The all-time 100 greatest players
- Thread starter BobbyOne
- Start date
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Bobby, your list is much better than most I've seen. Good work.
For the record, I continue to think that comparing players from vastly different eras is a hopeless task. For me guys like Federer and Tilden are almost playing different games. To some extent even the rules of tennis have changed - think of the change in serving, where once a player had to keep a foot on the baseline until the serve was struck, causing the back foot to swing over the baseline. That one change has altered the mechanics of the serve so that today we see almost all players jump over the line and land on the front foot. This makes a guy like Becker a throw-back, I believe, since he continued to step in with the right foot.
But that's just the most obvious change I can think of.
To be honest, I would have not idea how to "rate" a man like Kramer against Sampras, just to give an example. It seems that both did exactly what they needed to do to remain dominant in their own eras. Even Kramer vs Gonzalez seems very difficult to me. The difference in their ages was very similar to the gap between Federer and Djokovic. It's very hard to find two ATGs almost the same age. McEnroe/Lendl and Nadal/Djokovic are two exceptions I can think of off the top of my head.
Even Rosewall/Laver as a competition is very hard. I tend to think Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall, with Rosewall better, then Laver surpassing Rosewall (normal for the younger player), but with an unusual ending to their long rivalry, where I have to give Rosewall the edge because of his unbelievably longevity and high level of play over the age of 33.
If anything I'd like to see comparisons for:
The period before Kramer, maybe even dividing that up into decades.
The 50s.
The 60s, pre OE
Early OE, through to around 1980 or so, when Borg retired.
80s, up until the emergence of Sampras
2000s, up until around 2010
2011 through the present
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Well, that too.Too much intellectual sports-masturbation?
I don't mind GOAT discussions and all-time-great lists so long as they don't erupt into flame-wars.
But you know me - I'm most interested in discussions that bring now information to light. Almost everything I know about players previous to the OE is from this forum, and that's why I started reading here in the first place. I did not get to see the great players before the OE. I only read about them, and even now the videos I get to see just leave me hungry for more!
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
My only problem might be your ranking of Connors/Borg/McEnroe. My reasoning with the Connors/Borg match-up is similar to Rosewall/Laver. Borg gets a near mythical placement because he went out so near the top. He peaked very early, and we don't know that his level would have stayed so high even if he had not lost his mojo. Look what happened to Djokovic in the last year. We could not have foreseen this.
Connors gets demoted on the assumption that his level not only slipped in relationship to Borg but also with the further assumption that this change was permanent. I have to give Connors huge credit for what he did later in his career, at least up until around the age of 30 or so.
That's my problem with mixing eras. To me Connors, Borg and McEnroe were all very close, and ranking them together with many people in other eras sort of distorts that closeness so that it is not as obvious. It's the same problem for me as putting Laver right at the top and then placing Rosewall several places below, inserting many names from other eras in between.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
i rather enjoy the idea that this thread is not about GOATs but about All-time Greats, and remembering them.
i´m just happy that i could identify all 100+ players without having to google them
I had heard of most, but I was intrigued to read about Froitzheim...
treblings
Hall of Fame
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't think Ted Pell gets the attention he should.i rather enjoy the idea that this thread is not about GOATs but about All-time Greats, and remembering them.
i´m just happy that i could identify all 100+ players without having to google them
pc1
G.O.A.T.
For a while there Pell was considered to have the all time greatest backhand by many. Wonder if Pell street in Manhattan was named after him.you just brought him to my attention
PC1, Your source for the 1964 tour is NOT impeccable and you do know it - or at least you should know it after the clear remarks and quotings krosero has found and published. It's a big shame for any poster (who has read krosero's findings) to ignore the fact of the 1964 WORLD PROFESSIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR!!! Get serious or do you really want to join the ignoramus posters like Limpin and Lobb??
We can agree about opinions, f. e. if Laver is the greater player or Rosewall (albeit not if Laver is the greater player or Mulligan) but we CANNOT agree or disagree about historical facts! We just are forced to accept them, even the know-it-all, pc1.
krosero and others have already solved the 1964 "riddle"!
Of course you are entitled to give "likes" to whom you want, even to my enemies! But be honest (at least this time!): You used to give hundreds of "likes" to Limpinhitter and Co. even when they posted in an aggressive way toward me, and you almost NEVER liked any of my hundreds of posts. Do you really think that Limpin, Phoenix and Lobb use to write "interesting posts" while BobbyOne never writes "interesting posts"??? This point is again a typical pc1 twist of argument in order to blame me for being authoritarian and to put yourself in a better and just light...
Please note: Bud Collins did not call me the "authoritarian Austrian". He called me the "authoritative Austrian"...
Last edited:
Limpin, You must have missed or overlooked several of his posts. For example pc1 claimed recently that I misinterpreted his clear "like" to Dan's wrong claim that Hoad semi-retired in 1960 even though I did NOT misinterpret that "like"...
i count 102
treblings, Now they should be 101 with the last two tied.
Phoenix, Thanks. I included him now.
Bobby, your list is much better than most I've seen. Good work.
For the record, I continue to think that comparing players from vastly different eras is a hopeless task. For me guys like Federer and Tilden are almost playing different games. To some extent even the rules of tennis have changed - think of the change in serving, where once a player had to keep a foot on the baseline until the serve was struck, causing the back foot to swing over the baseline. That one change has altered the mechanics of the serve so that today we see almost all players jump over the line and land on the front foot. This makes a guy like Becker a throw-back, I believe, since he continued to step in with the right foot.
But that's just the most obvious change I can think of.
To be honest, I would have not idea how to "rate" a man like Kramer against Sampras, just to give an example. It seems that both did exactly what they needed to do to remain dominant in their own eras. Even Kramer vs Gonzalez seems very difficult to me. The difference in their ages was very similar to the gap between Federer and Djokovic. It's very hard to find two ATGs almost the same age. McEnroe/Lendl and Nadal/Djokovic are two exceptions I can think of off the top of my head.
Even Rosewall/Laver as a competition is very hard. I tend to think Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall, with Rosewall better, then Laver surpassing Rosewall (normal for the younger player), but with an unusual ending to their long rivalry, where I have to give Rosewall the edge because of his unbelievably longevity and high level of play over the age of 33.
If anything I'd like to see comparisons for:
The period before Kramer, maybe even dividing that up into decades.
The 50s.
The 60s, pre OE
Early OE, through to around 1980 or so, when Borg retired.
80s, up until the emergence of Sampras
2000s, up until around 2010
2011 through the present
Gary, Thank you. But I'm not as rigid as you regarding the periods. F.e. I believe we can compare Kramer and Gonzalez rather well.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Bobby, my personal dislike of comparing guys like Kramer and Gonzalez has nothing to do with "rigidity".
Perhaps you have an absolutely reliable H2H list of their matches against each other, but I don't. This makes a difficult decision even more difficult.
In the case of the current "Big Three" it is far more easy, although they are all still playing. The metrics for this era have been very clearly set out, so the record in majors stands out. So long as Federer stands on 18 majors over Nadal's 14, the case will remain closed. The discussion would be quite different if the AO had gone the other way and the balance currently stood at 17/15, with Nadal seeming to have a very good chance at getting another major at RG.
In spite of a very negative H2H against Nadal, one that has certainly improved this year, people can and do counter with the fact that so many of Nadal's victories over Djokovic are on clay, while Nadal to some extent has not even been present in many majors to go up against Federer.
Even so, that negative H2H is a powerful countering argument for Federer's "GOAThood".
It's so easy to get that information today.
As you very well know, it is far more usual for older players to have a clear advantage up to the point at which their peaks end, so if a player is otherwise continuing to play at a very high level but begins to fail against a younger player before that peak is clearly over, it is always an argument in favor of the younger player.
If, on the other hand, the aging player continues to either dominate or clearly hold his own even at a time when the younger player is clearly at his peak, that becomes a very strong argument for the older player.
An example: Three wins in a row by Federer this year over Nadal, at the age of around 35.5, is a powerful argument for Federer as ultimately the better player.
I always look at things from this perspective, right or wrong.
A clear agreed upon H2H between two great rivals is a very important factor to be considered, and in an era in which no one fully agrees on which tourneys are most important even an absolute rock solid H2H still leaves debates open about which wins and losses are most important.
Again, going back to 2015: In this year Novak met Federer 8 times and won 6 times. In 2014 he won 3 and lost 3, but clearly he was winning the big matches. If these guys were both the same age, I would have to conclude that Djokovic is clearly now the better player and overtook Federer. But because of the 6 year difference, I have to look at that rivalry differently. To this moment Federer has won 49% of their matches and 50% of their games. With the comparison of majors, it's clear to me that Federer is easily the better player and will keep that advantage unless Novak makes a miracle comeback and wins several more majors.
It's not hard for me to put these three players in this order, as it stands:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
But Nadal and Djokovic remain very close, and it is possible for Nadal to become clearly the best of the two with a couple more majors, or at least get so close that it's a toss-up.
To make a final decision for Kramer and Gonzalez I would need:
A rock-solid career record of wins and losses against all players.
The same thing for the two of them.
A consensus regarding the importance of each of the tourneys they both played, both against each other and against all competitors.
Because of the work of a few stubborn and hard-working historians, we are probably getting closer to a tally of all matches - think for example of what Krosero is doing right now for Gonzalez - but could we ever be sure we have all matches?
Most likely, no.
Unfortunately there will never be a consensus regarding the rating of all tourneys. There will never be substitute categorization in the manner of M250s, M500s, M1000s, majors, tour finals, and so on. There will be no absolute agreement on a point system leading to ranking.
The final stumbling block is the difference in age. My impression is that Kramer almost totally dominated Gonzalez at first - is this in dispute? The older veteran had every advantage, so he won. Then later, at some point, there was reasonable parity, and finally Gonzalez clearly had the upper hand. (This is entirely predictable for two ATGs with a difference in age of seven years.)
So that's why at this time I judge them to be "to close to call".
Bobby, that's not being rigid - that's being rather flexible, and I think fairly open-minded.
Last edited:
Gary, I agree partly. But I think we have now enough information about Gonzalez and maybe soon also for Kramer. For Pancho we seem to miss only a few shorter tours in 1951/1952.
The modern equipment makes the recent and current players looking stronger than the Kramers and Rosewalls and Lavers but properly they aren't.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, but I don't have it, Bobby, and I would be extremely out of place to make any kind of strong opinion with the knowledge I have, which is VERY limited.
I know that among others Krosero has been doing incredible research along these lines. But my personal impression of Gonzalez is limited to a very limited acquaintance with his game in the OE, and of course he was around age 40 in '68. The rest is what I said, an "impression". Other than that I assume, based on what he still did in the OE, that he must have been absolutely amazing at his peak.
I'm also basing that assumption on what I've read here from far more knowledgeable posters, which by the way includes you.
I think you know my opinion about this. Looking back at old videos of course we recognize that it was the same game, the same court, mostly the same rules, but I believe the equipment and strings has almost made tennis today a new sport, and that does not make it superior, just different.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's clearly superior in terms of overall quality of shot (which is what most focus on), there are of course reasons for that - namely technology, training etc...We shouldn't use this an excuse to put down players of the past BUT we also shouldn't claim that these advancements make current players any lesser champions than in the past. In the end every player only has the chance to succeed in their own era after all. For me the best players of all time are those that dominated their own era's AND showcased the completeness of game e.g. physical, mental and technical gifts to succeed in all other era's other than their own.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Out of interest, are there any players who you consider to have dominated their eras, but might not have succeeded in another era?
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Total agreement on that point.
Total agreement.
That's where we may differ.
I think there is a greater link between height and dominance than you are (perhaps) acknowledging. I think that Rosewall, and to a lesser extent, Laver, would be terribly disadvantaged in this era due to rackets and technology. I believe modern rackets and strings produce a higher bounce, and this is due both to extreme spin and extreme pace of balls, pretty much impossible with wood and gut. The old players could hit occasional "rocket shots", but today's players do it time after time.
Old-timers consistently talked about the wear and tear on knees, playing on grass. I remember BJK referencing that frequently. Players with a lower center of gravity could reasonably be expected to have an advantage returning on grass and even digging out balls hit at knee level, or hitting tricky half volleys. Theoretically a shorter guy might even have a slight advantage volleying, hitting more volleys at close to eye level without have to bend as far.
The idea of two ATGs dominating for so long, Rosewall and Laver, both well under 6 feet tall, is a huge elephant in the room for me. We can either assume that there were no really great, tall athletes in tennis comparable to the guys we see today, or perhaps something else is terribly different.
We can point to guys like Zverver, 6 feet 6 inches, and say that we are seeing guys like him because of the explosion in population, so many billions of people, or maybe because tennis is now international and has a larger "base" or potential young players.
@Meles
But with so many giants playing today, it seems to me that there would have been a few around in 60s, and I can't think of any at the moment who left a lasting impression. Stan Smith at that time was close to the extreme, with Gonzalez close but supposedly a bit shorter (there are contradictions as to his correct height.)
With the greater "base" of young players, today it seems even more likely that there would be at least one dominant player well under six feet, but where is this player? With so many billions of people on this planet, so many countries, where is the outlier on the short side?
To me it is obvious that changes in the game itself are skewing average height more and more in the direction of "giants", and I attribute that to the equipment.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Let me clarify, I wasn't saying everyone who dominated their own era could do so in another era. I was saying certain players in history dominated their era AND had the tools to be successful in any other era. As far as those players that could only dominate in a set few era's that will require a bit more thought from me @Phoenix1983 Honestly I do think Laver and especially Rosewall (mostly because of his build) would suffer, but I do think they could both win majors - just not the amount they did before.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Got it.
I would say that the guys who had the tools to win in any era - and let's remind ourselves that this is still fantasy - are the guys who are in the six foot to six foot three range. Those old timers would be tall enough to win in this era, and more modern players would have the right size and game to win in the past.
Something like that...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Got it.
I would say that the guys who had the tools to win in any era - and let's remind ourselves that this is still fantasy - are the guys who are in the six foot to six foot three range. Those old timers would be tall enough to win in this era, and more modern players would have the right size and game to win in the past.
Something like that...
Pancho Gonzales would surely have been a force to reckon with in any era.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Got it.
I would say that the guys who had the tools to win in any era - and let's remind ourselves that this is still fantasy - are the guys who are in the six foot to six foot three range. Those old timers would be tall enough to win in this era, and more modern players would have the right size and game to win in the past.
Something like that...
I agree with this. Someone like Borg would for me be a force in any era as well - despite being a little under than 6-6'3 sweet range.
Gary, Regarding high bounce: Rosewall did very well against topspin players like Vilas, Dibbs and Solomon.
He beat Vilas in both of their encounters, winning the final set both times by 6-0, the second time when Muscles was already 42.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
For sure 6' 11" should make it in any era with a talent such as Borg had. I think JMac is the same height.
Diego Schwartzman - he's playing as I write this. I'm on the way to work. He's listed as 5' 7", and I don't believe he is really that tall. If a guy like him can do so well in 2017, we have to keep an open mind, right?
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Maybe. If we assume they play exactly as they played in their actual era then I would have question marks about Gonzalez in the modern game because of the serve and volley issue. Same with any of those guys who played that way.
In Borg's case his attitude on clay to essentially rally forever and hit one more shot than his opponent would not work today. In this regard I think if playing today clay would be Borg's worst surface.
I think guys like Tilden, Vines and Budge would fare better simply because they were fundamentally baseliners who had an attacking mentality (and were all over 6 foot). Like Federer.
Of course this is what makes it so difficult to judge, because Borg's tactics and style of play led him to dominance on a particular surface bettered only by one player. Serve and volley worked for Gonzalez to the extent he may have been number 1 longer than anyone.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Bobby, Rosewall makes no sense to me, which is why I think of him as unique. I do, however, believe that high bounce is not only about height but also the speed of the shot, and just this week I've seen Zverev hitting through high backhands at HIS shoulder height, which of course is very high. Especially on clay the huge amount of spin the players put on balls - impossible on a regular basis with wood and gut - can combine with pace to create (perhaps) balls that rise higher than in the Rosewall days.
But I don't draw any "hard and fast" conclusions. As I just mentioned, right now Schwartzman is pushing hard to win again, and his success returning is incredible. I think in the end it comes down to just how successful small men can be serving, meaning not serving itself but winning serve. Stats suggest in general that height is a huge advantage and always has been, but there are shorter men who serve better than taller men - think of Wawrinka vs Murray, and Wawrinka, while very strong, is by no means anything like the server that someone like Tanner was.
I suppose in the end any kind of general conclusions we make are going to be broken by someone.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The topspin players put on the ball today is far in excess of anything Rosewall had to deal with in his time though. I do believe Rosewall could be successful in this era but he would have great difficulties consistently beating the best players on clay and the slower HC's.
Well I assume that these players could apply their talents to use different play styles. In Borg's case he had a great first serve, powerful groundstrokes for his era, was quick, had great stamina and could volley well. But I see your point.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Gonzalez was without any doubt one of the most naturally gifted athletes every to play tennis. Of course a clone of Gonzalez would not play exactly the same game in this era, but Federer would not play exactly the same game in a much early era.
Any guy with an incredibly strong serve and fantastic volleying skills would likely have adopted Pancho's game style in that era. It was simply the best way to win then...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I have no doubt about it because he was one of the few players who had a topspin backhand in those days but it was a nearly as effective as some others.
Pancho Gonzalez learned a lot from Kramer and Segura. I'm sure with proper coaching today he would be fantastic. It would be hard for me to imagine him with a two-handed backhand however but I would guess that probably would be the case. He was imo one of if not the greatest athlete in tennis history.
It would have been interesting if Hopman was his coach.
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Yes, you look at it in terms of what would a great first serve, powerful groundstrokes, quickness and great stamina look like in the current game and that is what a modern day Borg would be like. You can compare with current players and get a rough idea of what Borg would look like today e.g a combo of Nadal and Djokovic.
What I would try and avoid doing is saying that if Pancho was playing today he would develop a Federer-esque forehand because it is a different era. You could maybe do this with Kramer or Vines though, because they had GOAT forehands at the time they played.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Indeed, Pancho had a good forehand, amazing serve, great volleys and touch. At the very least I would assume his serve would be incredible in any era - the rest of his game would depend on what he chose to develop but he was a great athlete in his own era so I think he had the talent to reach the top anywhere and anytime. I don't assume he would be a S&V player now, but I would guess he'd have great hands to approach the net off a great forehand etc...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Since Gonzalez was a touch player I could see him with a very strong forehand but not on the level of a Federer or a Nadal but you never know because he did not have any real coaching as a player! Perhaps with the coaching of today he may develope an even more powerful forehand and a better backhand. The probability is that he would probably have a two-handed backhand as most players have today.
I would see him more akin to McEnroe type player or an Andy Murray type because of his great touch. My best guess is that he would have a far superior serve to Murray but you never know.
In a way it's kind a shame we have such a rigid coaching nowadays. You cannot develop the unique styles of yesteryear like a Segura forehand or a Gonzalez or Lew Hoad type game.
