Tiers

[Mayonnaise]

Djokovic will surpass that with ease in the next few slams

He very likely will. But he hasn't yet.

 

[Noleberic123]

He very likely will. But he hasn't yet.

that's the only reasonable thing you have ever said in your life mayo

 

[Mayonnaise]

that's the only reasonable thing you have ever said in your life mayo

Everything I say is reasonable. It takes a certain refinement to get it

 

[BobbyOne]

Of course, you could make a more productive contribution to the thread and post why you think I have over-rated Budge (as BobbyOne does below).



I disagree with this - in his first year on the Pro Tour, Budge beat both Vines and Perry (the latter convincingly) head-to-head, so I think he would have a good shot against them the year before, when he won the Grand Slam.
Now, I'm not saying he would have won the Grand Slam in an open field, I'm just pointing out that he proved himself straight away to be better than the best Pros, and so he still would have done well in an open field.



One bad loss doesn't invalidate Budge's whole career. I mean, Laver lost to an over-40 Gonzales, but that doesn't mean he's not Tier 1a.

Moreover that came in a smaller tournament; Budge still won the two Pro Slams he played that year (and "almost losing" at Wembley is irrelevant - he won and that is all that matters).



You can't use injuries as an excuse, they are part of the game, and even if Vines was injured, that's not Budge's fault.

I don't have much info on 1941 - could you provide some details please?


This is a brief version of my overview on Budge before the War cut his prime short:

1937: 2 Amateur Majors
1938: Grand Slam (taking him to 6 consecutive Amateur Majors)
1939: Wins the Pro Tour over Vines and Perry and both Pro Majors he contests
1940: Wins 4/7 of the principal tournaments that year (as there is no Pro Tour), including the only Pro Major he contests
1941: Wins the Pro Tour over Tilden*, but loses the only Pro Major he contests
1942: Wins the Pro Tour over Bobby Riggs, Frank Kovacs, Perry and Les Stoefen and wins the only Pro Major he contests.

*(Yes, Tilden is old, but Budge demolishes him, and moreover, it's not Budge's fault that Tilden was his opponent for that year).

So, overall, it seems like Budge does very well - the only real negative being his loss in the Pro Major in 1941.

Moreover, Kramer himself rated Budge as the GOAT in 1979 (even after the feats of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver). Now, I don't necessarily agree that Budge is the GOAT, but I think he must be a contender.

All of this leads me to rank in Budge in Tier 1a.

Logic, I will answer tomorrow.

 

[BobbyOne]

Logic,you are right
Budge is a clear contender.
I would like to know his record vs Nüsslein
Vines is an all time great but,just like Sampras,sucking so much on slower surfaces place him behind Don
Crawford was the real dark horse

kiki, Maybe Budge played only one match against Nüsslein: He won 13-11, 2-6, 6-4 in the deciding match of Wembley 1939. A British newspaper then wrote it was the best match ever in U.K. (perhaps exaggerating).

 

[The_Order]

Did you or did you not discredit Agassi of his French Oprn citing competition? That answers your question :lol:

That had nothing to do with the pre open era comparison. That was mainly comparing the likes of Decugis with Nadal or Renshaw with Federer and Sampras.

The Agassi part, that was because Medvedev can't carry Nadal's bags at RG and Novak was the unfortunate one to have to deal with Rafa while Agassi did not.

 

[Mayonnaise]

That had nothing to do with the pre open era comparison. That was mainly comparing the likes of Decugis with Nadal or Renshaw with Federer and Sampras.

The Agassi part, that was because Medvedev can't carry Nadal's bags at RG and Novak was the unfortunate one to have to deal with Rafa while Agassi did not.

If you think Agassi couldn't win a French today, I'd argue Djokovic wouldn't win Wimbledon on the the fast grass of the 90s. It goes both ways.

 

[The_Order]

If you think Agassi couldn't win a French today, I'd argue Djokovic wouldn't win Wimbledon on the the fast grass of the 90s. It goes both ways.

Agassi won Wimbledon on fast 90's grass, no reason Novak couldn't do it.

And LOL "If I think Agassi can't win French today" who in their right mind would suggest that Agassi would be able to beat Nadal at RG? You? :lol:

Give me a break, he'd take a set at most and that's all.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Agassi won Wimbledon on fast 90's grass, no reason Novak couldn't do it.

And LOL "If I think Agassi can't win French today" who in their right mind would suggest that Agassi would be able to beat Nadal at RG? You? :lol:

Give me a break, he'd take a set at most and that's all.

Soderling beat Nadal there. It's possible Agassi could, unlikely but still possible.

 

[BobbyOne]

Of course, you could make a more productive contribution to the thread and post why you think I have over-rated Budge (as BobbyOne does below).



I disagree with this - in his first year on the Pro Tour, Budge beat both Vines and Perry (the latter convincingly) head-to-head, so I think he would have a good shot against them the year before, when he won the Grand Slam.
Now, I'm not saying he would have won the Grand Slam in an open field, I'm just pointing out that he proved himself straight away to be better than the best Pros, and so he still would have done well in an open field.



One bad loss doesn't invalidate Budge's whole career. I mean, Laver lost to an over-40 Gonzales, but that doesn't mean he's not Tier 1a.

Moreover that came in a smaller tournament; Budge still won the two Pro Slams he played that year (and "almost losing" at Wembley is irrelevant - he won and that is all that matters).



You can't use injuries as an excuse, they are part of the game, and even if Vines was injured, that's not Budge's fault.

I don't have much info on 1941 - could you provide some details please?


This is a brief version of my overview on Budge before the War cut his prime short:

1937: 2 Amateur Majors
1938: Grand Slam (taking him to 6 consecutive Amateur Majors)
1939: Wins the Pro Tour over Vines and Perry and both Pro Majors he contests
1940: Wins 4/7 of the principal tournaments that year (as there is no Pro Tour), including the only Pro Major he contests
1941: Wins the Pro Tour over Tilden*, but loses the only Pro Major he contests
1942: Wins the Pro Tour over Bobby Riggs, Frank Kovacs, Perry and Les Stoefen and wins the only Pro Major he contests.

*(Yes, Tilden is old, but Budge demolishes him, and moreover, it's not Budge's fault that Tilden was his opponent for that year).

So, overall, it seems like Budge does very well - the only real negative being his loss in the Pro Major in 1941.

Moreover, Kramer himself rated Budge as the GOAT in 1979 (even after the feats of Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver). Now, I don't necessarily agree that Budge is the GOAT, but I think he must be a contender.

All of this leads me to rank in Budge in Tier 1a.

Logic, Vines was mentally half away from tennis in 1939. He quit tennis and became a first-class golfer. He surely was better in 1938.

Nüsslein was surely stronger than Budge on clay. Remember that Budge needed five sets against a certain Kukuljevic at Paris who was much weaker than Nüsslein or von Cramm.

Nüsslein's great match at Wembley is an indicator that a peak Vines (who was stronger than Nüsslein indoors) would have been a threat to Budge on fast surfaces. That all is not irrelevant if we consider the circumstances.

British Pro Southport was not a smaller tournament (even though only six players participated). Budge lost clearly to Tilden who lost to Nüsslein clearly in final.

Of course injuries and illness have to be considered when judging matches. Of course it's not Budge's fault that Vines was partly injured but if Federer loses to Kukuschkin because of an injury, you cannot claim that Kukuschkin is the better player.

Tilden in 1941 was not old. He actually was very, very, very old! Again not Budge's fault but his win against Tilden is hardly a measure of greatness...

Imagine Nadal would play a series against Boris Becker and would win clearly, losing only seven matches to Boris. Nobody would say it's a great win for Nadal. People would blame Rafa for losing seven matches to a very old player.

In 1941 Budge lost to John Faunce 4-6,1-6,3-6 (probably clay) in the US Pro's second round. He lost to Perry in the Forest Hills RR and to Dick Skeen at Rye.

Perry won the US Pro plus 4 other tournaments. Budge won none.

In the 1942 tour Budge beat rookie Riggs only 15:10. Not overwhelming.

Kramer is not always a first-class expert. For instance he ranked Riggs ahead of both Laver and Rosewall...

Budge is over-rated, especially by himself...

 

[BobbyOne]

Logic,you are right
Budge is a clear contender.
I would like to know his record vs Nüsslein
Vines is an all time great but,just like Sampras,sucking so much on slower surfaces place him behind Don
Crawford was the real dark horse

kiki, Vines was not weaker than Budge on clay.

 

[icedcoffee]

I put this in alphabetical order in each tier:

Tier 1- Borg, Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2- Budge, Connors, Kramer, Lendl, Vines

Tier 3- Agassi, Cochet, Doherty, Djokovic, LaCoste, McEnroe, Perry

Tier 4- Becker, Crawford, Edberg, Newcombe, Sedgeman, Wilander

Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Emerson, Hoad, Larned, Renshaw, Santana, Sears, Trabert

I am sure there are some I am forgetting but of those I remember that is how I would categorize them by tiers. So I dont think Djokovic is quite tier 2 yet since I cant rate him in a higher tier than Agassi and McEnroe (although I think he could already rank higher than both, especialy Agassi), and I couldnt put Agassi and McEnroe in the same tier as Connors and Lendl either. He will be in tier 2 with his 8th or 9th slam. Tier 1 probably once he reaches 11, especialy if it includes a RG title.

 

[Bud]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Noleberic123]

I put this in alphabetical order in each tier:

Tier 1- Borg, Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2- Budge, Connors, Kramer, Lendl, Vines

Tier 3- Agassi, Cochet, Doherty, Djokovic, LaCoste, McEnroe, Perry

Tier 4- Becker, Crawford, Edberg, Newcombe, Sedgeman, Wilander

Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Emerson, Hoad, Larned, Renshaw, Santana, Sears, Trabert

I am sure there are some I am forgetting but of those I remember that is how I would categorize them by tiers. So I dont think Djokovic is quite tier 2 yet since I cant rate him in a higher tier than Agassi and McEnroe (although I think he could already rank higher than both, especialy Agassi), and I couldnt put Agassi and McEnroe in the same tier as Connors and Lendl either. He will be in tier 2 with his 8th or 9th slam. Tier 1 probably once he reaches 11, especialy if it includes a RG title.

Agassi, McEnroe and djokovic are in tier 2. Becker, wilander and Edberg are in tier 3. But I pre much agree with everything else

 

[icedcoffee]

Agassi, McEnroe and djokovic are in tier 2. Becker, wilander and Edberg are in tier 3. But I pre much agree with everything else

I guess you could just get rid of tier 3 and move Agassi, McEnroe, and Djokovic up to 2, the rest down to the tier 4 (which now becomes tier 3), and make tier 5 a tier 4. I dont know though, I just havent ever felt McEnroe and Agassi are the same tier as Lendl and Connors. Lendl and Connors have such amazing stats in tournament wins, slam finals, slam semis, those type of things, and their consistency (compared to both Agassi and McEnroe), dominance (compared to Agassi) and longevity (compared to McEnroe) are so far beyond it is hard for me to even have them in the same tier. And since I dont feel comfortable putting Djokovic in a higher tier altogether than Agassi or McEnroe yet, even though I do rate him higher than both, well it is a complicated thing.

 

[BobbyOne]

I put this in alphabetical order in each tier:

Tier 1- Borg, Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2- Budge, Connors, Kramer, Lendl, Vines

Tier 3- Agassi, Cochet, Doherty, Djokovic, LaCoste, McEnroe, Perry

Tier 4- Becker, Crawford, Edberg, Newcombe, Sedgeman, Wilander

Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Emerson, Hoad, Larned, Renshaw, Santana, Sears, Trabert

I am sure there are some I am forgetting but of those I remember that is how I would categorize them by tiers. So I dont think Djokovic is quite tier 2 yet since I cant rate him in a higher tier than Agassi and McEnroe (although I think he could already rank higher than both, especialy Agassi), and I couldnt put Agassi and McEnroe in the same tier as Connors and Lendl either. He will be in tier 2 with his 8th or 9th slam. Tier 1 probably once he reaches 11, especialy if it includes a RG title.

icedcoffee, I agree with your Tier 1.

There were two Dohertys, about equally strong.

You missed a few greats like Riggs and Nüsslein.

Segura,f.i., was much better than Emerson.

Please write Lacoste. I will never understand why people (even experts) write LaCoste or even La Coste.

 

[eldanger25]

I guess you could just get rid of tier 3 and move Agassi, McEnroe, and Djokovic up to 2, the rest down to the tier 4 (which now becomes tier 3), and make tier 5 a tier 4. I dont know though, I just havent ever felt McEnroe and Agassi are the same tier as Lendl and Connors. Lendl and Connors have such amazing stats in tournament wins, slam finals, slam semis, those type of things, and their consistency (compared to both Agassi and McEnroe), dominance (compared to Agassi) and longevity (compared to McEnroe) are so far beyond it is hard for me to even have them in the same tier. And since I dont feel comfortable putting Djokovic in a higher tier altogether than Agassi or McEnroe yet, even though I do rate him higher than both, well it is a complicated thing.

I think your 5 tier system is good, and agree with your rankings for the most part. Solid effort.

 

[Noleberic123]

I guess you could just get rid of tier 3 and move Agassi, McEnroe, and Djokovic up to 2, the rest down to the tier 4 (which now becomes tier 3), and make tier 5 a tier 4. I dont know though, I just havent ever felt McEnroe and Agassi are the same tier as Lendl and Connors. Lendl and Connors have such amazing stats in tournament wins, slam finals, slam semis, those type of things, and their consistency (compared to both Agassi and McEnroe), dominance (compared to Agassi) and longevity (compared to McEnroe) are so far beyond it is hard for me to even have them in the same tier. And since I dont feel comfortable putting Djokovic in a higher tier altogether than Agassi or McEnroe yet, even though I do rate him higher than both, well it is a complicated thing.

Ok, maybe leave wilander in tier 4. I use a different system, so its hard for me to change yours

 

[kiki]

I put this in alphabetical order in each tier:

Tier 1- Borg, Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2- Budge, Connors, Kramer, Lendl, Vines

Tier 3- Agassi, Cochet, Doherty, Djokovic, LaCoste, McEnroe, Perry

Tier 4- Becker, Crawford, Edberg, Newcombe, Sedgeman, Wilander

Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Emerson, Hoad, Larned, Renshaw, Santana, Sears, Trabert

I am sure there are some I am forgetting but of those I remember that is how I would categorize them by tiers. So I dont think Djokovic is quite tier 2 yet since I cant rate him in a higher tier than Agassi and McEnroe (although I think he could already rank higher than both, especialy Agassi), and I couldnt put Agassi and McEnroe in the same tier as Connors and Lendl either. He will be in tier 2 with his 8th or 9th slam. Tier 1 probably once he reaches 11, especialy if it includes a RG title.

Deleted post

 

[kiki]

I put this in alphabetical order in each tier:
The
Tier 1- Borg, Federer, Gonzales, Laver, Nadal, Rosewall, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2- Budge, Connors, Kramer, Lendl, Vines

Tier 3- Agassi, Cochet, Doherty, Djokovic, LaCoste, McEnroe, Perry

Tier 4- Becker, Crawford, Edberg, Newcombe, Sedgeman, Wilander

Tier 5- Ashe, Courier, Emerson, Hoad, Larned, Renshaw, Santana, Sears, Trabert

I am sure there are some I am forgetting but of those I remember that is how I would categorize them by tiers. So I dont think Djokovic is quite tier 2 yet since I cant rate him in a higher tier than Agassi and McEnroe (although I think he could already rank higher than both, especialy Agassi), and I couldnt put Agassi and McEnroe in the same tier as Connors and Lendl either. He will be in tier 2 with his 8th or 9th slam. Tier 1 probably once he reaches 11, especialy if it includes a RG title.

Wilding!!! Nastase if Ashe is listened and Borotra as well.maybe Neale Fraser,Víctor Seixas,Budge Patty,Von Cramm if Courier is there