in two minds about Murray. Part of me thinks the same as you, but I also understand if people rank him above Becker, Edberg and Wilander.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final was easy, guy was exhausted and played like crap. Murray did well to handle the pressure of the moment but Djokovic made it easier on him with his errors.
Perry being the third man of his era does put him in rough contention with Murray though.
It's tough to say what he could have done in other eras, in the meaning taking him and placing in the 90s, 80s, 70s. Every player is the product of his era. But the level of his game is very high, super consistent, always top level almost all year long.I sense we will have some disagreement here
I have doubts about him being number one multiple times in many other era's. I think he's very much a product of this era, he's had crazy levels of consistency but I believe he's been aided by the lack of young stars emerging. In the 90's I don't see him knocking Sampras off the top spot until around 1998, likewise I think he'd generally be behind Borg, Connors and Mac in the 70's to 80's and then later Lendl and co. Going back to the 70's Ashe and Vilas got to #1 so I do think Murray could as well but I don't think he'd be often battling for the top spot.
There are of course gaps where he could and would grab number one but he'd never a dominant player IMO.
There's also his slam finals record which is quite poor, he has of course largely had very tough opponents in slams finals - however he's rarely given a good account of himself in those big matches either. Of his 11 slam finals IMO he's only given a true accounting of himself in 4 of them - the ones he won plus Wimbledon 2012. I actually think the other Andy of this era (Roddick) has played two slam finals better than any Murray has played e.g. Wimbledon 2004 and 2009. If only Arod had 2013 Djokovic (Novak's worst slam final) and 2016 Raonic instead of Peakerer
Murray has been very good in BO3 as evidenced by his masters record and he's been the gatekeeper for the Big 3 by consistently thrashing the likes of Tsonga, Berdych etc...I don't believe he'd necessarily be an ATG in another era though. Perhaps you think he's an ATG already?
I do wonder what kind of game he'd play if he'd be born 10-15 years earlier, he might have been a S&V player. He has great hands, but he's quite passive and his second serve would be a big liability probably.
He's not Djokovic, but Nole is a giant.
Honestly, I would say he would have been a very tough opponent for Sampras
Last edited:
He beat two times Nole at Wimbledon, also in 2012
And saying it was exhausted sounds like a excuse. In 2012 Nole played two monster five setters back to back at the Aus Open. He just played bad.
But usually when somebody played bad is because the other one play very well
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think Becker, Edberg and Wilander (Becker especially) would have performed much better in Murray's slam finals - even if they didn't reach as many.
I feel Murray has a very consistent game because of his excellent defence, return, feel of the ball etc...But I feel like in the biggest matches where he has to be aggressive to win he just can't sustain the level of ball striking required. Mostly I think this is because of his forehand and second serve, neither are elite and over 5 sets let him down.
The 2012 win was much higher quality from Djokovic, but still not at his 2014-2015 level.
Edit: Regardless of the reason that was the worst GS final I've seen from Djokovic. I don't think it can be put down to Murray's play when Djokovic has beaten better players at Wimbledon like Nadal and Federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
with his returning and passing ? that's be tough for Sampras - to an extent.
But Sampras would've been all over his 2nd serve.
Any of the short balls he'd leave as well.
Yep.
But Murray is the kind of a player that could have given many problems to Sampras
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah I think Murray would get Sampras plenty in smaller tournaments perhaps but in big matches I think Sampras would win the vast majority like Fedalovic have done.
abmk
Bionic Poster
in Masters 1000 and less, yes.
But with Sampras raising his level in the slams and the YEC, he'd win most of them, just like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal have.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agree.
I'm not so sure, but we will never know. Sampras didn't faced so many good returners like Murray, so solid from the baseline on both sides (Murray doesn't have a killing forehand, but it's very solid).
Not easy for Sampras to break (even if he attacks the 2nd serve, he needs to close the point anyway) and always under pressure on serve.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I've seen enough of Sampras raising his level in the big events and Murray not doing so on many occasions+his passiveness getting the better off him -- to be able to come to that conclusion.
What you are missing in that post is that Murray hasn't faced someone SnVing at Sampras' level either.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Generally more aggressive off the ground as well tbh. I rate his forehand higher.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agree on both counts.
He lost his finals versus Federer and Djokovic. There is nothing to raise there, they are just better players.
Sampras would have done probably the same vs those two guys
NatF
Bionic Poster
If Sampras would have lost he would have lost with more style. Not in straights sets over and over, or in 4 sets with his game falling apart in set 3.
If you're comparing Sampras' play with a racquet strung with gut against what Murray uses now then sure Sampras would be lucky to do as well probably, but you put Murray back in the 90's and he's going to be second fiddle to Sampras and third fiddle to Agassi (when Agassi turns up that is).
But we can't put players back and forward. I'm just thinking Sampras game, with modern racquets of course, versus Federer or Nole.
IMO, he would have been torn apart.
After being passed like 40 times by Nole he would have called his mama
NatF
Bionic Poster
But we can't put players back and forward. I'm just thinking Sampras game, with modern racquets of course, versus Federer or Nole.
IMO, he would have been torn apart.
After being passed like 40 times by Nole he would have called his mama
I think Federer would deal with Sampras better personally. Djokovic is more of a rhyme player and can get frustrated against big serves. In 2011 or 2015 form he was much less vulnerable to that sort of thing, 2012-2014 Djokovic would not enjoy playing Sampras IMO.
I do definitely think you're underselling Sampras here, in his best years he played a lot from the baseline, his serve, athleticism and forehand would be tough to handle on hards and grass. He was a great shot maker as well.
I love Sampras. He was my favorite player from 1992 to 2001.
I saw hundredth of his matches (even live, not just from the TV).
Amazing player, best of his era and one ATG. But his game could have been put under great pressure by players like Nole (of course) and Murray. Actually I think Nadal (apart of clay of course) would have been an easier opponent than Murray for him
abmk
Bionic Poster
and yet you are considerably under-rating Sampras (post #90)
Possibly.
But it's what I feel.
NatF
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
some recency bias, possibly ?
Have you watched Sampras highlights or full matches once in a while in the last few years ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't think prime Sampras would've lost both AO 13 and 15 finals to Djokovic. I think he'd have taken atleast one of them.
and yes, there is quite a bit to raise, even if Federer/Djoko are superior. You need to play well to be able to stand a chance. Murray just hasn't got his best level in many of those slam finals.
Sampras is just a better player than Murray as well, remember ?
Fed of USO 08 final vs prime Sampras would be close. (with edge to fed IMO)
I think Sampras would lose AO 10 final vs fed, AO 11 final vs Djoko and AO 16 final vs djoko, but would be put up a clearly better fight than Murray.
What's recency bias?
I never watch highlights, they mean nothing. I sometimes watch old games, including Pete's ones, yes. Why?
Murray08 was not prime Murray.
Why should we take prime Sampras?
Even if prime Sampraas would have probably lost.
Not sure about the better fight.
I saw the fights he had vs Safin and Hewitt for example.
And they were not Federer or Djokovic
Similar threads
