The ultimate last 16 Grand Slam draw of the Open era?!

JAY1

Semi-Pro
Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I'm sure I've missed someone out or got the seedings wrong.......
 
Last edited:
Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I'm sure I've missed someone out or got the seedlings wrong.......

How did you decide the seeds? Reminds me of the tennis channel list alittle bit. Also whats the surface this hypothetical tournament is played on, if it's Wimbledon the seeding might be based on the previous ultimate grand slam results ;)
 
How did you decide the seeds? Reminds me of the tennis channel list alittle bit. Also whats the surface this hypothetical tournament is played on, if it's Wimbledon the seeding might be based on the previous ultimate grand slam results ;)
I decided the seeds by my interpretation of the top 16 players (in order) of the last 45 years.
This is the Wimbledon seedings of old, when a committee would decide and not the world rankings. My 4 dogs and me are the committee. :-)

Played on Green clay (US open 1975-77)

Can you post the Tennis channel's list please?
 
Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)


I'm sure I've missed someone out or got the seedlings wrong.......

Federer should be excluded, 'owned' by Nadal. Ditch Rosewall, Wilander and Lendl they never won Wimbledon. You can throw out McEnroe, Becker, Connors, Edberg, Djokovich, Newcomb, and Sampras as failures as well. Never won RG. Borg was a total flop at the Open. Goodbye.

Now that is more manageable and it gets rid of the dead weight controversial and fake GOAT candidates.
 
Last edited:
I decided the seeds by my interpretation of the top 16 players (in order) of the last 45 years.
This is the Wimbledon seedings of old, when a committee would decide and not the world rankings. My 4 dogs and me are the committee. :-)

Played on Green clay (US open 1975-77)

Can you post the Tennis channel's list please?

100 Michael Chang M USA
99 Ann Haydon Jones F GBR
98 Henry Bunny Austin M GBR
97 Pat Cash M AUS
96 Manuel Orantes M ESP
95 Thomas Muster M AUT
94 Andy Roddick M USA
93 Nicola Pietrangeli F ITA
92 Svetlana Kuznetsova F RUS
91 Shirley Fry Irvin F USA
90 Bill Johnston M USA
89 Dorothea Lambert Chambers F GBR
88 Amelie Mauresmo F FRA
87 Mary Pierce F FRA
86 Tony Wilding M NZL
85 Yannick Noah M FRA
84 Norman Brookes M AUS
83 Jan Kodes M CZE
82 Yevgeny Kafelnikov M RUS
81 Vic Seixas M USA
80 Marat Safin M RUS
79 Gabriela Sabatini F ARG
78 Ashley Cooper M AUS
77 Molla Mallory F USA
76 William Renshaw M GBR
75 Pauline Betz Addie F USA
74 Tony Roche M AUS
73 Jaroslav Drobny M CZE
72 Gottfried Von Cramm M GER
71 Maria Sharapova F RUS
70 Patrick Rafter M AUS
69 Louise Brough F USA
68 Helen Hull Jacobs F USA
67 Fred Stolle M AUS
66 Bobby Riggs M USA
65 Pancho Segura M ECU
64 Ellsworth Vines M USA
63 Lleyton Hewitt M AUS
62 Hana Mandlikova F CZE
61 Neale Fraser M AUS
60 Virginia Wade F GBR
59 Margaret Osborne Dupont F USA
58 Alice Marble F USA
57 Jennifer Capriati F USA
56 Stan Smith M USA
55 Gustavo Kuerten M BRA
54 Manuel Santana M ESP
53 Tracy Austin F USA
52 Jack Crawford M AUS
51 Doris Hart F USA
50 Tony Trabert M USA
49 Ilie Nastase M ROM
48 Frank Sedgman M AUS
47 Jean Borotra M FRA
46 Henri Cochet M FRA
45 Kim Clijsters F BEL
44 Arantxa Sanchez Vicario F ESP
43 Lindsay Davenport F USA
42 Jim Courier M USA
41 Guillermo Vilas M ARG
40 Novak Djokovic M SRB
39 Althea Gibson F USA
38 Maria Bueno F BRA
37 Evonne Goolagong Cawley F AUS
36 Rene Lacoste M FRA
35 Pancho Gonzalez M USA
34 Jack Kramer M USA
33 Mats Wilander M SWE
32 Lew Hoad M AUS
31 John Newcombe M AUS
30 Martina Hingis F SUI
29 Helen Wills Moody Roark F USA
28 Arthur Ashe M USA
27 Maureen Connolly Brinker F USA
26 Justine Henin F BEL
25 Stefan Edberg M SWE
24 Suzanne Lenglen F FRA
23 Fred Perry M GBR
22 Venus Williams F USA
21 Boris Becker M GER
20 Ken Rosewall M AUS
19 Monica Seles F USA
18 Ivan Lendl M CZE
17 Roy Emerson M AUS
16 Bill Tilden M USA
15 Jimmy Connors M USA
14 Serena Williams F USA
13 John McEnroe M USA
12 Andre Agassi M USA
11 Don Budge M USA
10 Billie Jean King F USA
9 Chris Evert F USA
8 Margaret Court F AUS
7 Bjorn Borg M SWE
6 Rafael Nadal M ESP
5 Pete Sampras M USA
4 Martina Navratilova F USA/CZE
3 Steffi Graf F GER
2 Rod Laver M AUS
1 Roger Federer M SUI

There's a betterlaid out list somewhere but thats the first I came across.
 
Federer should be excluded, 'owned' by Nadal. Ditch Rosewall, Wilander and Lendl they never won Wimbledon. You can throw out McEnroe, Becker, Connors, Edberg, Newcomb, and Sampras as failures as well. Never won RG.

Now that is more manageable and it gets rid of the controversial and fake GOAT candidates.
Your justification for the players you haven't excluded?
 
They are the really good ones! (I'm kidding, Jay!!!)
Damn, I was really looking forward to your explanations for the 6 players you didn't exclude. I thought this is going to be really insightful.
I really love unique, controversial and intelligent perspectives....
Just like the players of old ...
Unique, controversial and intelligent!
These days = Clones, robots and dour.
 
Damn, I was really looking forward to your explanations for the 6 players you didn't exclude. I thought this is going to be really insightful.
I really love unique, controversial and intelligent perspectives....
Just like the players of old ...
Unique, controversial and intelligent!
These days = Clones, robots and dour.

How's about this for insight. Those discards are the ones that fit my predetermined agenda as a fan for the others?

I promise a cirumspect answer after I take my son to get a bike chain!

Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) ? v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I like the names but it is a shame you can't fit Courier with 4 majors and 7 total finals. I don't know who you toss though.

In this first Rd, there are a couple of potential upsets in your hypothetical on the green dirt. Rosewall always had potential over Laver, Djokovic over Connors and Vilas over Sampras and if Macin in his incandescent form, Ivan's got trouble no matter what the surface.
 
Last edited:
Federer should be excluded, 'owned' by Nadal. Ditch Rosewall, Wilander and Lendl they never won Wimbledon. You can throw out McEnroe, Becker, Connors, Edberg, Djokovich, Newcomb, and Sampras as failures as well. Never won RG. Borg was a total flop at the Open. Goodbye.

Now that is more manageable and it gets rid of the dead weight controversial and fake GOAT candidates.
Who's left? Michael Chang?
 
Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I'm sure I've missed someone out or got the seedings wrong.......

Jay1, Rosewall deserves a better place, at least ahead of Vilas. Muscles won four GS tournaments and reached 13 top placings in open era.
 
Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I'm sure I've missed someone out or got the seedings wrong.......

Jay1, I cannot understand that you give Federer the top seeding on har-tru. Is Roger the God himself?? Nadal only fifth??

Also very strange: Sampras ahead of Vilas...
 
I agree with Bobby that Rosewall is a notch above Vilas.I think it is a close call for the 16 th seeded between Vilas and Nastase ( both a bit above Courier).Any of the two would be a worth 16 th seeded.

I agree with the rest of the names ( those are the top 16 from 68 based on results) but not in that order.Would be nice a pre open era seeding list.
 
Jay1, I cannot understand that you give Federer the top seeding on har-tru. Is Roger the God himself?? Nadal only fifth??

Also very strange: Sampras ahead of Vilas...

I think it's the top 16 guys in order of their achievements in the Open Era. Har-tru is just there as a somewhat neutral surface I think. The seeding isn't meant to reflect skill on the surface.
 
1-.Graf
2-.Navratilova
3-.Court
4-.Evert
5-.Williams
6-.King
7-.Seles
8-.Goolagong
9-.venus Williams
10-.Hingis
11-.Henin
12-.Mandlikova
13-.Sanchez
14-.Sharapova
15-.Clijsters
16-.Davenport

Graf vs Goolagong and Evert vs Serena at the bottom half quarters
Navratilova vs Seles and Court vs King on the bottom

three baseliners and one attacking player in the top half, and just reversed in the bottom half

Faites les Jeux, Mesdames et Monsieurs
 
How is Laver number 2 seed in Open Era. All time? Yeah. Open era? Come on now. Sampras, Nadal, Borg are all clearly more accomplished in Open Era.
 
How is Laver number 2 seed in Open Era. All time? Yeah. Open era? Come on now. Sampras, Nadal, Borg are all clearly more accomplished in Open Era.

It seems to me that the OP is limiting the draw to players who played (at least some of their career) in the Open Era, but not basing the seeds solely on their accomplishments in the Open Era.
 
OP here. You guys make a lot of intelligent comments.
You could take any three of twelve of you and put you in as tennis tv/radio commentators/experts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forzamilan90
How is Laver number 2 seed in Open Era. All time? Yeah. Open era? Come on now. Sampras, Nadal, Borg are all clearly more accomplished in Open Era.
Originally posted by Steve Dykstra
It seems to me that the OP is limiting the draw to players who played (at least some of their career) in the Open Era, but not basing the seeds solely on their accomplishments in the Open Era.

= Spot on Steve Dykstra

Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Jay1, I cannot understand that you give Federer the top seeding on har-tru. Is Roger the God himself?? Nadal only fifth??

Originally posted by NatF
Also very strange: Sampras ahead of Vilas...
I think it's the top 16 guys in order of their achievements in the Open Era. Har-tru is just there as a somewhat neutral surface I think. The seeding isn't meant to reflect skill on the surface.

= Spot on again NatF

I really thought about Courier and Nastase being included.
And yes Rosewall should be a LOT higher!! Probably 7 or 8.

Regarding Federer and "Is he the God himself"? By Bobby one
I think he has a tough time these days especially with his Nadal matches, the same way Connors did with Lendl in the second half of their matches.
Connors was past his absolute peak as Federer has been with Nadal, while Lendl and Nadal were/have been at their absolute peaks!

I look forward to many more responses and then I will revise OP taking everyone's comments into consideration.

God I would love tickets to watch all the matches at this hypothetical tournament.....
 
OP here. You guys make a lot of intelligent comments.
You could take any three of twelve of you and put you in as tennis tv/radio commentators/experts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forzamilan90
How is Laver number 2 seed in Open Era. All time? Yeah. Open era? Come on now. Sampras, Nadal, Borg are all clearly more accomplished in Open Era.
Originally posted by Steve Dykstra
It seems to me that the OP is limiting the draw to players who played (at least some of their career) in the Open Era, but not basing the seeds solely on their accomplishments in the Open Era.

= Spot on Steve Dykstra

Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Jay1, I cannot understand that you give Federer the top seeding on har-tru. Is Roger the God himself?? Nadal only fifth??

Originally posted by NatF
Also very strange: Sampras ahead of Vilas...
I think it's the top 16 guys in order of their achievements in the Open Era. Har-tru is just there as a somewhat neutral surface I think. The seeding isn't meant to reflect skill on the surface.

= Spot on again NatF

I really thought about Courier and Nastase being included.
And yes Rosewall should be a LOT higher!! Probably 7 or 8.

Regarding Federer and "Is he the God himself"? By Bobby one
I think he has a tough time these days especially with his Nadal matches, the same way Connors did with Lendl in the second half of their matches.
Connors was past his absolute peak as Federer has been with Nadal, while Lendl and Nadal were/have been at their absolute peaks!

I look forward to many more responses and then I will revise OP taking everyone's comments into consideration.

God I would love tickets to watch all the matches at this hypothetical tournament.....

Connors was 8 years older than Lendl while Federer is 4 years older than Nadal.Just half of the difference...and it took 3 years for Lendl to beat Connors while Nadal was very soon edging the swiss player.
 
. . . Nadal was very soon edging the swiss player.
"Very soon" as in from the outset and immediately. Not "edging"--dominating.

Here's a list of their first seven meetings:

2006 Roland Garros, France Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)

2006 ATP Masters Series, Rome, Italy Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)

2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)

2006 Dubai, U.A.E. Hard
F Nadal, Rafael
2-6, 6-4, 6-4

2005 Roland Garros, France Clay
S Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

2005 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
F Federer, Roger
2-6, 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-1

2004 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 6-3 Stats
 
"Very soon" as in from the outset and immediately. Not "edging"--dominating.

Here's a list of their first seven meetings:

2006 Roland Garros, France Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)

2006 ATP Masters Series, Rome, Italy Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)

2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)

2006 Dubai, U.A.E. Hard
F Nadal, Rafael
2-6, 6-4, 6-4

2005 Roland Garros, France Clay
S Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

2005 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
F Federer, Roger
2-6, 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-1

2004 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 6-3 Stats

upps¡¡ I just wanted to be polite with Federer....
 
"Very soon" as in from the outset and immediately. Not "edging"--dominating.

Here's a list of their first seven meetings:

2006 Roland Garros, France Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)

2006 ATP Masters Series, Rome, Italy Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)

2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco Clay
F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)

2006 Dubai, U.A.E. Hard
F Nadal, Rafael
2-6, 6-4, 6-4

2005 Roland Garros, France Clay
S Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3

2005 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
F Federer, Roger
2-6, 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-1

2004 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard
R32 Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 6-3 Stats

Federer then won 5 of the next 7 matches...

Edit: Nadal is also 5 years younger than Federer not 4.

After the FO final 2006 Federer didn't lose to Nadal off clay for nearly 2 years. He beat him twice at Wimbledon, twice at hte YEC in the semi's and once on clay in Hamburg. He dished out 2 bagels on grass and CLAY during this time.
 
Last edited:
Kiki and Hoodjem should be politicians!
Selective facts to suit their arguments.

It's true that when they first met Nadal took a big league, although during their first meeting Federer was sick. Most of Nadal's victories were on clay though and hard fought. After than 5/7 matches went to Federer he was catching up.
 
How's about this for insight. Those discards are the ones that fit my predetermined agenda as a fan for the others?

I promise a cirumspect answer after I take my son to get a bike chain!

Federer (1) v Newcombe (15)

Agassi (7) v Edberg (9)

Nadal (5) v Wilander (11)

Borg (3) v Becker (13)

Sampras (4) v Vilas (14)

Connors (6) v Djokovic (12)

Lendl (8) ? v McEnroe (10)

Laver (2) v Rosewall (16)

I'll take your idea and run with it this way

Federer v Sampras
Becker v Newcombe
Lendl v Djokovic
Agassi v Rosewall
Laver v McEnroe
Borg v Nadal (daylight match)
Wilander v Connors
Edberg v Wilander

All seedings massaged to suit. All players aged 20 to 27, able to choose their best period of play. Best of 5 sets, each set played with rackets corresponding to each player's best era (i.e. alternating sets). First set racket decided on the toss of a coin.

Pick the bones out of those! :)
 
Last edited:
I'll take your idea and run with it this way

Federer v Sampras
Becker v Newcombe
Lendl v Djokovic
Agassi v Rosewall
Laver v McEnroe
Borg v Nadal (daylight match)
Wilander v Connors
Edberg v Wilander

All seedings massaged to suit. All players aged 20 to 27, able to choose their best period of play. Best of 5 sets, each set played with rackets corresponding to each player's best era (i.e. alternating sets). First set racket decided on the toss of a coin.

Pick the bones out of those! :)

Considering the surface is Har-Tru;

Federer v Sampras - Federer wins, this surface would suit Federer alot more than Sampras IMO. He moves better on clay and the pace would be right for him.

Becker v Newcombe - I don't know much about Newcombe on clay so I can't really comment other than to say from what I know I'd pick Becker.

Lendl v Djokovic - I think Djokovic wins, simply based on the fact that his 2011 incarnation is nearly unbeatable. Lendl didn't really have that superhuman top level as far as I'm aware.

Agassi v Rosewall - This match would be tight mainly because I think the raquets would be very tough for these guys to adjust to on the fly. I think whoever wins the coin toss and starts with their racquet of choice wins. Agassi might do slightly better with the wood than Rosewall with the 90's racquets, I don't think Rosewall could handle the power of Agassi unless he had lots of practice with the racquet.

Laver v McEnroe - This would be perhaps the best match of the lot. Racquets wouldn't make a huge difference I don't think (?). The style and shotmaking would be incredible. I think the surface favors the power of Laver that little bit more so I go for him in 5.

Borg v Nadal (daylight match) - I think Borg would adapt to modern racquets better than Nadal, plus he's had more experience on Har-Tru. So I think in this situation I'd go for Borg.

Wilander v Connors - Connors. Just a better player.

Edberg v Wilander - You mentioned Wilander twice?

That's my most uninformed opinion.
 
Considering the surface is Har-Tru;

Federer v Sampras - Federer wins, this surface would suit Federer alot more than Sampras IMO. He moves better on clay and the pace would be right for him.

Becker v Newcombe - I don't know much about Newcombe on clay so I can't really comment other than to say from what I know I'd pick Becker.

Lendl v Djokovic - I think Djokovic wins, simply based on the fact that his 2011 incarnation is nearly unbeatable. Lendl didn't really have that superhuman top level as far as I'm aware.

Agassi v Rosewall - This match would be tight mainly because I think the raquets would be very tough for these guys to adjust to on the fly. I think whoever wins the coin toss and starts with their racquet of choice wins. Agassi might do slightly better with the wood than Rosewall with the 90's racquets, I don't think Rosewall could handle the power of Agassi unless he had lots of practice with the racquet.

Laver v McEnroe - This would be perhaps the best match of the lot. Racquets wouldn't make a huge difference I don't think (?). The style and shotmaking would be incredible. I think the surface favors the power of Laver that little bit more so I go for him in 5.

Borg v Nadal (daylight match) - I think Borg would adapt to modern racquets better than Nadal, plus he's had more experience on Har-Tru. So I think in this situation I'd go for Borg.

Wilander v Connors - Connors. Just a better player.

Edberg v Wilander - You mentioned Wilander twice?

That's my most uninformed opinion.

Federer v Sampras - Federer wins, this surface would suit Federer alot more than Sampras IMO. He moves better on clay and the pace would be right for him.
AGREED

Becker v Newcombe - I don't know much about Newcombe on clay so I can't really comment other than to say from what I know I'd pick Becker.

NEWCOMBE WON THE GERMAN AND ITALIAN WHILE BECKER FELT SHORT.CAN GO ANYWAY, BUT NEWKS STAMINA SHOULD PREVAIL

Lendl v Djokovic - I think Djokovic wins, simply based on the fact that his 2011 incarnation is nearly unbeatable. Lendl didn't really have that superhuman top level as far as I'm aware.

THE FASTER THE COURT THE BETTER FOR LENDL.HE WON 3 FO TO NONE FOR DJOKOVIC SO, EVEN ON SLOW COURT, LENDL SHOULD PREVAIL.

Agassi v Rosewall - This match would be tight mainly because I think the raquets would be very tough for these guys to adjust to on the fly. I think whoever wins the coin toss and starts with their racquet of choice wins. Agassi might do slightly better with the wood than Rosewall with the 90's racquets, I don't think Rosewall could handle the power of Agassi unless he had lots of practice with the racquet.

ROSEWALL IS AN ALL TIME CC GREAT; BUT HAR TRU IS A BIT FASTER.COULD GO ANYWAY.BUT IF THEY PLAYED 10 MATCHES, ROSEWALL WINS AT LEAST 6

Laver v McEnroe - This would be perhaps the best match of the lot. Racquets wouldn't make a huge difference I don't think (?). The style and shotmaking would be incredible. I think the surface favors the power of Laver that little bit more so I go for him in 5.

COULD GO ANYWAY, PROVIDED WE TALK ABOUT 83,84 MAC.IF NOT, LAVER PREVAILS.

Borg v Nadal (daylight match) - I think Borg would adapt to modern racquets better than Nadal, plus he's had more experience on Har-Tru. So I think in this situation I'd go for Borg.

YES, THE FASTER THE BETTER FOR BORG.ON EUROPEAN CLAY, NADAL COULD HAVE THE EDGE BUT IT IS GONNA BE ALWAYS CLOSE.

Wilander v Connors - Connors. Just a better player.

BUT ON HAR TRU IT MAY BE WILANDER TO PREVAIL.MATS IS THE WORST EVER MATCH UP FOR JIMMY, WITH AN ASTOUNDING 0-5.I PICK MATS ON HAR TRU
 
Reading with much interest the analysis of the match-ups above (everyone surely agrees it is great all the little paragraph's on why a player would prevail in his match-up?), it occurs to me the only way we can get pretty close to who is the GOAT of the Open era is to decide on the top 20 and then each 'Great' has 19 head to head match-ups and whoever comes out top in most H 2 H is the number 1 player of the Open era.
This is how it works and has always worked in boxing.

We are virtually at 50 years of the Open era so when we've decided on our top 20, it will be interesting if any new players creep into the top 20' at this point I see Murray as the only one who has a chance. But then again Dimitriov might win 6 slams in the net 5 years (I very much doubt it though).

I would really love to read the collective views of the Former Pro Talk experts, there is about a dozen of you, two of you have already given some views on match-ups. It will be amazing to read each posters perspectives. I might even try myself even though I'm a long way from being an expert.

It will be like comparing Sugar Ray Leonard to Floyd Mayweather or Jack Nicklaus to Tiger Woods, but much more fun.

So to start with I'm going to list the Top 20 not in any order. And unless anyone makes a strong argument to put someone else in, this will be our top 20.

Top 20

Laver
Rosewall
Newcombe
Vilas
Connors
Borg
McEnroe
Lendl
Wilander
Edberg
Becker
Courier
Agassi
Sampras
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Nastase
Hewitt (he dominated for virtually two years)
Murray (won the big W, US and Olympics)

Also rans... Safin, Chang, Orantes, Pannata, Ashe, Rafter, Kuerten.

Over to you guys.
I'm looking forward in particular to hearing the views on Laver v Federer, Connors v Nadal, Borg v Wilander (Borg 2) and Rosewall v McEnroe........
 
Considering the surface is Har-Tru;

Federer v Sampras - Federer wins, this surface would suit Federer alot more than Sampras IMO. He moves better on clay and the pace would be right for him.

Becker v Newcombe - I don't know much about Newcombe on clay so I can't really comment other than to say from what I know I'd pick Becker.

Lendl v Djokovic - I think Djokovic wins, simply based on the fact that his 2011 incarnation is nearly unbeatable. Lendl didn't really have that superhuman top level as far as I'm aware.

Agassi v Rosewall - This match would be tight mainly because I think the raquets would be very tough for these guys to adjust to on the fly. I think whoever wins the coin toss and starts with their racquet of choice wins. Agassi might do slightly better with the wood than Rosewall with the 90's racquets, I don't think Rosewall could handle the power of Agassi unless he had lots of practice with the racquet.

Laver v McEnroe - This would be perhaps the best match of the lot. Racquets wouldn't make a huge difference I don't think (?). The style and shotmaking would be incredible. I think the surface favors the power of Laver that little bit more so I go for him in 5.

Borg v Nadal (daylight match) - I think Borg would adapt to modern racquets better than Nadal, plus he's had more experience on Har-Tru. So I think in this situation I'd go for Borg.

Wilander v Connors - Connors. Just a better player.

Edberg v Wilander - You mentioned Wilander twice?

That's my most uninformed opinion.

Sorry about Wilander. I meant to put Courier. I agree with BTURNER, I think he is a better choice than Vilas, and he keeps the number of lefties with heavy topspin forehands the same!

Having said that, here are my selections (all matches being close):

Federer v Sampras
FEDERER to win. HarTru takes enough edge off Sampras' game to give Federer a definite edge

Becker v Newcombe
NEWCOMBE to win. Veeery close, but Newcombe in a tight fifth set just because I think in the crunch his nerve would hold.
Lendl v Djokovic
TOSS-UP. The Wall against The Iron Man!
Agassi v Rosewall
ROSEWALL to win. Both rock solid at the baseline, but Rosewall wouldn't give Agassi the pace he likes. Agassi would give Rosewall trouble with his ROS, but Rosewall's greater options at the net would prevail.
Laver v McEnroe
LAVER to win. Again very close, but Laver's stronger backhand and better mental attitude would prevail
Borg v Nadal (daylight match)
BORG to win. Both rock soild from the baseline, but Borg just edging it with his changeup options at the net.
Wilander v Connors
TOSS-UP, but I tend to favour Connors. The Competitor would find a way.
Edberg v Courier
TOSS-UP. Both got to the finals of an unfavoured surface. Really don't know how to call this one.

With those in mind I will by-pass the quarters and say the semi-finalists would be:

Federer, Borg, Laver, Rosewall

which I suppose summarises my own rankings for players in my lifetime (neglecting Gonzales). At that point I would say it was a coin toss from there on in, I can't choose between them, and I'd be happy to have any of the four play for my life.

And just for fun, here is another last 16 lineup, same players, but more interesting match-ups:

BORG v SAMPRAS
LENDL v NEWCOMBE (I'd like to see Lendl try to tube him. I foresee fisticuffs!)
AGASSI v CONNORS
LAVER v FEDERER
NADAL v MCENROE (put your money where your mouth is John!)
DJOKOVIC v EDBERG (The Wall against The Volleyer)
ROSEWALL v BECKER (the great little guy against the big server)
WILANDER v COURIER

Something else to get your brains working :)
 
Last edited:
^^

How would har-tru not be a favoured surface for Courier ? He won 2 RGs and made a 3rd RG final .....
 
^^

How would har-tru not be a favoured surface for Courier ? He won 2 RGs and made a 3rd RG final .....

Well, Har Tru isn't Paris clay, and Edberg got to the RG final....

But I'm not going to the wall on this match-up, I've just given my snapshot thoughts. That's what I like about this thread, it gives the opportunity for everyone to give a brief summary in bite-sized chunks.

If you think Courier would win, why not just write your own summary? All comments are interesting.
 
Connors v Nadal...
Connors would try and constantly take Nadal's topspin at the top of the bounce and build a trench to the net.
Would Nadal be able to hit non stop passing shots for 5 sets against low penetrating balls.....
Borg couldn't at US Opens 75 & 76
 
Last edited:
Connors v Nadal...
Connors would try and constantly take Nadal's topspin at the top of the bounce and build a trench to the net.
Would Nadal be able to hit non stop passing shots for 5 sets against low penetrating balls.....
Borg couldn't at US Opens 75 & 76

Now that is one (of many) hypotheticals I would pay lots to watch! Especially under lights it would be pure theatre. Fabulous.
 
Borg v Federer....

What a match-up!
I think Federer would struggle to compete with Borg from the baseline unless he had one of those pretty rare days where every forehand he hit was a winner.
Borg would hit heavy high topspin ground strokes to Federer's backhand (sound familiar?).
I feel Federer would have to serve and volley a LOT and would have a chance because Borg stands so far back on the return, but. Borg would get his chances to break.
I think the key would be, how much could Federer make in roads into Borg's serve (most underrated serve ever) and could he break Borg's unrelenting consistency from the baseline.......
 
Tilden vs Hoad: Judgement and analitical talent vs raw power and talent
Perry vs Lacoste: the two most significant baseline fighters of the pre open era - with Rosewall -
Budge vs Gonzales: the best returner of his time vs the greatest S&V of the 50´s and maybe even more
Vines vs Santana: power vs finesse
Kramer vs Borotra: analitical S&V vs athletic S&V
Rosewall vs Crawford: two very complete yet underrated aussies
Laver vs Sedgman: what an athletic exhibiition, two of the greatest tennis athletes of any time pitted against each other

Von Cramm vs Pietrangeli: clay court fair and demenour
Drobny vs Wilding: contrasting baseliners, one with a big serve, the other relentless...
 
Tilden vs Hoad: Judgement and analitical talent vs raw power and talent
Perry vs Lacoste: the two most significant baseline fighters of the pre open era - with Rosewall -
Budge vs Gonzales: the best returner of his time vs the greatest S&V of the 50´s and maybe even more
Vines vs Santana: power vs finesse
Kramer vs Borotra: analitical S&V vs athletic S&V
Rosewall vs Crawford: two very complete yet underrated aussies
Laver vs Sedgman: what an athletic exhibiition, two of the greatest tennis athletes of any time pitted against each other

Von Cramm vs Pietrangeli: clay court fair and demenour
Drobny vs Wilding: contrasting baseliners, one with a big serve, the other relentless...
The thread is about Open era tennis.......
 
Borg v Federer....

What a match-up!

I agree, and you have identified the sort of issues it would throw up.

But you know what, if I had to choose I'd go for the Nadal-Connors match if I had to choose. Borg-Federer would be for the aesthetic tennis part of my brain, but for pure blood-and-guts intensity and drama that grabbed you and kept you involved, I think Nadal (in his early prime) v Connors (ditto) would be the one to watch.

Which got me thinking that although your thread has been enjoyable, maybe there is room for another one 'Hypothetical Match-Ups that are not necessarily ones you want to see to settle a what-if argument or discussion, but match-ups you just WANT to see!' :)

Just off the top of my head, one I would like to see is Noah v Kuerten at RG, just to see if I would be as enjoyable as I imagine it would be.
 
I agree, and you have identified the sort of issues it would throw up.

But you know what, if I had to choose I'd go for the Nadal-Connors match if I had to choose. Borg-Federer would be for the aesthetic tennis part of my brain, but for pure blood-and-guts intensity and drama that grabbed you and kept you involved, I think Nadal (in his early prime) v Connors (ditto) would be the one to watch.

Which got me thinking that although your thread has been enjoyable, maybe there is room for another one 'Hypothetical Match-Ups that are not necessarily ones you want to see to settle a what-if argument or discussion, but match-ups you just WANT to see!' :)

Just off the top of my head, one I would like to see is Noah v Kuerten at RG, just to see if I would be as enjoyable as I imagine it would be.
Yep I agree about Prime Connors v Prime Nadal match-up.
I think there are a few key points in this match-up......
Racquets, strings, balls and court surface....
Connors could play with any of the above, but obviously he would prefer a slightly faster court than Nadal.
With Nadal, would he be able to use a 78" wooden/old type racquet, would he also be able to play with natural gut strings and old type tennis balls. Let's say we find a happy balance and level playing field for the two of them....
I couldn't see Connors (prime) losing really and take him to win in 4/5 sets, with about half a dozen confrontations during the match with Nadal.

Hypothetical match-ups..
Great idea!
Buts lets split this into three categories Open era, Mixed Open era's & Pre Open era (Over to you Kiki)....

Noah v Kuerten at RG..... What an incredible match-up! Would there ever be a more flamboyant match, Noah looking to get net whenever he could, Kuerten looking to dominate from the baseline, I couldn't really call this one especially with the awful French crowd behind Noah. As much as like Noah, I would have liked to see Kuerten win and if pushed I would pick him in 5 sets.
 
Open Era Match-ups....

Originally Posted by DMP
I'll take your idea and run with it this way

Federer v Sampras
Becker v Newcombe
Lendl v Djokovic
Agassi v Rosewall
Laver v McEnroe
Borg v Nadal (daylight match)
Wilander v Connors
Edberg v Wilander

All seedings massaged to suit. All players aged 20 to 27, able to choose their best period of play. Best of 5 sets, each set played with rackets corresponding to each player's best era (i.e. alternating sets). First set racket decided on the toss of a coin.

Pick the bones out of those!
Considering the surface is Har-Tru;

Federer v Sampras - Federer wins, this surface would suit Federer alot more than Sampras IMO. He moves better on clay and the pace would be right for him.

Becker v Newcombe - I don't know much about Newcombe on clay so I can't really comment other than to say from what I know I'd pick Becker.

Lendl v Djokovic - I think Djokovic wins, simply based on the fact that his 2011 incarnation is nearly unbeatable. Lendl didn't really have that superhuman top level as far as I'm aware.

Agassi v Rosewall - This match would be tight mainly because I think the raquets would be very tough for these guys to adjust to on the fly. I think whoever wins the coin toss and starts with their racquet of choice wins. Agassi might do slightly better with the wood than Rosewall with the 90's racquets, I don't think Rosewall could handle the power of Agassi unless he had lots of practice with the racquet.

Laver v McEnroe - This would be perhaps the best match of the lot. Racquets wouldn't make a huge difference I don't think (?). The style and shotmaking would be incredible. I think the surface favors the power of Laver that little bit more so I go for him in 5.

Borg v Nadal (daylight match) - I think Borg would adapt to modern racquets better than Nadal, plus he's had more experience on Har-Tru. So I think in this situation I'd go for Borg.

Wilander v Connors - Connors. Just a better player.

Edberg v Wilander - You mentioned Wilander twice?

That's my most uninformed opinion.

Pre-open era match-ups.....

Tilden vs Hoad: Judgement and analitical talent vs raw power and talent
Perry vs Lacoste: the two most significant baseline fighters of the pre open era - with Rosewall -
Budge vs Gonzales: the best returner of his time vs the greatest S&V of the 50´s and maybe even more
Vines vs Santana: power vs finesse
Kramer vs Borotra: analitical S&V vs athletic S&V
Rosewall vs Crawford: two very complete yet underrated aussies
Laver vs Sedgman: what an athletic exhibiition, two of the greatest tennis athletes of any time pitted against each other

Von Cramm vs Pietrangeli: clay court fair and demenour
Drobny vs Wilding: contrasting baseliners, one with a big serve, the other relentless...

Mixed Open eras match-ups....
Over to you guys?
 
Back
Top