Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

OldschoolKIaus

Hall of Fame
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Novak Djokovic
5. Pete Sampras
6. Carlos Ramos
7. Andre Agassi
8. Björn Borg
9. Jimmy Connors
10. John McEnroe
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
I thought Djokovkic already belonged in the GOAT convo when he got that 4-peat under his bag, and his win yesterday clinches it. It's really funny how much I root for the guy (though Delpo winning would've been sweet, too) as his style of play isn't usually my speed, but I hope he can get to at least #17-18 so he'll have a very good case for the top spot over Fedal as he will most likely have widened his H2H margins against both of 'em. (Before you jump on me - relax, Pistol and Fed are still my personal top 2.)

It's really amazing how fast the tables have turned in recent years. I know people like to rag on Pete for getting eclipsed in Slam tallies so soon, but Novak's case if anything is even more remarkable in that he was being dismissed as a one-Slam wonder as late as 2010. I still remember this one tiny episode not long after I joined this board, when I said pretty casually that I'd be very surprised to see Djoko end up with one major only and this guy (who shall remain nameless) immediately jumped in to disagree and dismiss him as overrated. Looking back this poster's flippant assessment seems comically off now, but his wasn't such a rare sentiment at the time and I admit I was beginning to think the same during Novak's long drought.

Which is a somewhat long-winded way of saying you don't know what the future holds. Don't be so sure about Nole cleaning everyone's clock in the next 2-3 years or the opposite scenario for that matter. I just hope he keeps winning the biggies. Don't care about the rest. :cool:

Not necessarily, I just don't like the baiting posts - at least making it funny if you're going to do it :D
Nah, he's not baiting. TMF has always stuck me as a somewhat slow but good kid who's just very pro-Federer and likes anything that makes him look good. The only thing I don't like about him, and indeed the only thing he's more obsessed with than boosting his idol, is his tireless attempts to bring down his archnemesis Serena. (Just check out his new avatar.) It's puzzling what about her galls him so much, but it does. :D
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Not necessarily, I just don't like the baiting posts - at least making it funny if you're going to do it :D
According to Tennisbase, Rosewall was #3 on their ATG list, behind Laver and Federer. Their ranking may have changed since yesterday?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
According to Tennisbase, Rosewall was #3 on their ATG list, behind Laver and Federer. Their ranking may have changed since yesterday?
TB's ranking means little to me as you know. I expect it remains the same though. Which is fine.

Nah, he's not baiting. TMF has always stuck me as a somewhat slow but good kid who's just very pro-Federer and likes anything that makes him look good. The only thing I don't like about him, and indeed the only thing he's more obsessed with than boosting his idol, is his tireless attempts to bring down his archnemesis Serena. (Just check out his new avatar.) It's puzzling what about her galls him so much, but it does. :D
Really wanted Del Potro to get the win yesterday but the heinous NY crowd had me rooting for Djokovic a little bit tbh :D

On TMF agree to disagree there, I'm sure Bobby still reads the board and will be triggered by that from beyond the ban - I'd guess TMF knows that.

And yeah his hate of Serena is a bit of an oddity, I don't like her myself but TMF is almost like Vive of Serena haters :D
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Really wanted Del Potro to get the win yesterday but the heinous NY crowd had me rooting for Djokovic a little bit tbh :D
The crowd was absolutely atrocious in the women's final but was it really that bad yesterday? Granted I missed like half of it and watched the rest while having a late lunch but I didn't think they were particularly pro-Delpo.

Didn't think Delpo played that bad and it seems to me Djoko is just a nightmare matchup for him. At least with Fed or Rafa you have the BH to target but obviously you have no such option with Novak who probably would get my vote for the best FH-BH combo of the Open Era if not for Agassi. (I'm guessing you recall that old post of mine where I referenced Delpo turning up his hands in frustration towards his box because Novak was returning all he was throwing at him like in Pong.) And of course Delpo ain't gonna win a whole lot of points at the net.

On TMF agree to disagree there, I'm sure Bobby still reads the board and will be triggered by that from beyond the ban - I'd guess TMF knows that.
TMF and Bobby had a history? I know I haven't been very active here in the past couple years but if anything major happened chances are I know about it. Obviously it's not cool if TMF is baiting an inactive/banned poster.

And yeah his hate of Serena is a bit of an oddity, I don't like her myself but TMF is almost like Vive of Serena haters :D
Oh, @vive le beau jeu ! is easily the best troll here: funny and biting but never malicious. I get your point but let's not get carried away. :p

Now the Old Three and the Modern Three truly form the top sextet of all time - isn't it beautiful?
There are so many ways you can play with some of these letters.
 
No love for Borg, Tilden and Sampras?
That's the next three.
I suppose:
Federer, Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, Sampras, Tilden, Lendl, Kramer, Budge, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi.

Then it's a big mess from lower ATG to sub-ATG tier, but I don't know pre-Open in such detail; who would be the players in those tiers? In chronological (not greatness) order: Johnston, Borotra, Vines, Nüsslein, von Kramm, Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Emerson - who did I forget? (Not counting pre-WWI which wasn't fully competitive yet, though some like Renshaw and Sears should get an honorary mention.) In the Open era, it's of course Becker, Edberg/Wilander for lower ATGs and Murray, Newcombe, Courier for sub-ATGs.
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Tongue-in-cheek, but surely they deserve more. Terrible how the old GOATs are routinely discarded because they are old :mad: Gonzales not mentioned at all because all but the sunset of his career was played before the advent of the Open era :(
I don’t know enough about Gonzales. I’ve been meaning to read up on him but just haven’t yet.

I will though. :D
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That's the next three.
I suppose:
Federer, Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, Sampras, Tilden, Lendl, Kramer, Budge, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi.

Then it's a big mess from lower ATG to sub-ATG tier, but I don't know pre-Open in such detail; who would be the players in those tiers? In chronological (not greatness) order: Johnston, Borotra, Vines, Nüsslein, von Kramm, Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Emerson - who did I forget? (Not counting pre-WWI which wasn't fully competitive yet, though some like Renshaw and Sears should get an honorary mention.) In the Open era, it's of course Becker, Edberg/Wilander for lower ATGs and Murray, Newcombe, Courier for sub-ATGs.
Newcombe is there with Becker/Edberg and Wilander IMO.

Tilden is arguably a GOAT candidate for me because of his dominance but I can also seem him placing much lower like you have him.

Otherwise not too many complaints, I have Gonzalez as #1 from the older greats.

I'd include Perry as well in the second list, Emerson I don't rate highly at all but he's hard to place.
 
Newcombe is there with Becker/Edberg and Wilander IMO.
Hmm, what makes Newk greater in singles than Mury? # of majors incomparable since Wim-USO '67 were amateur and AO '73/'75 was downgraded... probably longer overall stint at #1 including pre-ATPrankings, but it was objectively tough to usurp B3 for #1 even if Andy performed better. Probably had a higher peak level off clay relative to his time, but that's not exactly a standalone achievement if it doesn't bring you more titles. At least in the two comparable majors, i.e. Wim and USO, Mury is clearly greater than Newk.

Tilden is arguably a GOAT candidate for me because of his dominance but I can also see him placing much lower like you have him.
The biggest weak era beneficiary of all time :p The way his results dropped after 1925 bears some similarity to Federer's drop, but in Fed's case he was losing close matches to actual GOAT quality players, while Cochet/Lacoste/Borotra must've been quite great but not so much. Tough to rate Tilden adequately anyway...

I'd include Perry as well in the second list, Emerson I don't rate highly at all but he's hard to place.
I said I must've forgotten some. Crawford as well, one set away from CYGS is nothing to scoff at.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Hmm, what makes Newk greater in singles than Mury? # of majors incomparable since Wim-USO '67 were amateur and AO '73/'75 was downgraded... probably longer overall stint at #1 including pre-ATPrankings, but it was objectively tough to usurp B3 for #1 even if Andy performed better. Probably had a higher peak level off clay relative to his time, but that's not exactly a standalone achievement if it doesn't bring you more titles. At least in the two comparable majors, i.e. Wim and USO, Mury is clearly greater than Newk.
Newcombe is just clearly greater IMO. The AM/Pro divide partitioning what would be his prime years hurts him. He was just a better player relative to his era which counts for a lot when comparing completely different era's in my book.

Murray is a 3 time champ with all the majors open and attended throughout his career, Newcombe has him matched with those 3 slams with the caveat of playing in an era where not all the slams were open all the time, there were boycotts, the AO didn't count etc...plus he had the higher peak level. Not seeing how Murray is clearly greater at Wimbledon/USO either tbh, a bit more consistency but some of that is the era.

Don't really see an argument for Murray.

The biggest weak era beneficiary of all time :p The way his results dropped after 1925 bears some similarity to Federer's drop, but in Fed's case he was losing close matches to actual GOAT quality players, while Cochet/Lacoste/Borotra must've been quite great but not so much. Tough to rate Tilden adequately anyway...
Tilden was 32 in 1925 tbf. I believe he competed fairly respectably into his 50's as well. But fair enough, his era of dominance was definitely lacking depth to say the least.

I said I must've forgotten some. Crawford as well, one set away from CYGS is nothing to scoff at.
Sure and I helped ;)

Segura is another one.
 
Newcombe is just clearly greater IMO. The AM/Pro divide partitioning what would be his prime years hurts him. He was just a better player relative to his era which counts for a lot when comparing completely different era's in my book.

Murray is a 3 time champ with all the majors open and attended throughout his career, Newcombe has him matched with those 3 slams with the caveat of playing in an era where not all the slams were open all the time, there were boycotts, the AO didn't count etc...plus he had the higher peak level. Not seeing how Murray is clearly greater at Wimbledon/USO either tbh, a bit more consistency but some of that is the era.

Don't really see an argument for Murray.
But wasn't poor mury blocked by Fedalovic all the time, hmm? Sure, he underperformed on multiple occasions, but it's pretty tough. The way Newcombe allowed himself to get owned by even a 39 y.o. Rosewall (got freaking bagelled at Wimbledon, what in the world?!), that doesn't make me think he'd have fared better against Laver and Rosewall (not to mention Gonzales, who was far too old to compare) in their primes than Murray did against Fedalovic.

Not sure how much better than Murray Newcombe really played at Wimbledon?

Compare their best three performances at Wim: Newcombe - 1969 F loss to Laver in 4 (still close to peak), 1970 W over Rosewall in 5 (generally even until Ken went away in the decider), 1971 W over Smith in 5; Murray - 2012 F loss to Federer in 4, 2013 W over Djok in 3 (disappointing from the Nolebot, but still, beating prime Djoko in three break sets is a real point of pride), 2016 W over Botnic in 3. Newcombe's peak tennis a bit more impressive I guess, but not a significant difference and results are the same, then when you add other years Mury surges ahead - so Newcombe won amateur Wim in '67, Murray's 09/10/15 level would've probably been enough adjusting for competition. Sure, not John's fault he was banned in '72 & '73, but he failed to make an impressive showing afterwards, which casts a bit of doubt.

I recalled Murray's USO record, though, and yeah you're right on that one - all Mury has besides the win is one final where he got owned, and one semi where he also got beaten quite comprehensively despite nicking a set. Newk has a win and three semis, two of them competitive; adding the amateur win, he is indeed ahead.

Don't forget about Mury's non-slem achievements such as a ton of mugsters and two lolympic golds - and he did beat Fedovic in straight break sets to take the first one, imo that's more impressive than some major wins. 2016 WTF he won on grit more than skill (the Raonic semi was utterly hilarious and gut-wrenching at the same time as someone who rooted for mury to stop the djobot from claiming YE#1), but it still counts as much, no?


So I can see Murray and Newcombe placed together, but surely upgrading Newk to Edberg level is too much. Even adjusting for era, Edberg did at least as well at Wimbledon as Newcombe (SF-W-F-W-SF-QF-SF, with 3 of the 5 losses against natural grasscourters), a bit worse at the USO outside of the wins (but then both were amazing and could be valued higher), but better at RG (Newcombe did nothing special even when he played, no reason to assume he was robbed), and while AO can't be compared directly, Edberg was a constant top presence for 10 straight years / 9 straight editions (W-W-SF-QF(w/o)-F(ret)-SF-F-F-SF). He was also a top player for 10 straight years, won the YEC once in two finals, won a decent number of lesser tournaments and generally played in one of the most competitive tennis eras. I think Newcombe was ultimately too inconsistent to reach ATG level - a little too much love for fine booze and women, eh?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But wasn't poor mury blocked by Fedalovic all the time, hmm? Sure, he underperformed on multiple occasions, but it's pretty tough. The way Newcombe allowed himself to get owned by even a 39 y.o. Rosewall (got freaking bagelled at Wimbledon, what in the world?!), that doesn't make me think he'd have fared better against Laver and Rosewall (not to mention Gonzales, who was far too old to compare) in their primes than Murray did against Fedalovic.

Not sure how much better than Murray Newcombe really played at Wimbledon?

Compare their best three performances at Wim: Newcombe - 1969 F loss to Laver in 4 (still close to peak), 1970 W over Rosewall in 5 (generally even until Ken went away in the decider), 1971 W over Smith in 5; Murray - 2012 F loss to Federer in 4, 2013 W over Djok in 3 (disappointing from the Nolebot, but still, beating prime Djoko in three break sets is a real point of pride), 2016 W over Botnic in 3. Newcombe's peak tennis a bit more impressive I guess, but not a significant difference and results are the same, then when you add other years Mury surges ahead - so Newcombe won amateur Wim in '67, Murray's 09/10/15 level would've probably been enough adjusting for competition. Sure, not John's fault he was banned in '72 & '73, but he failed to make an impressive showing afterwards, which casts a bit of doubt.

I recalled Murray's USO record, though, and yeah you're right on that one - all Mury has besides the win is one final where he got owned, and one semi where he also got beaten quite comprehensively despite nicking a set. Newk has a win and three semis, two of them competitive; adding the amateur win, he is indeed ahead.

Don't forget about Mury's non-slem achievements such as a ton of mugsters and two lolympic golds - and he did beat Fedovic in straight break sets to take the first one, imo that's more impressive than some major wins. 2016 WTF he won on grit more than skill (the Raonic semi was utterly hilarious and gut-wrenching at the same time as someone who rooted for mury to stop the djobot from claiming YE#1), but it still counts as much, no?


So I can see Murray and Newcombe placed together, but surely upgrading Newk to Edberg level is too much. Even adjusting for era, Edberg did at least as well at Wimbledon as Newcombe (SF-W-F-W-SF-QF-SF, with 3 of the 5 losses against natural grasscourters), a bit worse at the USO outside of the wins (but then both were amazing and could be valued higher), but better at RG (Newcombe did nothing special even when he played, no reason to assume he was robbed), and while AO can't be compared directly, Edberg was a constant top presence for 10 straight years / 9 straight editions (W-W-SF-QF(w/o)-F(ret)-SF-F-F-SF). He was also a top player for 10 straight years, won the YEC once in two finals, won a decent number of lesser tournaments and generally played in one of the most competitive tennis eras. I think Newcombe was ultimately too inconsistent to reach ATG level - a little too much love for fine booze and women, eh?
Murray had the misfortune of running into Fedalovic that's true, he's also playing in an era where there's been two successive generation of what seems to be late bloomers or simply career journeyman, that helps his cause a fair bit. Newcombe was also an amateur until 24, did that have an impact on his development as player? I expect it did, though it's hard to say. I'll also say I don't think Newcombe was the consummate professional that Murray is - he certainly liked his drink unlike Murray :p

I'm still not convinced Murray is clearly better at Wimbledon, a ton of SF's is great consistency but Newcombe winning back to back titles is very impressive to me - plus he would have had good chances in 1972-1973, especially considering he won the USO in 1973. He was 30 by 1974 a not uncommon age to see some slowing down so I don't blame him for not strong results, especially when he still skipped it twice more before he retired. Considering the era's I consider them fairly even at both Wimbledon and the USO, not enough to say clearly one way or the other - I just gravitate to Newcombes' peak play.

If you're bringing up the Olympic Gold's (2012 being more impressive than some major wins is really debatable considering how poor Federer was) then what about the AO in 1975? We've not been counting that but Newcombe did beat #1 ranked Connor's in the final - as well as Roche in the SF.

Fair enough on upgrading Newcombe to Edberg tier, I do think in terms of level of play Newcombe belongs with the lower ATG's in a way that Murray doesn't. I guess I'm partly rating Newcombe on his potential, assuming a fully OE and a bit more professionalism :p
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Murray had the misfortune of running into Fedalovic that's true, he's also playing in an era where there's been two successive generation of what seems to be late bloomers or simply career journeyman, that helps his cause a fair bit. Newcombe was also an amateur until 24, did that have an impact on his development as player? I expect it did, though it's hard to say. I'll also say I don't think Newcombe was the consummate professional that Murray is - he certainly liked his drink unlike Murray :p

I'm still not convinced Murray is clearly better at Wimbledon, a ton of SF's is great consistency but Newcombe winning back to back titles is very impressive to me - plus he would have had good chances in 1972-1973, especially considering he won the USO in 1973. He was 30 by 1974 a not uncommon age to see some slowing down so I don't blame him for not strong results, especially when he still skipped it twice more before he retired. Considering the era's I consider them fairly even at both Wimbledon and the USO, not enough to say clearly one way or the other - I just gravitate to Newcombes' peak play.

If you're bringing up the Olympic Gold's (2012 being more impressive than some major wins is really debatable considering how poor Federer was) then what about the AO in 1975? We've not been counting that but Newcombe did beat #1 ranked Connor's in the final - as well as Roche in the SF.

Fair enough on upgrading Newcombe to Edberg tier, I do think in terms of level of play Newcombe belongs with the lower ATG's in a way that Murray doesn't. I guess I'm partly rating Newcombe on his potential, assuming a fully OE and a bit more professionalism :p
True, Newcombe was 30 in 1974, but he lost to a guy 39 at Wimbledon and nearly 40 at the USO that year.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I thought Djokovkic already belonged in the GOAT convo when he got that 4-peat under his bag, and his win yesterday clinches it. It's really funny how much I root for the guy (though Delpo winning would've been sweet, too) as his style of play isn't usually my speed, but I hope he can get to at least #17-18 so he'll have a very good case for the top spot over Fedal as he will most likely have widened his H2H margins against both of 'em. (Before you jump on me - relax, Pistol and Fed are still my personal top 2.)

It's really amazing how fast the tables have turned in recent years. I know people like to rag on Pete for getting eclipsed in Slam tallies so soon, but Novak's case if anything is even more remarkable in that he was being dismissed as a one-Slam wonder as late as 2010. I still remember this one tiny episode not long after I joined this board, when I said pretty casually that I'd be very surprised to see Djoko end up with one major only and this guy (who shall remain nameless) immediately jumped in to disagree and dismiss him as overrated. Looking back this poster's flippant assessment seems comically off now, but his wasn't such a rare sentiment at the time and I admit I was beginning to think the same during Novak's long drought.

Which is a somewhat long-winded way of saying you don't know what the future holds. Don't be so sure about Nole cleaning everyone's clock in the next 2-3 years or the opposite scenario for that matter. I just hope he keeps winning the biggies. Don't care about the rest. :cool:



Nah, he's not baiting. TMF has always stuck me as a somewhat slow but good kid who's just very pro-Federer and likes anything that makes him look good. The only thing I don't like about him, and indeed the only thing he's more obsessed with than boosting his idol, is his tireless attempts to bring down his archnemesis Serena. (Just check out his new avatar.) It's puzzling what about her galls him so much, but it does. :D
Sampras didn't understand that Emerson's record of 12 wasn't really an accurate number. He didn't realize that his 14 majors was not an awesome unreachable number because of the amateur/pro divide until 1968. Margaret Court's number of 24 was imo more representative of what the men's number should have been around if there was no amateur/pro divide. Another reason for the low number was the lack of airplane travel in the past. Players had to travel by boat and that would take weeks.

Laver for example won 5 of the first 7 majors in the Open Era. Then because of boycotts, choosing to play big money tournaments he never won another classic major. I'm fairly certainly Laver is one of many who would have easily surpassed 14 majors. I would think Laver probably would have been in the twenty range.

I also think players like Tilden, Vines, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Kramer had excellent chances to surpass 14 majors assuming in Kramer's case WW II didn't interfere. I'm not sure about Budge since he was injured but if he had today's medical technology he very well could have. These players played top tennis and they played a decent amount of years. I think some of these players probably would have been in the twenty plus range.

I think of the players in the last 20 years, Djokovic is perhaps the most complete as far as a combination of offense and defense. Because it's a baseline game nowadays I think Djokovic is the best in overall controlled aggression on the baseline. Even Nadal cannot top him overall. I'm not even sure if Djokovic is in top form that Nadal would stand much of a chance even on red clay!

Now this doesn't necessarily mean he is definitely the best of the last 25 years because I think Federer for example has a edge in his service which can pull him out of a lot of jams. Nadal of course is still in the running because of his ability to seemingly use his great footwork to hit his forehand all the time while Djokovic plays it more straight.

So if the normal baseline game is not a viable option, the opponent has to try something different against Djokovic and that's usually a bad proposition. Yes on occasion a Stan Wawrinka can overpower a Djokovic or perhaps a Delpo on a fast hard court but even then Novak may win. I would think a Sampras would stand an excellent chance on fast courts because of his huge serve and his excellent volley.

Djokovic has no weaknesses to go after. Even Nadal's famous lefty topspin to the righty baseline doesn't work if Djokovic is in top form because of Djokovic's great backhand.

Historically I would say that Djokovic is quite similar to the descriptions of Don Budge. Both had awesome returns, super backhands which they can take on the rise and controlled attacking groundies from the baseline. Both had excellent serves and could move well although I don't know if anyone ever moved as well as Djokovic. Both of course hit topspin off both sides and both held all four majors at the same time.

The big question is whether we are going about it wrong by just adding majors won. My reasoning is that while every ATP or WTA pro wants to win every major the main goal is to finish number one for the year. For example in 1973 Nastase won only one major in the French while John Newcombe won two majors in the Australian and the US Open. Newcombe however did virtually nothing after winning the Australian in 1973 until he won the US Open while Nastase won a ton of tournaments. Nastase was easily the choice for number one that year and I believe he was the clear choice.

So in that way I still think that Sampras, because he was number one for six straight years is not so easily surpassed.

In most sports they grade players by World Championships and officially Sampras won six of them. Yes I know one of the number ones in some people's opinions is iffy but he still was number one.

So if we judge it by that standard a player like Gonzalez could be argued to be the best of all because it's possible he was World Champion more than any player. Frankly Gonzalez can be argued to be number one by almost any logical standard.

What is a major often changes but who is number one for the year is always the goal? I have to admit that in tennis terms number one can be often just a dumb opinion but at least in recent years (I would say since the late 1970s) there is some logic to the choices for number one.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Indeed, I normally take that more as a positive for Rosewall but definitely not a good look for Newcombe either.
Which is what it was meant to be, you know me well-LOL!
Newcombe could reach incredible highs but sometimes, due to injuries and lack of motivation (not that he had lack of motivation for these losses in majors) he could be up and down.

Rosewall was generally always at a high level. He could lose but his level of play was generally superb. The opponent had to play at very high levels to win over Rosewall.

That's why you have to respect players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal over the years because of their consistency. The same with players like Borg, Connors and Lendl.

Oddly enough, despite his super record I thought Laver could be a little erratic in playing level. However Laver had the ability to reach into another level when he needed it so he could play badly and still pull matches out of the fire.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Hmm, what makes Newk greater in singles than Mury? # of majors incomparable since Wim-USO '67 were amateur and AO '73/'75 was downgraded... probably longer overall stint at #1 including pre-ATPrankings, but it was objectively tough to usurp B3 for #1 even if Andy performed better. Probably had a higher peak level off clay relative to his time, but that's not exactly a standalone achievement if it doesn't bring you more titles. At least in the two comparable majors, i.e. Wim and USO, Mury is clearly greater than Newk.



The biggest weak era beneficiary of all time :p The way his results dropped after 1925 bears some similarity to Federer's drop, but in Fed's case he was losing close matches to actual GOAT quality players, while Cochet/Lacoste/Borotra must've been quite great but not so much. Tough to rate Tilden adequately anyway...



I said I must've forgotten some. Crawford as well, one set away from CYGS is nothing to scoff at.
Tilden hurt his knee badly in 1925 I believe.
 

urban

Legend
I agree on many points here, pc 1, maybe not with the notion, that top form Djokovic is better than Nadal on clay, not over best of 5. The record at RG is too lopsided, agree Djoker won once, but that year Nadal wasn't in top form. On clay at RG, imo the floating forehand of Nadal would make the difference. That said, on grass and HC Djoker is pretty tough to beat. He has an easy, well working serve, like a swiss blade (as they said about Borg's serve), great flexibility and and court coverage, and can retrieve almost everything. When he is hitting deep to the baseline, opponents have problems to nail a winner or create an opening. Like Borg he puts pressure on opponents from a seemingly defensive position. I think, he is still not on the level of 2015 (maybe vs. Delpo he came close). He lost almost two years for his resume (after RG 2016), but on the other hand gained some rest time and extra motivation, to build a new a great run in the next time. Given the poor state of young contenders (all the last 10 or more Slams were won by veterans), he could have a few more brilliant years in him. Maybe Tsizipras and hopefully Zverev could make a move. On Kyrgios i have lost hope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

KG1965

Legend
Sampras didn't understand that Emerson's record of 12 wasn't really an accurate number. He didn't realize that his 14 majors was not an awesome unreachable number because of the amateur/pro divide until 1968. Margaret Court's number of 24 was imo more representative of what the men's number should have been around if there was no amateur/pro divide. Another reason for the low number was the lack of airplane travel in the past. Players had to travel by boat and that would take weeks.

Laver for example won 5 of the first 7 majors in the Open Era. Then because of boycotts, choosing to play big money tournaments he never won another classic major. I'm fairly certainly Laver is one of many who would have easily surpassed 14 majors. I would think Laver probably would have been in the twenty range.

I also think players like Tilden, Vines, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Kramer had excellent chances to surpass 14 majors assuming in Kramer's case WW II didn't interfere. I'm not sure about Budge since he was injured but if he had today's medical technology he very well could have. These players played top tennis and they played a decent amount of years. I think some of these players probably would have been in the twenty plus range.

I think of the players in the last 20 years, Djokovic is perhaps the most complete as far as a combination of offense and defense. Because it's a baseline game nowadays I think Djokovic is the best in overall controlled aggression on the baseline. Even Nadal cannot top him overall. I'm not even sure if Djokovic is in top form that Nadal would stand much of a chance even on red clay!

Now this doesn't necessarily mean he is definitely the best of the last 25 years because I think Federer for example has a edge in his service which can pull him out of a lot of jams. Nadal of course is still in the running because of his ability to seemingly use his great footwork to hit his forehand all the time while Djokovic plays it more straight.

So if the normal baseline game is not a viable option, the opponent has to try something different against Djokovic and that's usually a bad proposition. Yes on occasion a Stan Wawrinka can overpower a Djokovic or perhaps a Delpo on a fast hard court but even then Novak may win. I would think a Sampras would stand an excellent chance on fast courts because of his huge serve and his excellent volley.

Djokovic has no weaknesses to go after. Even Nadal's famous lefty topspin to the righty baseline doesn't work if Djokovic is in top form because of Djokovic's great backhand.

Historically I would say that Djokovic is quite similar to the descriptions of Don Budge. Both had awesome returns, super backhands which they can take on the rise and controlled attacking groundies from the baseline. Both had excellent serves and could move well although I don't know if anyone ever moved as well as Djokovic. Both of course hit topspin off both sides and both held all four majors at the same time.

The big question is whether we are going about it wrong by just adding majors won. My reasoning is that while every ATP or WTA pro wants to win every major the main goal is to finish number one for the year. For example in 1973 Nastase won only one major in the French while John Newcombe won two majors in the Australian and the US Open. Newcombe however did virtually nothing after winning the Australian in 1973 until he won the US Open while Nastase won a ton of tournaments. Nastase was easily the choice for number one that year and I believe he was the clear choice.

So in that way I still think that Sampras, because he was number one for six straight years is not so easily surpassed.

In most sports they grade players by World Championships and officially Sampras won six of them. Yes I know one of the number ones in some people's opinions is iffy but he still was number one.

So if we judge it by that standard a player like Gonzalez could be argued to be the best of all because it's possible he was World Champion more than any player. Frankly Gonzalez can be argued to be number one by almost any logical standard.

What is a major often changes but who is number one for the year is always the goal? I have to admit that in tennis terms number one can be often just a dumb opinion but at least in recent years (I would say since the late 1970s) there is some logic to the choices for number one.
Great post, but pc1... is Djokovic the best player 2018?
Although Nadal may be the number one (ATP of course).:rolleyes:;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1

KG1965

Legend
I try to give an opinion on the current situation by focusing mainly on Sampras and Federer... and the serious errors of assessment made by
- the media through Sampras, and
- the media on Federer (and most of the fans).

Sampras has been a great talent and excellent champion but above all it has been formidable to change the perception of tennis. Slam tournaments have always been important in Open Era (except for Melbourne up to the 80s forwarded) but in previous eras they had little real value because the real big ones played in the Pro Tour.
When Pete arrived at 14 he made a big record for the media and fans but in reality it could not be compared with the records of the old champions for so many reasons that everyone here knows (Tilden skipped so many, Kramer and Gonzalez almost all of them jumped, many Rosewall, many also Laver, also Connors and Borg).
And in fact, within two decades three new champions have equalized that records (and two have passed it). The reality is that it was a minor record. Sampras remains a huge figure but the record was not very relevant.
The problem is that the media and the fans, and with them Sampras, pointed as the only god, the only parameter .... in the slams. So Pete comes out with broken bones.
Betrayed by the media, Pete ended up hanging himself.

Because of the media that focused on the "only slam god", Federer and his fans risk making the same mistake.:cool:
If Nadal arrived at 21? Or Djokovic at 23? Who is the GOAT ?

IMO the fans made a very serious mistake because Federer is not just 20 slams.
I'm not a Federer fan but obviously Roger is much more than 20 slams.

I'd like to know your opinion on this post, especially from Pete's fans and Fedr's fans.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Kramer, Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Kramer T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Djokovic T2
10) Connors T2
11) Riggs T2/T3
12) McEnroe T3
13) Lendl T3
-------------------------
14) Hoad T4
15) Agassi T4
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Kramer, Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Kramer T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Djokovic T2
10) Connors T2
11) Riggs T2/T3
12) McEnroe T3
13) Lendl T3
-------------------------
14) Hoad T4
15) Agassi T4
Excellent and reasonable list.
 

KG1965

Legend
My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Kramer, Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Kramer T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Djokovic T2
10) Connors T2
11) Riggs T2/T3
12) McEnroe T3
13) Lendl T3
-------------------------
14) Hoad T4
15) Agassi T4
1) Pancho is very close to Federer & Laver, and it depends what value to assign to the World Tours.
2) Gonzalez has had many problems with only two players: Kramer (in the early years) and Hoad (in 1958 but then Hoad got injured). My feeling is that Kramer was > Gonzalez and he could not prove it for career interruption.
3)The amazing thing IMO is that Gonzalez could also be the GOAT (for the achievements ... even if it has only 2 slam amateurs:D:D:D) but Kramer was better.
4) Kramer is unclassifiable because he won less achievements of Nadal, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg etc ... but was the greatest of all compared to the great of his time.

My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) Riggs T2/T3
11) McEnroe T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
-------------------------
13) Hoad T4
14) Agassi T4
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
1) Pancho is very close to Federer & Laver, and it depends what value to assign to World Tours.
2) Gonzalez has had many problems with only two players: Kramer (in the early years) and Hoad (in 1958 but then Hoad got injured). My feeling is that Kramer was > Gonzalez and he could not prove it for career interruption.
3)The amazing thing IMO is that Gonzalez could also be the GOAT (for the achievements ... even if it has only 2 slam amateurs:D:D:D) but Kramer was better.
4) Kramer is unclassifiable because he won less achievements of Nadal, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg etc ... but was the greatest of all compared to the great of his time.

My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Kramer, Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) Riggs T2/T3
11) McEnroe T3
12) Lendl T3
-------------------------
13) Hoad T4
14) Agassi T4
One of the best posts I’ve read. I’m probably one of the ones who have done and published statistical analysis on tennis but I totally agree with KG1965 here. Some things aren’t so easily defined by stats. Frankly so many find ways to use stats incorrectly (or maybe correctly for what they want!) not realizing (or perhaps realizing but deciding not to mention) the problems with their analysis.

Kramer is one who cannot be defined by the simple criteria we have nowadays. It was a different historical situation.
 
Last edited:
1) Pancho is very close to Federer & Laver, and it depends what value to assign to World Tours.
2) Gonzalez has had many problems with only two players: Kramer (in the early years) and Hoad (in 1958 but then Hoad got injured). My feeling is that Kramer was > Gonzalez and he could not prove it for career interruption.
3)The amazing thing IMO is that Gonzalez could also be the GOAT (for the achievements ... even if it has only 2 slam amateurs:D:D:D) but Kramer was better.
4) Kramer is unclassifiable because he won less achievements of Nadal, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg etc ... but was the greatest of all compared to the great of his time.

My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Kramer, Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) Riggs T2/T3
11) McEnroe T3
12) Lendl T3
-------------------------
13) Hoad T4
14) Agassi T4
I would list Djokovic and Sampras above Borg, but apart from that, I like your list, KG. Kramer was certainly difficult to classify, because he often didn't play in the US Pro and Wembley Pro. However, he was the only man never to lose in the World Series, a great achievement. Kramer's career was curtailed by arthritis. Hoad also is difficult to classify. Hoad's back robbed him of the chance of beating Gonzales in the World Series. People often classify Hoad as a player who played the best tennis ever seen occasionally but was erratic, but I am not sure this is entirely true. He put a consistent spell of wins together against Gonzales in the World Series, but then his back hampered him. Del Potro and Cash were two more players who could have achieved a lot more but for serious injuries. Federer and Rosewall were both similar because they so rarely got injured, so were always in contention for many years, which is a great asset. Nadal would be ahead of Federer in slams by now if he hadn't had so many injuries.
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
1) Pancho is very close to Federer & Laver, and it depends what value to assign to the World Tours.
2) Gonzalez has had many problems with only two players: Kramer (in the early years) and Hoad (in 1958 but then Hoad got injured). My feeling is that Kramer was > Gonzalez and he could not prove it for career interruption.
3)The amazing thing IMO is that Gonzalez could also be the GOAT (for the achievements ... even if it has only 2 slam amateurs:D:D:D) but Kramer was better.
4) Kramer is unclassifiable because he won less achievements of Nadal, Connors, Djokovic, Lendl, Borg etc ... but was the greatest of all compared to the great of his time.

My ranking Post War II
(I admit that it is impossible for me at the moment to analyze the results of Riggs and Hoad and their placement is purely speculative).

Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) Riggs T2/T3
11) McEnroe T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
-------------------------
13) Hoad T4
14) Agassi T4
Another great champion (even if lower level than Kramer) is Bobby Riggs.
If we consider only Post War II period Riggs is the best player in 1946 (even if with a small margin on Budge) and 1947 (with small margin on Budge and Kovacs).
Then Kramer explodes.

But it is intriguing that probably Riggs may have been the best player during the war.:cool:

Wikipedia reports that Ray Bowers wrote "The Limited Tennis Activity Over The Last Three Years Of The War dictates a single ranking list covering the entire period" he ranked the best eight players in the world for the entire 1943-1945 period : 1. Riggs, 2. Budge, 3. Parker, 4. Kramer, 5. Kovacs, 6. Van Horn, 7. Quist, 8. Petra.

IMHO I don't believe in the 3-year ranking that the writer proposes, there were few matches and it is impossible to understand who were the top players even if Riggs would have raged in the absence of the war.

Riggs has two misfortunes:
1) has Rosewall syndrome, that is not considered a great because he starts to win when Budge is coming down the hill and Kramer is too young (like Rosewall with Pancho and Laver) .. among other things also as a game Riggs and Rosewall seem to resemble (service not sublime but great technique and speed in travel)
2) the war definitely takes away many titles / tours to Riggs (but also to Budge and Kovacs)

Finally, even Rigg,s as Kramer, is unclassifiable even if the level reached by Bobby suggests that he can be placed between 15-20

My ranking Post War II
(Kramer unclassifiable, almost certainly the best player in history, Riggs unclassifiable, suggests that he can be placed between 10-15)

1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
 
Top