Uncle Tony: "Rafa is on Tier 2 or 3 among the Greatests of All Time"

ksbh said:
Obviously, Uncle Toni is my favorite coach of all time for what he's done to Rafa but I take it that he doesn't spend enough time reading tennis history?

Pete Sampras in tier 2?! ROFL X 25!
Click to expand...


Maybe he wants the GOAT to have great results everywhere. Pete clearly didn't do much impact on the red clay of RG. Roger at least made three finals and one semi.
 
Toni's ranking makes zero sense, none. Federer doesn't have any significant record that could measure up to Sampras at the moment, yet he is on tier 1 and Sampras is on tier 2.... Does a champion who wins 7 Wimbledon, spent almost 300 weeks at number 1, 6 straight year end number 1, and holder of a record 14 grand slams deserves a tier 2? :confused: :confused:
 
tahiti said:
If you took away Pete's serve was his game as good and all round as Roger's? I don't think so. That's why he lands in Tier 2.
Click to expand...

Let me answer with another trick question. If you took away Federer's forehand than how good would Federer be? Oh, wait, this is not trick question because we're about to find out, no?:)
 
Thor said:
PHYSICAL PRIME
Sampras from 1998 onwards was not in his physical prime - age and injuries took their toll.Sampras was physically another player by 1999 missing 2 slams,most people except trolls like yourself would agree that his prime ended by 1998.RG is not an old man's tournie - so theres no point of adding his defeats in 1997 onwards,but if you insist:
1997 - lost to Magnus Norman (RU at RG)
1998 - lost to Delgado
1999 - lost to Medvedev(Finished RU - lost to Agassi)
2000 - lost to Philippoussis
Your post sucks big time.Apart from 1995 these were all of his performances - no sugar coating - and these are the players who beat him.Im not putting his record in a flattering light,but when people like you talk about his RG record and have no clue as to the competition someone need to say it as it is.

Now since youre a Fed troll lets just wait and see how Fed will do when he's 30 at the FO.
Youre a troll,now go away
Click to expand...

I just noticed this now but thanks as I laughed my head off reading it, as it even surpassed your other insane original post as the epitome of stupidity. You are not only an obvious troll but a completely clueless troll to boot. You call me a Federer troll when I in fact Federer is one of my least favorite players ever, showing what a clueless clown you are making baseless statements about someone you know nothing about, just because you are sore your ridiculous slanted reasoning was shot to pieces. I am sure anyone who has read some of my posts on Federer since joining the forum would also get a laugh a huge laugh out of someone implying me as a Federer fan of any kind. For the record I rate Sampras clearly above Federer as a greater player as he was IMO clearly playing tennis at a greater level on their mutual best surfaces vs much tougher competition on their mutual best surfaces to boot. Sampras being clearly a much weaker clay courter than Federer (which only the blind fools like yourself would dispute) means little in the end since Federer himself is still not a great enough clay courter to even win 1 French Open making it moot. I was only calling you out on your twisted and delusional slant of Sampras's so called prime years and his record at the French, rather than just admiting he isnt that good on clay and is even clearly weaker than Federer (who himself isnt that great on clay) on the surface. Nothing more. Sampras is so great on his best surfaces he can be argued strongly as the best ever despite being the worst clay courter by far of even the top 15 all time , which is something I have already said multiple times in my short time on this forum. Arguing Sampras as being more in his physical or any form of his prime in years like 89-92 than years like 97 and 98 (or even 1999 and 2000 despite not being in his prime by then either) is lunacy. Arguing he was ever going to do well at the French Opens in years like 89 and 90 if he played or no matter who he played in the 2nd round is lunacy. Not even noting he lost to an unseeded journeyman in the 1991 2nd round just because he barely beat a future big name clay courter in the 1st round in a year he was only about the 80th best clay courter on form is lunacy. Now go back under your rock you sad excuse of a troll.
 
Last edited:
Thor said:
in 1990 muster won Rome, was RU in Monte Carlo and SF at RG- Yea he sucked BIG TIME
Click to expand...

Notice I said at the time of the 1991 French Open Muster wasnt even ranked in the top 50, was unseeded, and had lost half his matches on clay for the year. He had amazingly gone from #7 ranked at the end of 1990/start of 1991 way down to #57 ranked by the time the 1991 French Open started, so that sums it up about how much he indeed did suck in his performance around the time of the 1991 French Open. I know it would be beyond your human intellect to comprehend how badly you have to play in order to drop 50 ranking spots in less than 5 months of tennis but it is pretty bad. To be exact he was 4-8 for the year 1990 on all surfaces, and 4-5 on clay going into the 1991 French Open. I said nothing about 1990.

Perhaps you have not yet advanced beyond the human intellect of a newborn baby and need to be taught the difference between a "1" and a "0".

See 1991 has a "1". It is pronounced O-N-E

1990 has a "0", not a "1", but an "0".

Maybe someday you will learn such basic knowledge which most 3 year olds already would.
 
Last edited:
PETE TIER 2???

HAHAHAHA

what was uncle T smoking?

how did he come to that conclusion? because Pete didn't win RG

Borg didn't win a Hard court slam

borg never won the USOpen

Borg couldn't win the USO when it WAS PLAYED ON CLAY

borg ran away from the game when Mac had a mental edge over him, thats the same as Fed retiring after Wimby 2008, everyone would call him a coward, so why give borg a free pass to TIER 1?

Lendl took borg to 5 in 1981 on clay, YEARS before lendl's prime, borg was washed up in 1981, he retired otherwise he would have ruined his career further and been owned at every slam by mac from then on

that throws a spanner in his clay GOATness

but whatever

uncle phony needs to lay off the vodka
 
Last edited:
tennis-hero said:
PETE TIER 2???

HAHAHAHA

what was uncle T smoking?

how did he come to that conclusion? because Pete didn't win RG

Borg didn't win a Hard court slam

borg never won the USOpen

Borg couldn't win the USO when it WAS PLAYED ON CLAY

that throws a spanner in his clay GOATness

but whatever

uncle phony needs to lay off the vodka
Click to expand...

I agree. Pete might well be the greatest grass court, indoor, and even fast hard court player in history. Anyone who puts him as anything below tier 1 of even the Open Era has no credability whatsoever.
 
grafselesfan said:
Notice I said at the time of the 1991 French Open Muster wasnt even ranked in the top 50, was unseeded, and had lost half his matches on clay for the year.

See 1991 has a "1". It is pronounced O-N-E

1990 has a "0", not a "1", but an "0".

Maybe someday you will learn such basic knowledge which most 3 year olds already would.
Click to expand...

1991

ATP Florence- played the weeks DIRECTLY AFTER THE FRENCH OPEN

guess which player won it in 1991?
 
Thor said:
Sampras at RG:
89 - lost to Chang - Eventual champion - Won RG once and once runner up
90 - didnt play
91 - lost 2rd after a 1st round 5 set win over muster
92 - lost to Agassi - Won RG once and twice RU
93 - lost to Bruguera - Eventual champion - Won RG twice and once RU
94 - lost to Courier - Won RG twice and once RU
96 - lost to Kafelnikov(Eventual champion) - Won RG once

Those were his physical prime years and he lost to accomplished players(put aside the let down in 1995).
Click to expand...

LOL you are arguing years like 1989-1991 and not 1997-1999 as Sampras's prime. Where does TW come up with some of these idiots.
 
tennis-hero said:
1991

ATP Florence- played the weeks DIRECTLY AFTER THE FRENCH OPEN

guess which player won it in 1991?
Click to expand...

So Muster finally won his first tournament of a horrible year which saw his ranking drop 50 spots in the first 5 months alone, by beating no player higher ranked than the #24- Horst Skoff. Beating Horst Skoff in the final of this peewee event was clearly his biggest highlight in the whole first 8 months of 1991 however as it was his only win over a top 40 player from January-August of that year. In fact Muster despite playing a horde of dinkish clay court events with nothing fields (typical of him even in his great years) would win only 2 titles the whole year of 1991, both beating the legendary Horst Skoff in the final. By the way this includes a couple of Challenger events he played (neither of which he even won) in the second half of 1991 since his ranking had dropped out of the top 100 at one point.

Thank you for only driving what I said home even further.
 
Last edited:
grafselesfan said:
So Muster finally won his first tournament of a horrible year which saw his ranking drop 50 spots in the first 5 months alone, by beating no player higher ranked than the #24- Horst Skoff. Beating Horst Skoff in the final of this peewee event was clearly his biggest highlight in the whole first 8 months of 1991 however as it was his only win over a top 40 player from January-August of that year. In fact Muster despite playing a horde of dinkish clay court events with nothing fields (typical of him even in his great years) would win only 2 titles the whole year of 1991, both beating the legendary Horst Skoff in the final. By the way this includes a couple of Challenger events he played (neither of which he even won) in the second half of 1991 since his ranking had dropped out of the top 100 at one point.

Thank you for only driving what I said home even further.
Click to expand...

1991 muster def bruguera

Geneva
Switzerland

Clay

Q

Muster

4-6 6-4 6-4


touche
 
grafselesfan said from January-August. The match you bring up isnt even until September. I should warn newer posters like grafselesfan that tennis-hero is just as ******** a troll as someone like Thor. This is the same individual that argues Djokovic is the best clay courter in the World today over Nadal, tried to say Muster was as good as Nadal on grass, and even said he was happy Seles was stabbed.
 
I agree with you.

egn said:
If Sampras is tier II it should be
Tier I Laver
Tier II Samp, Fed, Borg
Tier III McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Agassi (Nadal if he continues it up)
Tier IV Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Courier, Villas

But if not then Samp Fed and Borg all get bumped up to tier 1.
Click to expand...
 
My tiers just of the mostly Open era players alone:

Tier 1: Sampras, Borg
Tier 2: Federer, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3: Agassi, Nadal
Tier 4: Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Vilas
 
julesb said:
My tiers just of the mostly Open era players alone:

Tier 1: Sampras, Borg
Tier 2: Federer, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3: Agassi, Nadal
Tier 4: Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Vilas
Click to expand...


Fed has to be in tier one. If Borg is. Thats just my opinion. Fed has accomplished more overrall in the grand scheme of things. If borg is going to be there, then Fed should be.
 
GameSampras said:
Fed has to be in tier one. If Borg is. Thats just my opinion. Fed has accomplished more overrall in the grand scheme of things. If borg is going to be there, then Fed should be.
Click to expand...

Well you are entitled your opinion and most would probably agree with you but I see Borg over Federer clearly. If you want to know why, well did Federer dominate the two most polar opposite surfaces like Borg did? Remember when Borg played grass was real grass, and he dominated both clay and grass so long. Federer dominates slowed down grass and hard courts for quite a few years, not quite as impressive IMO. Also Borg achieved slightly more overall on hard courts than Federer on clay, and you are the one pointing out often how weak Federer's clay court competition is which cant be said of Borg's hard court competition with Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Vilas, and Gerulatis all there. Borg has beaten the best players of his time on hard courts like Connors and McEnroe many times, just never all in a row to win the U.S Open, but Federer has hardly ever beaten Nadal on clay.
 
thalivest said:
and even said he was happy Seles was stabbed.
Click to expand...

Probably another stupid Graf worshipper who realizes that the only way for his hero to win more slams was for her superior to be stabbed. Tennis-hero acts like such a lunatic I wouldnt be surprised if he was the infamous Gunther Parche himself posting from his new secret hidey place.
 
thalivest said:
grafselesfan said from January-August. The match you bring up isnt even until September. I should warn newer posters like grafselesfan that tennis-hero is just as ******** a troll as someone like Thor. This is the same individual that argues Djokovic is the best clay courter in the World today over Nadal, tried to say Muster was as good as Nadal on grass, and even said he was happy Seles was stabbed.
Click to expand...

DAMN RIGHT :D

Nadal would never win wimbledon on REAL grass

Muster couldn't get past the 1st round on real grass

you nad-****s are just haters, who cannot stand a bad work said against your hero
 
julesb said:
Well you are entitled your opinion and most would probably agree with you but I see Borg over Federer clearly. If you want to know why, well did Federer dominate the two most polar opposite surfaces like Borg did? Remember when Borg played grass was real grass, and he dominated both clay and grass so long. Federer dominates slowed down grass and hard courts for quite a few years, not quite as impressive IMO. Also Borg achieved slightly more overall on hard courts than Federer on clay, and you are the one pointing out often how weak Federer's clay court competition is which cant be said of Borg's hard court competition with Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Vilas, and Gerulatis all there. Borg has beaten the best players of his time on hard courts like Connors and McEnroe many times, just never all in a row to win the U.S Open, but Federer has hardly ever beaten Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...
You're right about the hardly ever: once!
 
julesb said:
Well you are entitled your opinion and most would probably agree with you but I see Borg over Federer clearly. If you want to know why, well did Federer dominate the two most polar opposite surfaces like Borg did? Remember when Borg played grass was real grass, and he dominated both clay and grass so long. Federer dominates slowed down grass and hard courts for quite a few years, not quite as impressive IMO. Also Borg achieved slightly more overall on hard courts than Federer on clay, and you are the one pointing out often how weak Federer's clay court competition is which cant be said of Borg's hard court competition with Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Vilas, and Gerulatis all there. Borg has beaten the best players of his time on hard courts like Connors and McEnroe many times, just never all in a row to win the U.S Open, but Federer has hardly ever beaten Nadal on clay.
Click to expand...



Well for sure Borg dominated on polar opposite courts for sure. But whether Borg was better on Hardcourts than Fed is on clay, that may be debatable. Both Fed and Borg had some similiar problems. Borg couldnt overcome Johnny Mac on HC"s and Fed cant overcome Nadal on clay. So who knows. Even though I do feel overrall Fed has definitely had some weak clay court competition to contend with outside of Nadal where Borg had some pretty stiff Hardcourt competition. Im not saying Borg really shouldnt be tier 1 but I think you make the case for Fed being in tier 1 as well considering his results over the years
 
veroniquem said:
You're right about the hardly ever: once!
Click to expand...

bagelassortment.jpg


hamburg style
 
GameSampras said:
Well for sure Borg dominated on polar opposite courts for sure. But whether Borg was better on Hardcourts than Fed is on clay, that may be debatable. Both Fed and Borg had some similiar problems. Borg couldnt overcome Johnny Mac on HC"s and Fed cant overcome Nadal on clay. So who knows. Even though I do feel overrall Fed has definitely had some weak clay court competition to contend with outside of Nadal where Borg had some pretty stiff Hardcourt competition. Im not saying Borg really shouldnt be tier 1 but I think you make the case for Fed being in tier 1 as well considering his results over the years
Click to expand...
But Borg beat McEnroe many times on carpet and their head to head is 7-7.
 
GameSampras said:
Well for sure Borg dominated on polar opposite courts for sure. But whether Borg was better on Hardcourts than Fed is on clay, that may be debatable. Both Fed and Borg had some similiar problems. Borg couldnt overcome Johnny Mac on HC"s and Fed cant overcome Nadal on clay. So who knows. Even though I do feel overrall Fed has definitely had some weak clay court competition to contend with outside of Nadal where Borg had some pretty stiff Hardcourt competition
Click to expand...

Yeah I see what you saying on Borg on hard courts vs Federer on clay. However the main thing I see is Borg did beat Connors and McEnroe multiple times on hard courts, he just didnt beat everyone in a row to win a U.S Open. Borg is 2-2 lifetime vs McEnroe on hard courts, and 3-3 vs Connors. Despite never winning a slam title on hard courts he was not owned by any one player on the surface ever the way Federer is by Nadal on clay. Another difference is Borg has won the next biggest hard court titles of the time outside the U.S Open (Australian Open wasnt a big event around then at all). Federer hasnt even won Rome or Monte Carlo, even many years he didnt have to face Nadal since he started winning Hamburg on clay in 2002.
 
GameSampras said:
But Borg quit. Dont u think the h2h would have gotten more lopsided though in favor of Mac at that point?
Click to expand...

McEnroe's form fell off bigtime after the 1981 U.S Open and he began losing regularly to Connors and Lendl in late 1981 and 1982. Who knows though, McEnroe claims that was largely due to being discouraged by Borg leaving the pro game abruptly.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, Lendl was better than Mcenroe. Lendl had a winning record over Mac and more singles titles. Lendl is only one year younger --and he hit soooooo damn hard. Lendl changed the men's game with his focus on fitness --how many people changed the game? He was mentally tougher too (see French Open).
thalivest said:
Hmmm pretty much agree. I would probably put Agassi below Lendl below the tier of Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe though and alongside Nadal.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rafa's claim to Tier One rests on the strength of his career Slam and his sheer consistency at RG.

Hard for me to rank him too far above Sampras given Pete's massive advantage in weeks at #1.
 
Rosstour said:
Rafa's claim to Tier One rests on the strength of his career Slam and his sheer consistency at RG.

Hard for me to rank him too far above Sampras given Pete's massive advantage in weeks at #1.
Click to expand...

That's true. He is only 6 Slams ahead of Pete which isn't much really.
 
Backspin1183 said:
That's true. He is only 6 Slams ahead of Pete which isn't much really.
Click to expand...

No it's a lot. That's an entire career for a lot of ATGs. Don't misunderstand me lol.

But it was pretty rare for Rafa to play a whole season and dominate it the way Sampras did, and the way Djok and Fed did after him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
2 3 4
Replies
194
Views
9K
zagor
zagor
P
Advantages of tier-based rankings instead of point-based rankings, especially at the Challenger/Futures level
Replies
23
Views
2K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
jl809
Have we been spoilt by "Tier 1" ATGs, so we are too harsh on / expectant of potential "Tier 2" ATGs (which Swiatek, Alcaraz etc might be?)
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
T007
T
Noleberic123
Where does djokovic rank on the all time list now?
Replies
19
Views
2K
timnz
T
capriatifanatic
Is Agassi in the top 15 all time?
3 4 5
Replies
217
Views
10K
breakfast_of_champions
breakfast_of_champions
Back
Top