Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by granddog29, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Relative to his peers I don't think Segura overachieved at all tbh. Arguably underachieved when you consider his lack of major wins compared to some of his peers.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  2. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    He also lost a lot of finals to Gonzalez, Rosewall, Buchholz and Anderson. Tennis Base has him winning 66 tournaments and 21% of his tournaments entered. I believe he won a Tournament of Champions also over Sedgman.
    http://commerce.wazeedigital.com/license/clip/48050259_3900.do?assetId=clip_8903915&keywords=segura
     
    NatF likes this.
  3. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Your appeals to what the majority acknowledge are strange considering how little even the premier pro title at Wembley is acknowledged.

    BTW for what it's worth Rosewall in 1963 named the TOC (the US one) as one of the Pro Tour majors with Wembley and the French Pro.
     
  4. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Yeah indeed, wonder if he's sort of like the Andy Murray of that era. Talented in his own right but lacking compared to the best players of his own era - but always consistent.
     
    Gary Duane likes this.
  5. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,186
    Perhaps because he was only 5f-5 or 5-6 tall. It seems to me that a great bigger player has an advantage over a considerable shorter great player. In other words, Segura got the most out of his smaller body. Again I always had the utmost admiration for Pancho Segura.
     
  6. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,767
    With one huge difference: Today we think it is amazing that Diego Schwartzman has been able to do what he's done, at 5'7", although I believe he is shorter.

    If anyone today could do what Little Pancho did, at his height, we would all be watching in amazement. ;)
     
  7. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,767
    You beat me to it. ;)
     
  8. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,186
    Tingor, tennis base and others obviously count the pro majors as nearly equal to today's slams, otherwise, Laver or Rosewall would not be in the top 10 on either of the all time or open era lists.
     
  9. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Sure they do lol...what tennis base or Tingor believes is hardly representive of most tennis fans either way.

    Does that mean Rosewall is the biggest overachiever of all time then? :p
     
    Gary Duane likes this.
  10. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,767
    I would say so, and without a smile, because I think it is true!

    I think from the time Connors started winning we have had no player winning a lot of majors who has not been at least 5'10", and that bar seems to have been raised to around 6' even since then, unless there is another guy with at least three majors shorter than Wawrinka. Am I leaving someone out?
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Perhaps. I think relatively speaking, his serve was his biggest weakness. It was okay to good. I think his backhand was good compared to most backhands in that era but he didn't have a topspin backhand. Very few did.

    It was that forehand that made him a great player from most accounts. He could do anything with the shot and it had great disguise. He had great power, he could hit great angles, lobs and consistency. According to Vines he was 5'7" tall. Most accounts have him at 5'7" or 5'6".
     
    NatF likes this.
  12. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,186
    I tried to keep Rosewall out of this discussion, but the answer to your question probably is YES. Also, I consider Tennis Bases"s rankings more fair, objective and accurate than the so called TV commentator experts and most people here.
     
  13. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    16,609
    Gonzalez was a touch player with a big serve.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  14. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Rosewall (and Laver) were both short for exceptional tennis champions even in their own era but I think the barrier to shorter players was lesser in that era - guile and court craft got you further than they would today where everyone hits rockets. I'd hesitate to call Rosewall the greatest overachiever/anomaly because Laver is only a bit taller and achieved at least as much IMO. My point being that I don't think either guy was necessarily an overachiever in that era.

    Little Diego can hit groundstrokes with the best of them at that height the biggest problem is the serve. I think we both agree neither Laver nor Rosewall would achieve as much as they did in today's era.

    Your mistake is focusing on the TB ranking numbers and assuming that they exactly line up with those experts feelings on the value of the various titles and events. There are no rules for this stuff, their opinion is no better than anyone elses. If you agree with them then good for you but no one really cares ;)
     
    pc1 and Gary Duane like this.
  15. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,712
    Location:
    It depends
    Imma gonna repeat a 100 times...​

    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!

    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!

    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!

    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!
    hey baccigalumba, .that a-Rose-a-wall?.. . he's a bum!

     
  16. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,712
    Location:
    It depends
    1. Roger Federer
    2. Who Cares
    3. Who Cares
    4. Who Cares
    5. Who Cares

    6. Who Cares
    7. Who Cares
    8. Who Cares

    9. Who Cares
    10.Who Cares
     
  17. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    24,597
    Rosewall is a bum?:eek:o_O

    He's ranked top 6-10 greatest tennis player of all time.
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    No, this is new material.
    The distortions are being corrected here.
     
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    Out with the old, in with the new.
    The TOC events were well advertised as such at the time, it is the "revisionists" who saddled us with the nonsensical "pro major" babble.
     
  20. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    You're distorting the words and research of others to suite your own ends. It's obvious to everyone :D
     
  21. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,712
    Location:
    It depends
    He's a no a top 10. . A top 11 maybe.

    The only important thing a to remember is that he not #1 tennis player of all a time!!! .

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    No, others discovered the material, consisting of newspaper reports.
    This new material has cleared away the cobwebs of the old "pro major" revisionism.

    The importance of the elite TOC series becomes more obvious by analysis of the results, player by player, which I have done.
    Gonzales and Hoad dominated the TOC series, even all-time top ten players Rosewall and Sedgman did not get a peek at a TOC crown, which indicates that the top players gave everything they had to win them.
    That is an objective fact, and points to the TOC series as the venues of the highest level of play in pro tennis in the late fifties.
     
  23. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    results don't determine the ranking* of a tournament. That is revisionism based on after the tournament is completed (which is exactly what you are accusing others of having done)

    Also going by your own twisted (&wrong) logic, neither Gonzales or Hoad or Segura got a look in at winning Wembley Pro/French Pro from 57 to 59 (the same time period as the ToCs) :D
    (you can count in French Pro 56 as there was no French Pro in 57)

    And finally, NoMercy who gave the reports has also shown with ample evidence that the ToCs were no better than Wembley Pro and French Pro.
    Also that Cleveland, FH ToC and LA Masters were on a similar level from 57-59.

    P.S. Sedgman was not a top 10 player, not even close.

    *Edited from importance to ranking
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    krosero likes this.
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    This new material makes clear that Gonzales and Hoad concentrated their best efforts on winning the major tours and elite TOC series, as a close analysis of the TOC results makes clear.
    Even top ten players such as Rosewall and Sedgman were shut out of the TOC and major tour winner's circle.
    Rosewall and Sedgman always spoke highly of Wembley and French Pro, where those two players were very successful
    Hoad and Gonzales gave lesser efforts at Wembley in the late fifties, Gonzales did not play at Wembley or RG in 1959 and 1960, an indication of the lesser ranking they attributed to those two events.

    I am always skeptical when the term "world pro championship" is used by a promoter to hype an event, it suggests weakness. Unfortunately, both Wembley and French Pro felt inclined to borrow this term.

    Also, Wembley and RG were independently managed outside the tour, and the players did not receive profit shares. The players' contracts were held with Kramer, and the management of Wembley and RG were not obliged to share profits with the contract players.
    This was one reason, I believe, that the pros left RG in 1963 and moved to Stad Coubertin, where they could gain control of the finances.

    The elite status of the TOC events was owing to the media coverage, including national broadcast of the TOC FH by CBS, the only pro event to achieve this status, and the Ampol funding for all three Australian TOC events, including Kooyong 1958, the richest pro tournament of the age.
     
  25. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    This has been told many times to you. Yet you continue with the distortions.

    a) Gonzales retired shortly after the WS in 60. So he did not play Wembley or RG in 60. Him skipping them in one year, 59 doesn't make it lesser by itself.

    b) ToCs stopped after 3 years (57-59). because Kramer ran into loss. This has also been stated, proven and case closed.
    But you still continue with the distortions.
     
  26. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    This new material makes clear that Gonzales and Hoad concentrated their best efforts on winning the major tours and elite TOC series, as a close analysis of the TOC results makes clear.
    Even top ten players such as Rosewall and Sedgman were shut out of the TOC and major tour winner's circle.
    Rosewall and Sedgman always spoke highly of Wembley and French Pro, where those two players were very successful
    Hoad and Gonzales gave lesser efforts at Wembley in the late fifties, Gonzales did not play at Wembley or RG in 1959 and 1960, an indication of the lesser ranking they attributed to those two events. Gonzales retired in 1961, and Hoad semi-retired in 1960.

    The TOC FH ended with the 1959 event, apparently because CBS pulled the plug on the national broadcast. It is likely that the lack of New York area ad revenues, caused by the New York area blackout, made this event less commercially profitable than CBS would have liked.
    Without the CBS contract, the TOC FH could not make money for Kramer.

    I am always skeptical when the term "world pro championship" is used by a promoter to hype an event, it suggests weakness. Unfortunately, both Wembley and French Pro felt inclined to borrow this term.

    Also, Wembley and RG were independently managed outside the tour, and the players did not receive profit shares. The players' contracts were held with Kramer, and the management of Wembley and RG were not obliged to share profits with the contract players.
    This was one reason, I believe, that the pros left RG in 1963 and moved to Stad Coubertin, where they could gain control of the finances.

    The elite status of the TOC events was owing to the media coverage, including national broadcast of the TOC FH by CBS, the only pro event to achieve this status, and the Ampol funding for all three Australian TOC events, including Kooyong 1958, the richest pro tournament of the age.
     
  27. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Honestly think Dan should just be ignored going forward...
     
  28. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    Sedgman was not successful at the French Pro.

    This was Rosewall's statement : (Rosewall quoted in World Tennis in June 1963)

    "On the pro circuit there are only two or, at most, three major tournaments. They are Wembley in England, Roland Garros in France and, on those occasions when it is held, Forest Hills in the U.S. My record was best at Wembley and Roland Garros."

    He isn't biased.
    Also keep in mind, Rosewall joined pro tour in 57. So his statement should be considered as speaking from there on.

    So stop with the ridiculous suggestion that Rosewall or Sedgman spoke highly of Wembley Pro and French solely because they were very successful there....

    And what is obvious is Kramer's attempt to promote his own tournaments. (in USA and Australia)
    As obvious as 2+2=4.
    Fact is ToCs could not be sustained for more than 3 years.

    And what is hilarious is you complete ignore the LA Masters.

    The French newspaper “L’Equipe” has quoted Jack Kramer as saying that Cooper, Anderson and Rose will turn professional after the Challenge Round. When Jake was asked which of the many “World Professional Championships” he considered deserved the title, he replied “Forest Hills, Los Angeles, Melbourne and Sydney.” The four tournaments are under Kramer’s aegis. Among those not mentioned were Wembley, and Jack March’s World Pro event in Cleveland.
     
    krosero likes this.
  29. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    That is what I would expect from some posters...this new material is very unsettling for those wedded to the fabled "pro major" approach.
     
    Limpinhitter likes this.
  30. KG1965

    KG1965 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    5,501
    I return to the point.
    Isner could not win 20 slams, of course, but if:
    - had done 50 aces each match and not 20 and ..
    - he was even colder than Federer, .... so he became unbeatable in tie-breaks
    he would have won so many slams.
    But he has an unwatchable style.
    If Isner had won a number of slams = Mcenroe or Sampras no one in the world would have placed him at the same level.

    Fans tend to watch achievements but look very much at the style of play.
    I can understand if you and thousands of other fans say that style is not important but for many, indeed very many, it is basic.

    Nastase, Roche, Rafter or Panatta may have won less than Courier but for thousands of fans they were better players.
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    This new material makes clear that Gonzales and Hoad concentrated their best efforts on winning the major tours and elite TOC series, as a close analysis of the TOC results makes clear.
    Even top ten players such as Rosewall and Sedgman were shut out of the TOC and major tour winner's circle.
    Rosewall and Sedgman always spoke highly of Wembley and French Pro, where those two players were very successful. Sedgman won at Wembley in 1953, and 1958, beating Gonzales there, and Sedgman beat Gonzales to win the French Pro in 1953.
    Rosewall won at Wembley and French Pro many times. Rosewall interviewed in 1963 is some years after this period we are examining.

    Hoad and Gonzales gave lesser efforts at Wembley in the late fifties, Gonzales did not play at Wembley or RG in 1959 and 1960, an indication of the lesser ranking they attributed to those two events. Gonzales retired in 1961, and Hoad semi-retired in 1960.

    The TOC FH ended with the 1959 event, apparently because CBS pulled the plug on the national broadcast. It is likely that the lack of New York area ad revenues, caused by the New York area blackout, made this event less commercially profitable than CBS would have liked.
    Without the CBS contract, the TOC FH could not make money for Kramer.

    I am always skeptical when the term "world pro championship" is used by a promoter to hype an event, it suggests weakness. Unfortunately, both Wembley and French Pro felt inclined to borrow this term.

    Also, Wembley and RG were independently managed outside the tour, and the players did not receive profit shares. The players' contracts were held with Kramer, and the management of Wembley and RG were not obliged to share profits with the contract players.
    This was one reason, I believe, that the pros left RG in 1963 and moved to Stad Coubertin, where they could gain control of the finances.

    The elite status of the TOC events was owing to the media coverage, including national broadcast of the TOC FH by CBS, the only pro event to achieve this status, and the Ampol funding for all three Australian TOC events, including Kooyong 1958, the richest pro tournament of the age.

    Kramer designated four tournaments of the late fifties as genuine "pro majors", the two TOC events, plus L.A. Masters and the non-TOC Australian majors at White City and Kooyong.
    It is clear from media coverage, national television broadcast on a major network, CBS, that TOC FH was the foremost American pro tournament.
    FH was a more prestigious venue than L.A. Tennis Club.
    Ampol financed the TOC in Australia, giving it some financial pre-eminence.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  32. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    no, actually we (me and NatF atleast) want to discuss and go more into detail about the importance of the events in 50s and 60s.
    Just we'd prefer to do without your distortions and manipulations.
     
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    This new material helps to clarify the history of pro tennis in the late fifties.
     
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    16,609
    Do you think Laver and Rosewall would have been greater players if they were 6'4" or even 6' tall?
     
  35. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    16,609
    Are you calling Tingor's analysis superficial major counting?
     
  36. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Also the great power if needed.
     
    Dan Lobb likes this.
  37. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,767
    What you are describing is a very tall player with an absolutely unreturnable serve.

    Let's hope we never see such a player.

    If a player never loses service games - never - then that player only has to win TBs. If the serve remains perfect in TBs, he only needs to win one return point per game, in the TB. What a depressing thought.
    That would not be my position. I think I've said that I'd rather watch Monfils than Simon, but Simon has better results, has won more events.
    None of those players would be on the top of my personal list of players I most enjoyed watching. But my problem with Nastase is that I did not like him. My personal perception of Nastase as a nasty person got in the way of my enjoying him.

    If I am watching players who are probably never going to win a major, or guys who will only win one, my preference is for the players with great defensive skills. For instance, I'm much rather watch Diego Schwartzman than Anderson. I really hate watching servbots, and watching two of them for me is almost unwatchable.
     
  38. serpentsrace

    serpentsrace New User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2018
    Messages:
    78
    Sometimes I think Sedgeman is underrated. While he was never really the #1 pro, he was surprisingly competitive and dangerous for even Gonzales on most of major pro surfaces- indoors, grass, carpet, wood, all but clay really. His peak level play was apparently really high, and his consistency was decent. I am not sure many have him as a top 20 all time though.
     
    Drob, pc1, Dan Lobb and 2 others like this.
  39. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah, agree. has a decent enough case for top 20. top 10 -- absolutely not.
     
    serpentsrace likes this.
  40. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,164
    Sedgman had an extra gear in his game, which he would use for a big match, like a Wimbledon final 1952, Wembley in 1953 and 1958, White City in 1958, Melbourne in 1959 (beating Gonzales on these last four occasions). His top level was probably above Rosewall's top level, but Sedgman was less consistent.

    Sedge should be top ten all-time on his best days.

    I rate him tied with Rosewall and Newcombe (another player with a great high level and inconsistent) at numbers 5/6/7 all-time.

    My top ten is becoming a top 14 or 15. Too many greats.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  41. Gary Duane

    Gary Duane G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    14,767
    The word "overachiever" is probably a bad word for such champions. I don't think it is a good description.

    There is also the question of how much the game has changed, and if changes are improvements as opposed to just changes.

    I don't think it takes more talent or skill to win with poly, and perhaps the opposite. But shots look so much more impressive with the extra speed and spin, and people who never played tennis with heavy wooden rackets probably don't experience it the same way.

    I think we also have to look at history a bit. Can we say that shorter players from decades ago only won because there were few tall players around? That doesn't seem very logical when you had guys like Kramer, Gonzales and others playing the game at the same time who were the size of present ATGs. Granted, there were not so many of them, and the tallest guys were nothing like Karlovic, but is it unreasonable to think that when three of the four majors were played on grass and that the only way to win on grass most of the time was to volley, perhaps those conditions favored players more who were lower to the ground? I would think being smaller was often a huge advantage on a low bouncing surface, and on clay height has never been as much of an advantage as on fast surfaces.
     
    Dan Lobb and NatF like this.
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    15,344
    Location:
    Eurolager desert
    Rickets.
     
  43. thrust

    thrust Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,186
    TB may not be perfect, but I think they base their rankings are objective and based on facts, such as Major WINS and overall performance throughout a players career. Individual experts and fans are more likely to base their rankings on personal preferences.
     
  44. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    The value they give tournaments is subjective though. You may follow a system to the letter but if this the system is subjective then so is your conclusion. I'm not saying TB is wrong or that others who use a numeric system are wrong - only that such things are not objective just because they're based on numbers. Also my problem with a numeric system is that you can have the sum total of lots of minor results adding up to more than major wins. Today if you make the QF of a masters even you net 180 points - across a career that adds up, is reaching the QF of a masters 12 times the equal of winning a major for a players legacy? I'd say no, at a certain point minor results become inconsequential in the wider debate IMO.
     
  45. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    16,609
    Premature birth, malaria.
     
    pc1 likes this.
  46. pc1

    pc1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,733
    Location:
    Space/Time continuum alternative reality
    Segura was an amazing story as was the other Pancho... Mr. Gonzalez.
     
  47. Ivan69

    Ivan69 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    2,579
    This theory is fully theoretical and could never be practical. Such case as your example is David Ferrer having hundreds of finals, semis, QF etc. But even by a numeric system he can't enter even top 20 all time. Another example - players like Nastase, Vilas, Smith etc. with a lot of titles (60+) can't enter top 10 because most of their titles are small one. Which only can proof that any numeric system reflects the quality of the titles and achievements.

    Edit - everything is subjective. Anyway a ranking based on systematic results and their proper evaluation is far more objective than a ranking based on personal perceptions.
     
  48. NatF

    NatF Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    33,440
    Location:
    Cretaceous
    Ferrer's consistency might not move into the top 20 all time but it might move him ahead of players who won major titles and were better players than he was. It's the principle that's important to me.
     
    Gary Duane, pc1 and abmk like this.
  49. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    Ferrer is #74 as per TB, Safin is #81, Stich #89, Ferrero #90, Stan #91, Krajicek #105

    :D
     
    NatF likes this.
  50. abmk

    abmk Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    35,636
    Location:
    U.S
    Just to elaborate , Safin vs Ferrer for instance :

    2 slams, 2 slam finals, 5 masters, top ranking of #1
    vs
    1 slam final, 1 masters, top ranking of #3
     
    Gary Duane likes this.

Share This Page