Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by jrs, Mar 16, 2013.
Coul be but you don' t know
I could say otherwise
Being self taught is impressive
I am quite impressed that a person who is self taught and shunned by the tennis community as a junior could reach the heights he reached. Can only attribute that to talent and as someone mentioned mentally strong.
hoodjem, Connors and Agassi ahead of Rosewall does not honour Flink.
I'm pretty sure Federer will drop in this ranking in 10-20 years times frame.
And this ranking shoes how Gonzalez is under-appreciated.
ultradr: Yes, experts will realize that Roger was an excellent player but not the GOAT. A few ones have realized it even now...
...and everyone other than you has always realised that Rosewall is not the GOAT...
At this time I would like to throw in the name of "Lew Hoad" - never knew who this guy was but again couple of other guys think he's pretty good - Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales: if these guys think he's good - what does it matter what I think!
Excerpt from wikipedia:
"His first year as a pro was a series of head-to-head matches with the reigning king of professional tennis, Pancho Gonzales. Hoad won 18 of the first 27 matches, but Gonzales surged back to finally defeat Hoad by 51 matches to 36. Gonzales, whom some consider to be the greatest tennis player of all time, always maintained that Hoad was the toughest, most skilful adversary that he had ever faced. "He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me," said Gonzales in a 1995 New York Times interview. "I think his game was the best game ever. Better than mine. He was capable of making more shots than anybody. His two volleys were great. His overhead was enormous. He had the most natural tennis mind with the most natural tennis physique."
I have Gonzales' match with Pasarell from 1969 Wimbledon on DVD, and I think Gonzales' talent and mental toughness clearly shines through a lot, despite him being 41 years old and well past his best years. It makes you wonder just how good he was in his late 20s, when his mobility would have been a lot better.
As for Lew Hoad, he was a very tough matchup for Gonzales, and Hoad at his very best is argued by some as reaching the highest level of tennis. The same argument is sometimes used for Ellsworth Vines as well.
Will they listen if we tell them how complicated it really was, that only amateurs could play in the mainstream majors before April 1968, that Laver wasn't the best player in the world in his 1962 Grand Slam year etc.? Mind you, Jack Kramer, the main promoter of professional tennis from 1951 or so until 1961, made a mistake in not encouraging professional tennis to go on TV a lot more, instead fearing that TV coverage would hurt ticket sales and that the bad publicity from the ILTF would hurt the professional game (they were doing that, anyway). The correct approach would have been to get maximum exposure of professional tennis.
Phoenix, I take it as an honour that I am in a little group...(It's wrong that I am the only expert who is Rosewall ranking first).
nah, I think his legacy will stand up incredibly well, supported by video footage and all the recent tennis interest, Federer is basically tennis's Michael Jordan figure.
So, Bobby, am curious, what would be your top 10 list? I understand Rosewall would be on top. But what next?
Yes, well, we all have to rely on hearsay beyond a certain point. I won't argue too much with the placement of some venerable figures of the distant past. I've never seen even a second of footage of Kramer or Budge, but I suppose they must have been very good if they are mentioned so often by knowledgeable people, though I hate to have to rely so much on faith. Sometimes I become so impressed by some presentation of accomplishments that I am ready to declare someone the goat on the spot. It happend once a few years ago when I saw some stats about Rosewall, but then I had to change my mind after this information was qualified. Today I saw a list of accomplishments by Gonzalez (given by Mustard) and I was immediately ready to declare that his goatness is indisputable. Anyway, I think Sampras is too highly placed at number 2. I also think Agassi belongs in a top 10 open-era list, but not in a top 10 all-time list. He certainly doesn't belong above Lendl in any case, or even above McEnroe.
I am inclined to agree on both Sampras and Agassi.
Well i think is more likely that Kenny is the GOAT than you being an expert, but whatever...
On the contrary. Borg legacy has been cemented well after his retirement because McEnroe, Lendl and Connors had great success in the 80's. It will be the same for Federer. People will remember him for all he achieved until now, and they will remember him for beating people whom didn't accomplished a lot yet. Djokovic and Nadal are very likely top increase their harvest. Murray may none the less become a multiple slam winner, with maybe 2-4 major titles. Likewise for Del Potro, and all these young guy who are far from success yet but could become the next big things in 2-3 years.
Now we look back in the past and we see that the top 10 from 1980 was consisted by Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas. In 1985 we see McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl. In 1990 we see Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Lendl. All these ranking impress us because their is so many huge names in them, and we don't consider that half of the name weren't huge at the moment, but where on the way to become all time great. It will happens the same with Federer. He crushed his contemporary players, but lasted long enough to give a show to the next generation, and the next generation. When we will have the whole picture, Fed will receive the place he deserves among Laver, Rosewall, and who else you want, even from the bunch of you who will still be alive or clear-header enough.
Fed will survive history.
Federer can't drop that much
I think the consistency shown by Federer in reaching semi's of all most every grandslam event for so many years in row - will be hard to beat. I think that will keep him up there - his only real negative is finishing second Nadal at the French and no Olympic Singles Gold.
Will Bayern survive Juve?
Benhur. My top ten list if we mix achievements and playing strentgth and skills : 1 Laver and Rosewall, ex aequo
6 Sampras and Federer ex aequo
9 Connors, McEnroe and Lendl ex aequo
I cannot judge for the moment about Budge, Kramer and Vines.
Nadal could enter the top ten.
Someone ( an expert) once called me the "Vienna Visionary". Great question: Is a visionary an expert?
The names are there but not the order and Budge and Kramer should be ex aqueo at least at number 10
Nadal,AA,Newcombe,Emmo,Trabert,Sedgman,Wilding,Cochet,Perry,Crawford will make next 10
That actually sounds pretty reasonable. I will suggest some improvements, and I will make lavish use of exaequo judgments, which I like very much.
1. Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver, ex aequo et bono.
2. Tilden and Federer, ex aequo et bono
3. Borg and Sampras, ex aequo et bono
4. Connors, McEnroe and Lendl, ex aequo et bono
Nadal already has surpassed Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Tilden
How about Lew Hoad
When Gonzales & Laver claim Hoad was better than them - wouldn't that put Hoad at the top of the list. Sadly, I've never seen anyone of these people play in their prime and cannot imagine their skill and ability.
Additionally, someone mentioned Gonzales actually beat Laver in the 60's - so wouldn't that place Gonzales above Laver?
Yes, I am sure he did. Pancho was still very good in the 60s and early 70s.
Oddly, here is the H2H according to the ATP:
ATP World Tour, Grand Slam, and Davis Cup Main Draw Results
Year Tournament & City Surface Round Winner & Score
1968 Roland Garros, France Clay S Laver, Rod, 6-3, 6-3, 6-1
Benhur, Thanks for your (partly) agreement and that you don't insult me for my high place for Rosewall.
Yes, ex aequo places are more reasonable than rigid decisions between two or three players who are about equal in accomplishments and playing strength. For instance we hardly can decide if McEnroe or Lendl are greater. McEnroe had much more touch but Lendl was much more consistent.
Dan Lobb will be upset that you omitted Hoad....
jrs, It's almost a fact that Gonzalez and Laver ranked Hoad on first place only regarding Lew's top playing level and not generally (achievements).
Laver has the clear edge against Gonzalez but I admit that Pancho was awesome even as an old player.
Well, am not sure because his (Hoad's) accomplishments don't quite match the praise, so I conclude his peak mode was not too frequent, which is a big problem. Lendl could in all truth claim that Cash could beat him even if he played his best tennis. Nadal could say something like that about Rosol. Okay, maybe Hoad did these things a bit more often, but still not frequently enough, otherwise he would have won a lot more.
Thank you! Finally someone nails the Hoad
Why so much belitteling pure genious and God given art
I even read that Jimmy Page was a slouch guitary and a copier
Jimmy Page vs Miles Davis
GOD is the only possible ump
Page is guitar God, that's my fave no doubt. Though when Gilmour gets emotional (comfortably numb, hey you, shine on, etc.....) he's godlike as well.
Hoad though, I respect him and all, but seriously I've beaten this horse to death. He is 4-2 in grand slam finals and 1-7 in pro majors. That's all time great status but it ain't no GOAT candidate. No question.
Hendrix says hi.
Hendrix is great! Very inventive! I like Jimmy Page, David Gilmour and Duane Allman the most, their tones really do it for me.
I think Gilmour is underrated as hell though and he consistently bangs on the tones just tight. If I have one critique towards Hendrix and my fave Page is that both have sloppy moments sometimes.
P.s. this trumps all for me though, single best performance
Benhur: You are exactly right.
Forza, Finally we agree in a point!
The Hoad or the music paragraph?
How sure are you, do you have a crystal ball?
Don't expect Jordan or Graf dropping anytime in the future. Unless someone comes along and surpass Roger's legacy, then he can drop, otherwise he remains where he is...widely considered the goat.
Keep on hoping bobby. Maybe someday experts will have Rosewall at #1.
Forza, I know nothing about rock music. In other words I don't like it (I have heard a bit though).
TMF, Yes I do hope that people will understand...
Using the so-called "pro majors" as a yardstick is a joke. Through 1960, I have him at 4 wins in pro majors (1 Forest Hills Pro, 1 Australian Pro, 2 Kooyongs). Plus the 4 slam titles, and three Davis Cup Challenge round wins, 2 Kramer Cup final wins. Let's see...that's 13 major titles. Not bad.
Take a look at great YEARS, who has the greatest years.
1) Hoad in 1958 and 1959
2) Laver in 1967 and 1969
3) Rosewall in 1963 (potentially in 1962, but there was no tour that year)
4) Gonzales in 1956 and 1957
5) Budge in 1939 (although he skipped the US Pro)
6) Tilden in 1921 and 1922
7) Vines in 1932 (although he was beaten by a 42-year-old Borotra)
8) Fed in 2007
9) Sampras in 1997
10) Kramer in 1948
11) McEnroe in 1984
Hoad's showing in 1958 and 1959 is the highest level of any player (according to those who played against him).
Laver seems to think Federer would be the equal of Hoad.
No, he said if the two met, it would be the greatest encounter of all time.
What else is that supposed to mean other than he believes their peak levels are very similar?
Laver's recent remarks on Federer show that he recognizes serious weaknesses in Fed's game.
What remarks? He recently called Federer the greatest of all time.
But pointed out his weaknesses against certain strategies (in a TV analysis).
Hoad had none.
Hoad hasn't played the modern game, Federer is also not prime. Federer's weakness is against lefties who retrieve lots of balls and hit with topspin to his backhand...
Separate names with a comma.