Top 20 All Time

[csmoove899]

Here is my list:
1. Rosewall
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Gonzalez
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Agassi
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Djokovic
14. Renshaw
15. Sears
16. Larned
17. Becker
18. Wilander
19. Doherty
20. Vines

What do you think?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Not bad but you've rated Laver too highly. He wasn't even the best of his own time (Rosewall won at least 3 more Majors and some would argue 5-6). How can one be top 5 all time if they aren't even #1 of their era???? I'd suggest switching Gonzales and Laver around, but that's just my opinion.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Solid list.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Also bump Djokovic up a few places to appease Chico please. Just a gentle suggestion...

 

[Vcore89]

Also bump Djokovic up a few places to appease Chico please. Just a gentle suggestion...

He used to be a Fed fan or was I mistaken?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

He used to be a Fed fan or was I mistaken?

I believe so, yeah.

 

[jg153040]

Here is my list:
1. Rosewall
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Gonzalez
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Agassi
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Djokovic
14. Renshaw
15. Sears
16. Larned
17. Becker
18. Wilander
19. Doherty
20. Vines

What do you think?

Putting Doherty above Vines? What kind of insanity is that?

 

[csmoove899]

Putting Doherty above Vines? What kind of insanity is that?

I am of course referring to the great Lawrence Doherty, not his older brother Reginald Doherty.

 

[helloworld]

Roewall with 0 Wimbledon is number 1? Seriously? :shock:

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'm guessing you rate Agassi above the likes of Lendl because you value longevity much more than the typical forum members here. In which case, it would make even more sense to switch the positions of Laver and Gonzales and maybe bump Federer down a little bit.

 

[jg153040]

I am of course referring to the great Lawrence Doherty, not his older brother Reginald Doherty.

Yes, I knew that, but Lawrence has less majors. How can you put him above?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Roewall with 0 Wimbledon is number 1? Seriously? :shock:

Yes but he destroyed Laver in the true H2H sense throughout their careers by dominating the field in the Majors on several more occasions and for the record he beat Laver H2H directly more often than not in the biggest matches too.

If anything he should be at position 0. and the other mere mortals can be judged as exactly that - mere mortals.

 

[jg153040]

Roewall with 0 Wimbledon is number 1? Seriously? :shock:

Also Rosewall with pro majors is above Fed, but Doherty with more pro majors is bellow Vines.

Talking about insanity.

 

[TMF]

Also bump Djokovic up a few places to appease Chico please. Just a gentle suggestion...

I don't think the OP is a Nole fan.

I have already said that no one cares more than Djokovic about masters events. Players are giving him trouble left and right at the slams however. In the past 2.5 years he has won 2 slams. Only 1 more than Federer and Wawrinka, same number as Murray, and 2 fewer than Nadal in the same time period. 2011 is a distant fluke for Djokovic. Since then, he has shown his fans that he struggles against any player in the top 10 (apart from Ferrer) at slams. This is why his fans see any draw as a tough draw.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Here is my (Nathaniel_Near's realistic) list:
1. Nadal
2. Rosewall
3. Federer
4. Gonzalez
5. Sampras
6. Laver
7. Djokovic
8. Doherty
9. Borg
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Tilden
14. Renshaw
15. Sears
16. Larned
17. Agassi
18. Wilander
19. Becker
20. Vines

What do you think?

I used your list as a template and created my own list.

What do you think about the changes in principle?

I don't think the OP is a Nole fan.

But Chico is, and I care about him.

 

[helloworld]

Yes but he destroyed Laver in the true H2H sense throughout their careers by dominating the field in the Majors on several more occasions and for the record he beat Laver H2H directly more often than not in the biggest matches too.

If anything he should be at position 0. and the other mere mortals can be judged as exactly that - mere mortals.

If Rosewall was so great, how come the Center Court of AO is named after Rod Laver then? After all, they're both australian right? Perhaps the Center Court should be renamed Ken Rosewall arena?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If Rosewall was so great, how come the Center Court of AO is named after Rod Laver then? After all, they're both australian right? Perhaps the Center Court should be renamed Ken Rosewall arena?

I agree; they should rename the CC of the AO the Ken Rosewall Arena!

 

[csmoove899]

Also Rosewall with pro majors is above Fed, but Doherty with more pro majors is bellow Vines.

Talking about insanity.

The pro circuit, in which the top players played, began in 1927. Vines won 5 slams in the pro circuit. Unfortunately, Lawrence Doherty passed away in 1919, before the pro circuit even started. During Doherty's time, the best tennis players played the so called 'amateur' slams.

 

[helloworld]

I agree; they should rename the CC of the AO the Ken Rosewall Arena!

I think you should also convince the general public who barely know Rosewall, but are quite familiar with Rod Laver then.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

OK in all seriousness, in terms of the top 8 which I agree on, here's perhaps how I'd order them:

1a. Laver
1b. Federer
1c. Gonzales
2. Rosewall
3. Nadal
4. Borg
5. Tilden
6. Sampras

 

[jg153040]

The pro circuit, in which the top players played, began in 1927. Vines won 5 slams in the pro circuit. Unfortunately, Lawrence Doherty passed away in 1919, before the pro circuit even started. During Doherty's time, the best tennis players played the so called 'amateur' slams.

But Vines still has 8 majors and won career slam. Doherty only has 6 and won only in 2 slams.

So, how can you put him above Vines?

 

[csmoove899]

Roewall with 0 Wimbledon is number 1? Seriously? :shock:

Between 1927 and 1967 Wimbledon was an amateur slam, much like today's boy's slams. Rosewall was 34 when Wimbledon became a real slam again, so you can't blame him for not winning it. I would be shocked if Nadal wins Roland Garros at that age. However, his dominance of the pro circuit and great results in the open era even into his late 30s speak for themselves.

 

[TMF]

If Rosewall was so great, how come the Center Court of AO is named after Rod Laver then? After all, they're both australian right? Perhaps the Center Court should be renamed Ken Rosewall arena?

If that's the case, Arthur Ashe stadium shouldn't be named after him since he isn't the best American tennis player. Why not name it Sampras stadium?

There's a reason for choosing a player's name.
Capiche ?

 

[csmoove899]

But Vines still has 8 majors and won career slam. Doherty only has 6 and won only in 2 slams.

So, how can you put him above Vines?

Because Vines's 3 amateur slams don't really count towards his tennis greatness, much like Monfils's 3 boy's slams don't count towards his.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Out of interest, is one of the reasons you have Laver as low as 5 because he didn't have such a good conversion rate in Major finals? How do you view longevity vs dominance?

 

[helloworld]

If that's the case, Arthur Ashe stadium shouldn't be named after him since he isn't the best American tennis player. Why not name it Sampras stadium?

There's a reason for choosing a player's name.
Capiche ?

Arthur Ashe is a special case. He was honored due to his contribution and his unfortunate incident with HIV infection. As for Rod Laver Arena, there is only one and obvious reason it was named that way. Laver is viewed as the greatest Australian to ever play the game.
Capiche?

 

[jg153040]

Because Vines's 3 amateur slams don't really count towards his tennis greatness, much like Monfils's 3 boy's slams don't count towards his.

Ok, then how come Rosewall pro slams count vs Federer open era slams?

I mean, if you want to put Rosewall above Federer, then surely you have to put Vines above Doherty.

Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

 

[TMF]

Rosewall is not in the top 5 because it's already been occupied.

The top 5 are:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Borg

Nadal & Sampras are so close that it doesn't matter if either one takes the #3 spot.

 

[Chico]

Here is my list:
1. Rosewall
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Gonzalez
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Agassi
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Djokovic
14. Renshaw
15. Sears
16. Larned
17. Becker
18. Wilander
19. Doherty
20. Vines

What do you think?

- Rosewall is not #1
- Nadal is waaaaaaay too high. As one surface wonder he should be ranked below Gonzalez and Borg, around 7th place.
- The gap between 13. Djokovic and 9. Agassi is really close and I fully expect Djokovic to pass McEnroe, Lendl, Connors and Agassi by the time his career is over.

 

[Chico]

Also bump Djokovic up a few places to appease Chico please. Just a gentle suggestion...

Djokovic is close where he should be now. No complaints from me. But as I said, by the end of his career he will pass all tier 2 players (Agassi, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe) and will challenge Borg's and Nadal's spot on the list.

 

[jg153040]

Djokovic is close where he should be now. No complaints from me. But as I said, by the end of his career he will pass all tier 2 players (Agassi, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe) and will challenge Borg's and Nadal's spot on the list.

What makes you think Djokovic will win so much? He can't even beat Wawrinka and Nishikori at majors anymore.

 

[Vensai]

Rosewall shouldn't be so far ahead of Laver and Gonzales, if he is ahead at all.

 

[dlk]

1) Fed
2) Nadal
3) Lee D
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
6) Laver
7) Rosewall
8) Borg
9) Connors
10) TBD

 

[NatF]

Yes but he destroyed Laver in the true H2H sense throughout their careers by dominating the field in the Majors on several more occasions and for the record he beat Laver H2H directly more often than not in the biggest matches too.

If anything he should be at position 0. and the other mere mortals can be judged as exactly that - mere mortals.

Rosewall leading the h2h in the biggest matches is debatable. The matches we deem the biggest might not of actually been the biggest back then. If you include matches like the Dunlop 1970 and Tennis Champions classic then Laver probably at least matches Rosewall.

Laver's 200 titles could also be considered destroying the field...

Rosewall was only clearly the #1 player for 2 years, after Gonzalez entered retirement and before Laver came into his own. It only took a year for Laver to arguably surpass him.

--------

No way is Rosewall number #1. He was only the words best player for a couple of years, his own contemporaries outstrip him by leaps and bounds in that era. His peak level was also not that great in comparison to some others on the list. Guys like Vines, Kramer and Laver rank him quite lowly, beneath players like Segura etc...

He is not the GOAT. The GOAT should have his peak level more highly valued and should of been #1 in the world for a lot longer.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

One surface wonder? 5 non-clay slams, 11 non clay GS finals. several hardcourt m1000 titles, 2 wimbledons and 5 finals, queens title, olympic golds in hardcourt, 2 WTF finals. How would borg rank above him? he didnt win any slam in hard court, less slam finals, and he has also 5 slams outside his dominant one, but is less dominant in his best surface , nadal leads him there 9 vs 6. Your logic fails all the time. You hate fedal, specially rafa, and boost up djokovic, talks of inferiority complex.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

How can he callenge nadal? he has only half of his slams? do you expect Djokovic to win 7 slams in a row and rafa wins none? How delusional that chico :lol:

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

1. Nadal
2. Gulbis
3. Nadal
4. Monfils
5. Nadal

 

[timnz]

My go

My top 21 is:

top 8 - in no particular order: Laver, Federer, Gonzales, Tilden, Sampras, Rosewall, Nadal, Borg

next 13 - in no particular order: Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Djokovic, Agassi, Budge, Cochet, Wilding, Laurence Doherty, Becker, Kramer, Hoad, Vines.

Honourable mention (Edberg, Nüsslein)

 

[SublimeTennis]

Here is my list:
1. Rosewall
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Laver
6. Gonzalez
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Agassi
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Djokovic
14. Renshaw
15. Sears
16. Larned
17. Becker
18. Wilander
19. Doherty
20. Vines

What do you think?

Since you said greatest of ALL TIME, not just greatest of THEIR ERA, the list would change dramatically, for example Nadal wouldn't even be ranked, try to imagine Nadal playing 6 feet behind the baseline with a 65" wood racquet trying to get the spin he gets today. Nadal's game is based on A. Super slow courts which didn't exist pre 2002, a large racquet with spin friendly string. I've always said that Nadal is the greatest of the high tech slow court era, but would not be heard of in previous generations.

Determining the greatest of all time is a very difficult task. Many just look at Grand Slam wins and that's it. I think that's one of the least factors. It's the level of competition and beating them, the ability to play on all surfaces, the ability to play in all eras, so why I won't get into that, it's one of the reasons why so many pick Federer as the greatest, it's easy to see Federer winning on clay with a 65" 13.5 ounce wood racquet. I can see Djokovich also playing under those circumstances to some extent.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Agassi in the top 10 and Sampras over Laver :lol:

 

[helloworld]

Agassi in the top 10 and Sampras over Laver :lol:

Nadal is also above Laver according to him..

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Nadal is also above Laver according to him..

Laver times were different, he couldnt compate the same way in modern tennis. Or do you tell me the amount of guys trying to become pro in 2014 are the same as those doing the same in late 60's

 

[timnz]

Depth

Laver times were different, he couldnt compate the same way in modern tennis. Or do you tell me the amount of guys trying to become pro in 2014 are the same as those doing the same in late 60's

The Depth is certainly greater now - but are the guys at the very top better than the guys then - well, that is the question.....

 

[Flint]

Not bad but you've rated Laver too highly. He wasn't even the best of his own time (Rosewall won at least 3 more Majors and some would argue 5-6). How can one be top 5 all time if they aren't even #1 of their era???? I'd suggest switching Gonzales and Laver around, but that's just my opinion.

In that case either Nadal or Federer shouldn't be top 5, I won't get into which one thoughh.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

For sure.. the greater the competition the better you have to be to separate yourself from the bulk of players...