Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

[pc1]

Djokovic holding all four majors is statistically is every bit as good as Laver winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam in 1969! It is an amazing feat that can't be minimized. On any surface you can argue he is the best in the world. That doesn't happen very often. Even Don Budge, who won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1938 arguably was NOT the best on all surfaces. He is one of the top few players I'm ever seen.

The big question now is if he can win the Grand Slam in 2016. He'll clearly be a big favorite at WImbledon. I don't know how Federer and Nadal will play on grass this year considering Federer's injuries and Nadal's poor results on grass at Wimbledon the last few years.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic holding all four majors is statistically is every bit as good as Laver winning the Calendar Year Grand Slam in 1969! It is an amazing feat that can't be minimized. On any surface you can argue he is the best in the world. That doesn't happen very often. Even Don Budge, who won the Amateur Grand Slam in 1938 arguably was NOT the best on all surfaces. He is one of the top few players I'm ever seen.

The big question now is if he can win the Grand Slam in 2016. He'll clearly be a big favorite at WImbledon. I don't know how Federer and Nadal will play on grass this year considering Federer's injuries and Nadal's poor results on grass at Wimbledon the last few years.

Winning the Grand Slam is still superior as it's statistically harder to achieve by virtue of having a set start date. Still what Djokovic has done is incredible, luckily for him he only had Andy Murray in the final and not Nadal

 

[pc1]

Winning the Grand Slam is still superior as it's statistically harder to achieve by virtue of having a set start date. Still what Djokovic has done is incredible, luckily for him he only had Andy Murray in the final and not Nadal

True enough but it's still a fantastic achievement. I would have loved to see Nadal play him during the tournament since Nadal was looking pretty good on clay in recent weeks.

I hope he does it. I haven't see a Grand Slam since Steffi Graf in 1988.

 

[NatF]

True enough but it's still a fantastic achievement. I would have loved to see Nadal play him during the tournament since Nadal was looking pretty good on clay in recent weeks.

I hope he does it. I haven't see a Grand Slam since Steffi Graf in 1988.

I would have liked to see it too, if only to have a more climatic last couple of days. The SF with Thiem was a let down.

I sort of what to see it happen, but I also want to see someone new win a slam - that or Federer win one, haven't seen that since 2012

 

[pc1]

I would have liked to see it too, if only to have a more climatic last couple of days. The SF with Thiem was a let down.

I sort of what to see it happen, but I also want to see someone new win a slam - that or Federer win one, haven't seen that since 2012

Generally speaking I love to see dramatic final rounds like the 1984 US Open Men's semifinals and Women's final on Super Saturday but in this case perhaps not. I'm torn there. If Djokovic wants perhaps the greatest year in tennis history he should stomp his opponents into dust like Connors did to some opponents in majors in 1974 or what Navratilova did for years to her opponents during her best years. I like seeing greatness in front of me. I don't often get that feeling in sports or other competitions.

You get a bit jaded sometimes over the years and tend to treat with a grain of salt the hyperbole surrounding new greats.

 

[NatF]

Generally speaking I love to see dramatic final rounds like the 1984 US Open Men's semifinals and Women's final on Super Saturday but in this case perhaps not. I'm torn there. If Djokovic wants perhaps the greatest year in tennis history he should stomp his opponents into dust like Connors did to some opponents in majors in 1974 or what Navratilova did for years to her opponents during her best years. I like seeing greatness in front of me. I don't often get that feeling in sports or other competitions.

You get a bit jaded sometimes over the years and tend to treat with a grain of salt the hyperbole surrounding new greats.

Well there's certainly a lot of hyperbole surrounding Djokovic these days IMO

Good luck to Djokovic, he's half way there. Murray is making his life a bit easier by capitulating in slam finals.

 

[pc1]

Well there's certainly a lot of hyperbole surrounding Djokovic these days IMO

Good luck to Djokovic, he's half way there. Murray is making his life a bit easier by capitulating in slam finals.

Probably some from me. LOL.

 

[hoodjem]

With his victory yesterday, Djokovic moves into my all-time top 5. I can't minimise the significance of holding all four slams at once, in the Open Era.

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Rosewall
8. Borg
9. Tilden
10. Budge

I think Martina did that also: hold all four slams at once.

Not to disagree, but for me it is just a statistical coincidence, a footnote.

 

[NatF]

Probably some from me. LOL.

I do think you overrate Novak a tad lol But that's just relative to my own view of him. I believe he's forging an argument for GOAT or best of the Open Era. But he's still got some ways to go.

 

[pc1]

I do think you overrate Novak a tad lol But that's just relative to my own view of him. I believe he's forging an argument for GOAT or best of the Open Era. But he's still got some ways to go.

I do think he's got a way to go. However it's great from my point of view that imo he has a shot to be up there with any player in tennis history.

On a subjective note I would say that one minor problem with his game is that he doesn't have the overpowering putaway power putaway weapon like the Federer or Nadal forehand or the Sampras or Pancho Gonzalez serve. His forehand is great and he puts shots away with it but relatively speaking I don't rank it up there with Federer and Nadal in that category although I think it's a terrific forehand.

Not to be mean but that's a subjective problem I have with a player who is named very often on this Former Player's forum. The player's backhand is one of the greatest ever (and that player is one of the greats) but it wasn't a putaway power shot like for example the Newcombe forehand and serve or the Kramer forehand and serve. I think one former great one mentioned a truly super player has to have a few putaway shots unlike let's say a Harold Solomon.

 

[hoodjem]

I believe that it is sad to say that in today's game on today's present slam surfaces, that a supremely defensive player can manage this feat.

(I do think that this statement betrays my deep-seated preference for offensive or aggressive play.)

 

[pc1]

I believe that is is sad to say that in today's game on today's game on today's present slam surfaces, that a supremely defensive player can manage this feat.

(I do think this this statement betrays my deep-seated preference for offensive or aggressive play.)

Hoodjem,

I understand but tennis history has always had supremely great players that combined defense and offense and have done well like Bill Tilden, Rene Lacoste, Segura, Bobby Riggs, Connors, Nastase, Rosewall and many of the players today. Pancho Gonzalez was more of a defensive player than offensive but he had the power forehand and serve to overpower players if needed.

Newcombe was a great attacking player but he combined it with excellent defensive play. Laver was a great attacking player but he didn't become reach the next level until he played better defense better percentage tennis.

I do think Djokovic would have adapted and would have done well in the past but he would have played differently. I could see him as similar to a Don Budge.

 

[pc1]

Is winning multiple majors in one year easier today?

So many players have won three majors in one year in recent years. Is it just a coincidence or are there other reasons? Is it the slower and similar surfaces?

Players like Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal have done it and a few like Djokovic and Federer have won three majors in a year several times. What are the reasons?

 

[pc1]

I believe that is is sad to say that in today's game on today's present slam surfaces, that a supremely defensive player can manage this feat.

(I do think that this statement betrays my deep-seated preference for offensive or aggressive play.)

I will say this. It would be interesting to see a great attacking player with power today who approaches the net as much as reasonably possible.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Is winning multiple majors in one year easier today?

So many players have won three majors in one year in recent years. Is it just a coincidence or are there other reasons? Is it the slower and similar surfaces?

Players like Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal have done it and a few like Djokovic and Federer have won three majors in a year several times. What are the reasons?

It is for Djokovic.

 

[KG1965]

1) Tilden T1
2) Laver T1
3) Federer T1
4) Gonzalez T1
.............. Mt. Rushmore

5) Budge T1/T2
6) Rosewall T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Connors T2
9) Kramer T2
Kramer , Borg and Connors for historical importance are very close to Rosewall and Budge
10) Sampras T2

11) Vines T2
I put Sampras ahead Vines because he is the GOAT of two distinctly more important tournaments
12) Nadal T2
13) Riggs T2

14) McEnroe T3
15) Djokovic T3
16) Lendl T3
17) Cochet T3
18) Lacoste T3

..... T4 Wilding, Sear, L. Doherty, Perry, Hoad, Agassi, Renshaw, Larned, Nusslein, Wrenn, Brookes, Johnston.

 

[KG1965]

IMHO Djokovic could win and dominate more than anyone in history but can not enter the 4 of Mt. Rushmore .

 

[pc1]

1) Tilden T1
2) Laver T1
3) Federer T1
4) Gonzalez T1
.............. Mt. Rushmore

5) Budge T1/T2
6) Rosewall T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Connors T2
9) Kramer T2
Kramer , Borg and Connors for historical importance are very close to Rosewall and Budge
10) Sampras T2

11) Vines T2
I put Sampras ahead Vines because it is the GOAT of two distinctly more important tournaments
12) Nadal T2
13) Riggs T2

14) McEnroe T3
15) Djokovic T3
16) Lendl T3
17) Cochet T3
18) Lacoste T3

..... T4 Wilding, Sear, L. Doherty, Perry, Hoad, Agassi, Renshaw, Larned, Nusslein, Wrenn, Brookes, Johnston.

Like your choice of Riggs in Tier 2. Riggs was a great player.

 

[pc1]

IMHO Djokovic could win and dominate more than anyone in history but can not enter the 4 of Mt. Rushmore .

What if he wins several Grand Slams?

 

[urban]

not to take anything away from Djokovic, you can only beat those, who are in front of you, and that he does in a regular manner. He has the confidence at the moment to come through, even if he is not playing his best Tennis. But where are the contenders of the next generation, at age 23-26?. Ever heard of Cilic in the last months, who was so overpowering at USO 2014? Nishikori is too frail, Warinka too sporadic, Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer are a bit more than good journeymen. Murray lost this RG in his first two matches, he simply spent too much time on court. RG is a matter of saving energy to the end. Djoker experienced that dilemma last year.
And a second thing i miss, are the surface specialists. I you look for a moment at the RG draw, Courier had in 1992, a murderer row of Mancini, Muster, Medwedew, Goran, Agassi and Korda, or some draws of Kuerten, you know what i mean. Where are all those Spanish or Latin grinders, who ran for their life all day and sapped your energy, even if you won? People like Corretja, Sanchez, Mancini, Costa. And where are those loose canons on grass, those dangerous floaters of the second row, who hammered their serve and could play a bit, too, people like Tanner, Curren, Flipper, Pasarell, Amaya, Pilic and others.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Is winning multiple majors in one year easier today?

So many players have won three majors in one year in recent years. Is it just a coincidence or are there other reasons? Is it the slower and similar surfaces?

Players like Serena, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal have done it and a few like Djokovic and Federer have won three majors in a year several times. What are the reasons?

Playing 4 slam a year helps.

 

[KG1965]

What if he wins several Grand Slams?

The judgment of Nole is difficult (because I always supported Nole, not Roger or Rafa).
If he makes the Grand Slam (the Grand Slam true as only Laver in 1969 !!!!!!), in my ranking I can go on the 5th (because should win W & USO !!!).
It's epic.
But the problem is that Nole can only rely striking , legendary, incredible, monstrous results !!!

He has no "physique du role" as Tilden, Federer or Gonzalez, or Borg, or Sampras ..., he was not disruptive and revolutionary as Borg and Connors, was not a political statuary as Kramer , he was not ... "Mr.Tennis" as Mac or Federer.

If you ask "who's Mr.Tennis" to a non-fan of Nole nobody tells you ... Nole.

The tennis needs of one Grand Slam winner...
Can do it, he does not have the level opponents and he is terrific.

Without the Grand Slam he can get to the 5th or 4th place alltime, never over Federer even with 20 slam!

With the Grand Slam and 20 slam can overtake Federer in history.

With the Grand Slam in 2016 and then retreats can take ... the place of Gonzalez, perhaps.

 

[Phoenix1983]

IMHO Djokovic could win and dominate more than anyone in history but can not enter the 4 of Mt. Rushmore .

I'm the furthest thing from being a Djokovic fan, but you simply can't make statements like this if you want to appear objective.

If Djokovic achieves enough to be in the all-time top 4 (which I nearly agree with you on, btw - I'd just insert Sampras there instead of Tilden), then he enters that realm. You can't just exclude him because you don't feel he belongs.

 

[timnz]

In NO particular order (it is near impossible to give it an order):

Laver, Federer, Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, Rosewall, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, in tenth place (probably Kramer - but not sure)

 

[Phoenix1983]

In NO particular order (it is near impossible to give it an order):

Laver, Federer, Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, Rosewall, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, in tenth place (probably Kramer - but not sure)

Yes the top 9 are now obvious.

I have Budge in 10th but it could well be Kramer, Lendl, Connors or Vines.

 

[BobbyOne]

1) Tilden T1
2) Laver T1
3) Federer T1
4) Gonzalez T1
.............. Mt. Rushmore

5) Budge T1/T2
6) Rosewall T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Connors T2
9) Kramer T2
Kramer , Borg and Connors for historical importance are very close to Rosewall and Budge
10) Sampras T2

11) Vines T2
I put Sampras ahead Vines because it is the GOAT of two distinctly more important tournaments
12) Nadal T2
13) Riggs T2

14) McEnroe T3
15) Djokovic T3
16) Lendl T3
17) Cochet T3
18) Lacoste T3

..... T4 Wilding, Sear, L. Doherty, Perry, Hoad, Agassi, Renshaw, Larned, Nusslein, Wrenn, Brookes, Johnston.

KG, Rosewall won much more than Budge won. For example he won a Pro Grand Slam, Budge won "only" an amateur Grand Slam.

 

[timnz]

Yes the top 9 are now obvious.

I have Budge in 10th but it could well be Kramer, Lendl, Connors or Vines.

So we agree on the top 9? Great

Yes 10th is hard - I also agree with your list of potential holders of 10th (maybe giving this Order - Kramer, Vines, Budge, Lendl/Connors). To me the message on Budge is mixed. I wonder if his stock is inflated because of his Grand Slam in 1938 - but that was missing players like Nusslein, Vines, Von Cramm & Perry. He was clear number 1 in 1939, 1940 and 1942 (and possible number 1 in 1938) - Kramer was number 1 a similar time - perhaps slightly longer.

 

[BobbyOne]

In NO particular order (it is near impossible to give it an order):

Laver, Federer, Tilden, Gonzales, Sampras, Rosewall, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, in tenth place (probably Kramer - but not sure)

timnz, These are also my Top Nine.

 

[timnz]

KG, Rosewall won much more than Budge won. For example he won a Pro Grand Slam, Budge won "only" an amateur Grand Slam.

I come and go as on Budge's level of greatness. Undoubtably a great player - but how great? Budge only had 1 year whilst number 1 to compete for the Pro Grand Slam - 1939 (the other years he was number 1 the French Pro and Wembley weren't run because of the war). He was 2 out of 3 in majors for 1939 - he didn't compete in the US Pro that year.

 

[mattosgrant]

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Gonzales
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Tilden
8. Borg
9. Kramer
10. Vines

Hard to leave Connors and Rosewall out but I ran out of room.


1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Navratilova
4. Wills Moody
5. Evert
6. Court
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. Seles
10. King

 

[Limpinhitter]

Djokovic may have just disqualified himself from GOAT candidacy!

 

[Limpinhitter]

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Gonzales
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Tilden
8. Borg
9. Kramer
10. Vines

Hard to leave Connors and Rosewall out but I ran out of room.


1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Navratilova
4. Wills Moody
5. Evert
6. Court
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. Seles
10. King

Funny, the same thing happened to me with Rosewall. When I gave it serious thought, I just ran out of room.

 

[mattosgrant]

Funny, the same thing happened to me with Rosewall. When I gave it serious thought, I just ran out of room.

Yeah I did want to put Rosewall in the top 10 but there are just too many guys who also have amazing records, who were more dominant than him, and who I think beat him in level of play too. And I know about being banned from slams and all but not winning Wimbledon is a big minus too. It is not like he didnt have numerous decent chances at it too.

I also hope Serena wins #22 and #23 soon since I had to hold my nose in placing Graf over her (yuck), but I am forcing myself to try and be objective.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yeah I did want to put Rosewall in the top 10 but there are just too many guys who also have amazing records, who were more dominant than him, and who I think beat him in level of play too. And I know about being banned from slams and all but not winning Wimbledon is a big minus too. It is not like he didnt have numerous decent chances at it too.

I also hope Serena wins #22 and #23 soon since I had to hold my nose in placing Graf over her (yuck), but I am forcing myself to try and be objective.

In addition to the issue of peak level of play, another of the many big problems for Rosewall is that, looking at 62' and 63' the years where he was arguably #1, it only occurred in the gap after the decline of one genuine GOAT candidate, Gonzalez, and the rise of another genuine GOAT candidate, Laver, both of whom were more dominant in their primes than Rosewall. Then there is the matter of Rosewall having a losing record to old Gonzalez (107-75), and to Laver (80-63), even though Rosewall gathered 34 of his 63 wins in Laver's rookie year before Laver took over the pro tour in 1964 and dominated for 7 years.

As for the women, I would put Seles, S. Williams, V. Williams and maybe even Navratilova above Graf for peak level of play. Evert may not be quite that high in terms of peak level, but, her average level was probably as high as anyone. Unlike Navratilova, Evert, the Williams sisters, Graf's record was, arguably, inflated by the lack of a true rival after 1992.

 

[Dan Lobb]

In addition to the issue of peak level of play, another of the many big problems for Rosewall is that, looking at 62' and 63' the years where he was arguably #1, it only occurred in the gap after the decline of one genuine GOAT candidate, Gonzalez, and the rise of another genuine GOAT candidate, Laver, both of whom were more dominant in their primes than Rosewall. Then there is the matter of Rosewall having a losing record to old Gonzalez (107-75), and to Laver (80-63), even though Rosewall gathered 34 of his 63 wins in Laver's rookie year before Laver took over the pro tour in 1964 and dominated for 7 years.

As for the women, I would put Seles, S. Williams, V. Williams and maybe even Navratilova above Graf for peak level of play. Evert may not be quite that high in terms of peak level, but, her average level was probably as high as anyone. Unlike Navratilova, Evert, the Williams sisters, Graf's record was, arguably, inflated by the lack of a true rival after 1992.

Look at the peak...that is what tells you who is number one...the rest is window dressing.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Look at the peak...that is what tells you who is number one...the rest is window dressing.

Yes, but, being number one for a year is more valuable than being number one for a week, etc. etc. Being a Wimbledon champion makes you the best player, until the next contest.

 

[BlueB]

He has no "physique du role" as Tilden, Federer or Gonzalez, or Borg, or Sampras ..., he was not disruptive and revolutionary as Borg and Connors, was not a political statuary as Kramer , he was not ... "Mr.Tennis" as Mac or Federer.

If you ask "who's Mr.Tennis" to a non-fan of Nole nobody tells you ... Nole.

First of, I very much disagree with your list - Nole's placement is way too low. He's by no men's at Lendl's level, especially after career slam, 4 in a row and 50% more slams... He needs to be in Rafa's and Sampras immediate company in whichever order you wanted to place them.

Further, he was/is revolutionary for tennis. Not like Borg who revolutionized technique, but more like Lendl who brought in the real professionalism. Nole is first to ontroduce what I call "total tennis" or holistic tennis. Understanding own body, nutrition, yoga, meditation...

Last, but not least, wait another year or 2 and you'll hear who is the Mr Tennis

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I do think he's got a way to go. However it's great from my point of view that imo he has a shot to be up there with any player in tennis history.

On a subjective note I would say that one minor problem with his game is that he doesn't have the overpowering putaway power putaway weapon like the Federer or Nadal forehand or the Sampras or Pancho Gonzalez serve. His forehand is great and he puts shots away with it but relatively speaking I don't rank it up there with Federer and Nadal in that category although I think it's a terrific forehand.

Not to be mean but that's a subjective problem I have with a player who is named very often on this Former Player's forum. The player's backhand is one of the greatest ever (and that player is one of the greats) but it wasn't a putaway power shot like for example the Newcombe forehand and serve or the Kramer forehand and serve. I think one former great one mentioned a truly super player has to have a few putaway shots unlike let's say a Harold Solomon.

No a truly great players don't need a overly efficient shots, a truly great player needs to achieve a lot. If we don't understand what in the game of said player allows him to achieve so much, it's our problem as long as he isn't doping.

Djokovic is the best at nothing except the return of serve but overall...he simply has a game plan which work so well against so many different kind of players, on different surfaces, which is repeatable and durable...What he is currently doing is mind-blowing.

Nole is the favorite for Wimbledon and the USO and considering the state of the tour, he might well win them even though the pressure will be tremendous (the pressure was already tremendous at RG but Murray gave him a hand). If Nole wins the calendar slam he is the clear GOAT in my book.

 

[DMP]

1. Nastase

He is the player who gave me the most unalloyed joy watching play. So for me that makes him the greatest.

2. Federer - for the classical beauty of his style

3= Kuerten - for his personality and that backhand

3= Mecir - for his movement

3= Rios - for the racket control

The rest are all a bit 'meh'. Great players all, but none that I would watch just for the pure pleasure in what they did.

 

[BobbyOne]

Funny, the same thing happened to me with Rosewall. When I gave it serious thought, I just ran out of room.

Limpin, mattosgrant at least has speculated to give Rosewall a top ten place whereas you seem to speculate to give Rosewall a top twenty place...

Have you already apologized for your mean lie? Have you already corrected your wrong numbers? Hope you will learn to get serious!

 

[BobbyOne]

Yeah I did want to put Rosewall in the top 10 but there are just too many guys who also have amazing records, who were more dominant than him, and who I think beat him in level of play too. And I know about being banned from slams and all but not winning Wimbledon is a big minus too. It is not like he didnt have numerous decent chances at it too.

I also hope Serena wins #22 and #23 soon since I had to hold my nose in placing Graf over her (yuck), but I am forcing myself to try and be objective.

mattosgrant, Rosewall had decent but not really good chances to win at Wimbledon. A comparison: Laver won his four (or five) Wimbledons in an age of life where Rosewall was banned.

 

[BobbyOne]

In addition to the issue of peak level of play, another of the many big problems for Rosewall is that, looking at 62' and 63' the years where he was arguably #1, it only occurred in the gap after the decline of one genuine GOAT candidate, Gonzalez, and the rise of another genuine GOAT candidate, Laver, both of whom were more dominant in their primes than Rosewall. Then there is the matter of Rosewall having a losing record to old Gonzalez (107-75), and to Laver (80-63), even though Rosewall gathered 34 of his 63 wins in Laver's rookie year before Laver took over the pro tour in 1964 and dominated for 7 years.

As for the women, I would put Seles, S. Williams, V. Williams and maybe even Navratilova above Graf for peak level of play. Evert may not be quite that high in terms of peak level, but, her average level was probably as high as anyone. Unlike Navratilova, Evert, the Williams sisters, Graf's record was, arguably, inflated by the lack of a true rival after 1992.

Limpin, Before you try to teach us about tennis history (with the wrong claim that Laver dominated for seven years) you should apologize for your lie and correct your wrong numbers in the Laver thread!

 

[pc1]

1. Nastase

He is the player who gave me the most unalloyed joy watching play. So for me that makes him the greatest.

2. Federer - for the classical beauty of his style

3= Kuerten - for his personality and that backhand

3= Mecir - for his movement

3= Rios - for the racket control

The rest are all a bit 'meh'. Great players all, but none that I would watch just for the pure pleasure in what they did.

I like your list. Any other favorites on the men's and women's side?

 

[70sHollywood]

1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Gonzales
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Tilden
8. Borg
9. Kramer
10. Vines

Hard to leave Connors and Rosewall out but I ran out of room.


1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Navratilova
4. Wills Moody
5. Evert
6. Court
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. Seles
10. King

Bit of a random question, but I'm curious - do you find it easier to rank one group than the other?

 

[pc1]

Bit of a random question, but I'm curious - do you find it easier to rank one group than the other?

I know you're asking Mattosgrant but for me it's very tough picking the women because so many women were virtually invincible at times. Lenglen barely lost games in her prime. Wills won 19 of 24 majors and didn't lose a set for years. Court won 24 majors, had a 92% lifetime winning percentage, the Grand Slam and around 200 tournaments. Graf won the Grand Slam and I think 107 tournaments. Navratilova was invincible for five years in losing only 14 matches from 1982 to 1986. Evert was consistently brilliant. I think Connolly won 9 straight majors that she entered plus the Grand Slam. Serena is Serena.

The men are tough but it's a little easier to pick.

 

[mattosgrant]

Bit of a random question, but I'm curious - do you find it easier to rank one group than the other?

The hardest for me was the last 2 spots of the top 10. I hard a hard time between Kramer, Vines, Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Budge, who were all worthy. Some others are too but that was the short list I considered. Kramer and Vines you could even make an argument for being the best ever, I dont think they are obviously, but you could make a legit case, so I just couldnt leave them right out of the top 10. It was hard to leave off those other guys with what they achieved, particularly Rosewall and Connors with their longevity and numbers. So many great players in mens history.

It was kind of hard knowing where to rank say Tilden against Nadal, Sampras, and Borg, since there isnt much to go by to accurately compare that era to the modern ones. Nadal, Sampras, Djokovic, and Borg could be argued in any order but based on what I value I pretty much knew the order I believe in at this point, but where to slot Tilden vs them is harder.

Picking between Fed and Gonzales was hard too, I go back and forth on that one alot.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes, but, being number one for a year is more valuable than being number one for a week, etc. etc. Being a Wimbledon champion makes you the best player, until the next contest.

Until the next Wimbledon....

 

[Dan Lobb]

mattosgrant, Rosewall had decent but not really good chances to win at Wimbledon. A comparison: Laver won his four (or five) Wimbledons in an age of life where Rosewall was banned.

Rosewall was the betting favourite to win Wimbledon in 1956.

 

[mattosgrant]

Rosewall was the betting favourite to win Wimbledon in 1956.

Exactly, and that to me qualifies as a "really good chance". 68 he had a very good chance too, Laver was the favorite, but Rosewall was doing well against him that year, and he had just won Roland Garros convincingly.

I do think he would have won atleast 1 Wimbledon without the ban, probably multiple, but that he didnt get it done in the years he had chances and was a top player goes against him IMHO.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Exactly, and that to me qualifies as a "really good chance". 68 he had a very good chance too, Laver was the favorite, but Rosewall was doing well against him that year, and he had just won Roland Garros convincingly.

I do think he would have won atleast 1 Wimbledon without the ban, probably multiple, but that he didnt get it done in the years he had chances and was a top player goes against him IMHO.

FYI, it appears that Laver was 5-2 against Rosewall in 1968.