The Hall of Fame will have trouble finding inductees soon

[svijk]

Given that almost all Grand slam winners from the past decade are still playing and all worthy players from the prior decades are already in, its going to be an issue. Other than Ivanisevic, Kuerten and Safin, no other 'stars' come to mind.

Even few years down the line, Fed (obviously) will go in along with Hewitt, and then, it will come down to maybe Roddick. The Hall does not have a lot of options.

 

[rommil]

Rafa will be eligible 5 years from Murray match AO 2010

 

[sureshs]

They will just go with the Hall of Famers of this forum

 

[Mainad]

Just out of interest, what is the precise criterion for being inducted into the Hall of Fame?

 

[tennis_pro]

Given that almost all Grand slam winners from the past decade are still playing and all worthy players from the prior decades are already in, its going to be an issue. Other than Ivanisevic, Kuerten and Safin, no other 'stars' come to mind.

Even few years down the line, Fed (obviously) will go in along with Hewitt, and then, it will come down to maybe Roddick. The Hall does not have a lot of options.

Roddick is going in for sure. If Michael Chang who had a slightly worse career than Roddick thus far is in, then so is Roddick.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Ivanisevic should definitely get inducted, partly because of that serve, and his improbable run at Wimby 2001. No one believed it was possible, and the All England club only saw it as a nice gesture, but what happened during those 2 weeks should go down in history.

 

[sureshs]

Just out of interest, what is the precise criterion for being inducted into the Hall of Fame?

Recent Player Category Eligibility Criteria
Active as competitors in the sport within the last 20 years prior to consideration.
Not a significant factor on the ATP, WTA or Wheelchair Tennis tours within five years prior to induction.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.
To be inducted as a Recent Player, a panel of the international tennis media votes on Recent Player nominees; a 75% favorable vote is required for Enshrinement.

Master Player Category Eligibility Criteria
Competitors in the sport who have been retired for at least 20 years prior to consideration.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.
To be inducted as a Master Player, an affirmative vote of 75% or higher is necessary. The International Masters Panel, which consists of Hall of Fame Enshrinees and other individuals who are highly knowledgeable of the sport and its history, selects the Master Player Enshrinees.

Contributor Category Eligibility Criteria
Exceptional contributions that have furthered the growth, reputation and character of the sport, in categories such as administration, media, coaching and officiating.
Contributor candidates do not need to be retired from their activities related to the sport.

 

[tennis_pro]

Just out of interest, what is the precise criterion for being inducted into the Hall of Fame?

that's a good question, I'm looking at the list right now and mostly see players who won 4 or more majors

from the "lower elite" players there are:
Michael Chang (1 major + 3 finals, highest ranking no 2)
Yannick Noah (1 major, no other finals, highest ranking 3)
Patrick Rafter (2 majors, highest ranking no 1 - for a week tho)

Bruguera, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Stich should join the list too based on that. From the current players Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and obviously the big 3

 

[Mainad]

Roddick is going in for sure. If Michael Chang who had a slightly worse career than Roddick thus far is in, then so is Roddick.

Chang slightly worse?

Chang: 1 GS + 3 RUs; 1 YEC RU; 7 MS + 2 RUs; 34 Titles + 24 RUs.

Roddick: 1 GS + 4 RUs; 5 MS + 4 RUs; 30 Titles + 20 RUs.

 

[Mainad]

that's a good question, I'm looking at the list right now and mostly see players who won 4 or more majors

from the "lower elite" players there are:
Michael Chang (1 major + 3 finals, highest ranking no 2)
Yannick Noah (1 major, no other finals, highest ranking 3)
Patrick Rafter (2 majors, highest ranking no 1 - for a week tho)

Bruguera, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Stich should join the list too based on that. From the current players Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and obviously the big 3

So it is essential to be a GS winner then, I take it?

 

[tennis_pro]

Chang slightly worse?

Chang: 1 GS + 3 RUs; 1 YEC RU; 7 MS + 2 RUs; 34 Titles + 24 RUs.

Roddick: 1 GS + 4 RUs; 5 MS + 4 RUs; 30 Titles + 20 RUs.

Roddick has better results in majors, both 1 title but Roddick has more finals, more semis, more quarters. More seasons finished in the top 10. More consecutive seasons in the top 10 + the obvious one you haven't noticed = Roddick finished 2003 ranked no 1 (and a total of 3 months I believe) while Chang was never the no 1 player in the world.

I'm not even sure Chang has an advantage in the Tennis Masters Cup area. He did make 1 final but ended the other 6 appearances in the RR stage. Roddick did make 3 semi-finals out of 6 appearances. I would favor 1 win over 3 finals but not sure about favoring 1 final over 3 semi-finals.

Roddick has won more than 75 % of his matches, Chang 68 %.

Roddick IS still an active player. While it looks unlikely he gets back to the top 10 he can still make a few deep runs in lesser tournaments if he gets hot.

 

[tennis_pro]

So it is essential to be a GS winner then, I take it?

I think so. But cooome onnnn how did Yannick Noah make it to the Hall of Fame? 1 fluke major + only 1 other semi-final appearance, not ranked higher than 3

 

[timnz]

Fluke?

I think so. But cooome onnnn how did Yannick Noah make it to the Hall of Fame? 1 fluke major + only 1 other semi-final appearance, not ranked higher than 3

Fluke, how? He beat wilander in straight sets in the final in 1983. Wilander with lendl were the two best clay courters of the decade. Doesnt sound like a fluke to me.

 

[tennis_pro]

Fluke, how? He beat wilander in straight sets in the final in 1983. Wilander with lendl were the two best clay courters of the decade. Doesnt sound like a fluke to me.

fluke - noun

Definition: a chance event or coincidence

Synonyms: coincidence, luck, accident, surprise

Antonyms: plan

Tips: The word fluke is an informal term for something good that happens by surprise or accident, rather than plan.

Maybe in your book Noah was favored against Lendl/Wilander at the French. His 1983 FO win was a surprise.

 

[timnz]

The sense of it

fluke - noun

Definition: a chance event or coincidence

Synonyms: coincidence, luck, accident, surprise

Antonyms: plan

Tips: The word fluke is an informal term for something good that happens by surprise or accident, rather than plan.

Maybe in your book Noah was favored against Lendl/Wilander at the French. His 1983 FO win was a surprise.

Okay we have different definitions of the word. Your definition seems to be along the lines of surprise. My definition has been along the lines of luck. On either definition its clear that noah earned the title on skill and effort. Hence it was a very solid achievement particularly beating someone as good as wilander in straight sets.

 

[Caesar]

that's a good question, I'm looking at the list right now and mostly see players who won 4 or more majors

from the "lower elite" players there are:
Michael Chang (1 major + 3 finals, highest ranking no 2)
Yannick Noah (1 major, no other finals, highest ranking 3)
Patrick Rafter (2 majors, highest ranking no 1 - for a week tho)

To be honest, I am not sure those inclusions are based purely on their raw tennis results.

- Yannick Noah is one of only two black men ever to win a major
- Michael Chang is the youngest-ever male GS winner, and the only Asian male ever to win a slam
- Patrick Rafter won the Stefan Edberg Award 4 times (only he, Federer and Edberg himself have won it more than twice)

I think that for a normal player to make it in, they probably need to either be a multi-slam winner and/or make it to world number 1.

Bruguera, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster, Stich should join the list too based on that. From the current players Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and obviously the big 3

Hewitt, Guga and the big 3 definitely. Muster and Kafelnikov probably. Bruguera and Roddick, maybe.

The rest - not unless they get really desperate.

 

[joeri888]

I think it does not only count purely your achievements, but also what you meant to the sport. Noah meant a great deal to France. He won in his home country against a great player. Given the amount of current French players in the top 100, I feel it's fair to say that Noah probably had quite an impact on the sport.

The same actually goes for Ivanisevic. He should be in there, probably even if he never won a Slam. It's a hall of fame, not a hall of achievement. Character plays a role.

 

[joeri888]

Given that almost all Grand slam winners from the past decade are still playing and all worthy players from the prior decades are already in, its going to be an issue. Other than Ivanisevic, Kuerten and Safin, no other 'stars' come to mind.

Even few years down the line, Fed (obviously) will go in along with Hewitt, and then, it will come down to maybe Roddick. The Hall does not have a lot of options.

Ferrero, Moya, Safin are possible as well. And did Agassi already get inducted?
Making a Slam final against Federer in 2004-2007 should count as a W

 

[Dave M]

Is there an actual building that you can visit (a museum?) or is the "Hall of fame" more like an achievement that gets these people a certificate and name on a board somewhere?If it is a place, anybody been?