Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Whatever, but the night and day matches at AO and at USO are a problem. The intense heat under the sun at AO, when you can cook an egg on the court, is a factor, all players should experience equally, or at least amost equally. That a player gets 12 out of 14 matches at night, makes a complete different tournament. Also the roof policy at AO and also this year at Wimbledon is questionable. And to the last: Its not good, when a tournament official is finacially involved with a players management.
Great remarks. This really gets to the crux of the matter. It's an issue of great concern. Only a few people on here seem not to understand the gravity of the situation.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sampras v Bastl and Federer v Melzer is a good comparison. If you had justified Federer's scheduling by using an argument a bit similar to Roddick saying Federer was the box office attraction and the Grand Slams needed to put the box office attraction on centre court in prime time all the time, that would have at least been a case. I disagree with it profoundly, but it would have been a case. The arguments you make are pathetic. Rather than just accepting the bias, as highlighted in my comparison, you look to continue to pretend there isn't bias. This makes you look a complete fool.

Dan is looking to make a comparison between the old pro tour and a modern Grand Slam, but the two are vastly different. A modern Grand Slam makes vast profits anyway, so it doesn't need to resort to this 100% box office approach. It should balance the box office appeal with fairness (something you seem to care little about). I fully accept Federer is the most popular player, but showing this blatant bias is a bad advertisement for the sport. Take those rose tinted Federer-loving glasses off and try and see things as they really are.

"
That's not a fair comparison.
Federer played the day session in R2 vs a low ranked guy in Rubin at Rod Laver arena.
Use that as comparision.

I don't know what court Sampras played his first round match in Wim 02.

They don't have top/most popular players outside of main courts in the recent years. That's not Federer specific. (Edit) If you say they could/should have had Fed play a match on Margaret Court Arena in R1/R2 , then yeah, I'll agree.
"


again, try to *****' read properly and comprehend.
I mentioned why the Melzer match is not a fair comparision, that the Rubin match is fair comparision and why.
I also said they could have had Federer play in Margaret Court Arena in the R1 or R2 match.
That is me talking about the fairness aspect.

And you are not even acknowledging your mistake of not considering the Berdych match as a marquee match
I honestly thought you were better than this.
 
Last edited:
I have not forgotten this post of yours and I have to admit that, as you mentioned, the placement and exploitation of Kramer is controversial.

Until some time ago it was unknown to me, now it is controversial.
A few steps forward.

The impression is that my sentence "Nobody gave the impression after having an invincibility aura for a long time". it is not very far from the reality of that period.

In retrospect, there is some facilitation towards Jack and an insufficient calendar.

This allows me to review the judgment on his career a bit. In fact it was probably the best player for a few years, but I imagined much more dominant.
Every player proves his strength (and domination) vs the best players not vs the easier players. I have the sense that Jack was afraid. He chooses carefully his opponents.
 
So are you saying if Federer wasn't scheduled in the night session on Rod Laver, the event would be a financial failure? That is why your comparison between the old pro tour and a modern Grand Slam is so absurd. The Grand Slams don't need to show this blatant bias in order to make a profit. They can make excellent profits without scheduling Federer on Rod Laver Arena in prime time all the time.
The basic principal is the same regardless of which era you are looking at.

Any tennis tournament wants to get the top two players into the final, makes more sense for attracting fans, advertising, prestige.

A tournament where the top players drop out before the final is usually a less prestigious event, and no major wants that negative repercussion.

So, why would they not seed and water the field to facilitate the top guys getting to the final? That is just basic business sense.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The argument of Tiley, if we can call it argument at all, is poor and misleading, and he is fully conceding that top players get extra treatment at his tournament. If public demand is the main reason for scheduling (which is imo wrong), then the top attraction should play at day, when more people, who buy tickets for day matches, can follow him. Maybe it has more to do with the demands of sponsors like Rolex or Quantas, to get more tv exposure of their business partners. But then Tiley is wandering on slippy grounds, if he has financial connections with some management agencies. In any case, this whole reasoning with public demands cannot be legitimate. The corrective must always be the fairness to all competitors, that they can play a major tournament on equal terms.
Flesh out the "equality" and "fairness" here in this context. Use of those words is an easier thing.
To actually come up with a plan/schedule that can be implemented is another.
 
The basic principal is the same regardless of which era you are looking at.

Any tennis tournament wants to get the top two players into the final, makes more sense for attracting fans, advertising, prestige.

A tournament where the top players drop out before the final is usually a less prestigious event, and no major wants that negative repercussion.

So, why would they not seed and water the field to facilitate the top guys getting to the final? That is just basic business sense.
Of course a tournament WANTS the two most popular players in the final. It is what lengths they are prepared to go to to get that final that is in question. Top players already have advantages such as seeding and other priveledges. On the old pro tour, they often relied on big name finals to make good profits. That is not the case at modern Grand Slam events. A sport, if it is a professionally run international sport, should be prepared to weather the storm of a final not involving the top box office draws, because the sport itself should provide sufficient interest (whoever is in the final) to make the event profitable (and at Grand Slams in recent decades that has always been the case).

In recent years, they have been very lucky to have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in so many finals. I remember the days when there might be a Costa Ferrero final, or a Korda Rios final, or a Krajicek Washington final, or a Roddick Ferrero final. At all these events the Grand Slams, despite not having greats like Sampras, Agassi, Becker etc. in the final, they still made a good profit. There are some who believe (like Roddick and also Mr. Tiley it seems) that you always put the box office attraction on centre court in primetime, but by taking this ruthless moneygrabbing-at-all-costs approach at an event like the Australian, with vastly different day and night temperatures, you are projecting a bad image of the sport. What the event gains in money, it loses in respect. In tennis, as in life, is about correctly applying decisions based on all the relevant factors. On the old pro tour, the bar was set at a different level because the profits were much less. There will always be favouritism at Grand Slams, but when it goes too far, it risks damaging the integrity of the event.
 
Last edited:
Flesh out the "equality" and "fairness" here in this context. Use of those words is an easier thing.
To actually come up with a plan/schedule that can be implemented is another.
It is obvious to all that you don't have the simple words "equality" and "fairness" in your dictionary and in the evaluation of tennis. The bias is the only factor in your tennis world. Too too bad.
 
TV will have a say in calling the shots too. They like the big stars on prime time. Why did Wimbledon get a roof? A large part of the reason would be to guarantee tv coverage for the BBC and the overseas tv networks. The Slams are a commercial business, an entertainment business and a sport.
The big stars will always get favouritism to some degree in any field.
 
TV will have a say in calling the shots too. They like the big stars on prime time. Why did Wimbledon get a roof? A large part of the reason would be to guarantee tv coverage for the BBC and the overseas tv networks. The Slams are a commercial business, an entertainment business and a sport.
The big stars will always get favouritism to some degree in any field.
For the TVs tennis is just business. For the world tennis is a sport on the first place. And it should be kept as a sport. The business interests should not harm the fair sport.
Not the big stars but one star get favourite.
 
For the TVs tennis is just business. For the world tennis is a sport on the first place. And it should be kept as a sport. The business interests should not harm the fair sport.
Not the big stars but one star get favourite.
We all know that, but sport and the world doesn't work like that. Be real.
"One star get favourite", you say? That's your opinion.

By the way, now that you've quoted me, remember our little discussion from the past? That AO 2017, pretty good, wasn't it?
 
We all know that, but sport and the world doesn't work like that. Be real.
"One star get favourite", you say? That's your opinion.

By the way, now that you've quoted me, remember our little discussion from the past? That AO 2017, pretty good, wasn't it?
Remember, If any sport gets more and more commercialized it gets down and down. In our case it all depends what will be the actions and policies of ATP and tournaments management. If we want to have top tennis now and in the future we should work for the fair and competitive sport on the first place. It's very simple.
 
Remember, If any sport gets more and more commercialized it gets down and down. In our case it all depends what will be the actions and policies of ATP and tournaments management. If we want to have top tennis now and in the future we should work for the fair and competitive sport on the first place. It's very simple.
All big time sport has become more commercialized over the years, from tennis to football/soccer to boxing to athletics/ track & field. Look at the Olympics and the World Cup. It's the way of the world, from sport to the media to entertainment, everything. I don't like it myself, but money talks.
I agree, yes, there should be as level a playing field as possible in purely sporting terms.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
All big time sport has become more commercialized over the years, from tennis to football/soccer to boxing to athletics/ track & field. Look at the Olympics and the World Cup. It's the way of the world, from sport to the media to entertainment, everything. I don't like it myself, but money talks.
I agree, yes, there should be as level a playing field as possible in purely sporting terms.
IMO the scheduling stuff has been overblown a little bit. The one match which was definitely a mistake IMO was putting Djokovic vs Monfils on during the day instead of Federer vs Struff. That would have made things fair - though it seems like Djokovic's team may have requested a day match? So it's not clear it the tournament is at fault there.

I can't remember the scheduling too much in 2017, but he was competing with Murray and Stan I guess for the primetime slot.

I guess the question is how far do we extend this? Is it only unfair for Federer to be given the prime courts and timeslots or does that apply to other top players? Should the #100 and #57 get equal chances to play on the best courts?
 
IMO the scheduling stuff has been overblown a little bit. The one match which was definitely a mistake IMO was putting Djokovic vs Monfils on during the day instead of Federer vs Struff. That would have made things fair - though it seems like Djokovic's team may have requested a day match? So it's not clear it the tournament is at fault there.

I can't remember the scheduling too much in 2017, but he was competing with Murray and Stan I guess for the primetime slot.

I guess the question is how far do we extend this? Is it only unfair for Federer to be given the prime courts and timeslots or does that apply to other top players? Should the #100 and #57 get equal chances to play on the best courts?
The scheduling stuff has been overblown, I agree.
I suppose the scheduling is a balancing act between the integrity of the tournament as a sporting event and the commercial interests which are more and more important these days.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It is obvious to all that you don't have the simple words "equality" and "fairness" in your dictionary and in the evaluation of tennis. The bias is the only factor in your tennis world. Too too bad.
Says the guy who uses those words, but is a living, breathing example of sh*tty , biased & delusional evaluations


I illustrated what fairness is here :

"That's not a fair comparison.
Federer played the day session in R2 vs a low ranked guy in Rubin at Rod Laver arena.
Use that as comparision.

I don't know what court Sampras played his first round match in Wim 02.

They don't have top/most popular players outside of main courts in the recent years. That's not Federer specific. (Edit) If you say they could/should have had Fed play a match on Margaret Court Arena in R1/R2 , then yeah, I'll agree. "

Its just that your sh*tty mind refused to read/comprehend it as it went against your crappy delusional views.
:D
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
IMO the scheduling stuff has been overblown a little bit. The one match which was definitely a mistake IMO was putting Djokovic vs Monfils on during the day instead of Federer vs Struff. That would have made things fair - though it seems like Djokovic's team may have requested a day match? So it's not clear it the tournament is at fault there.

I can't remember the scheduling too much in 2017, but he was competing with Murray and Stan I guess for the primetime slot.

I guess the question is how far do we extend this? Is it only unfair for Federer to be given the prime courts and timeslots or does that apply to other top players? Should the #100 and #57 get equal chances to play on the best courts?
See this post :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...p-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/post-12892967
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I'd say 3rd and 4th rounds Fed was right to be in the night spot but for the QF I definitely think Wawa and Tsonga should have had it,

So IMO Federer was given two extra night matches more than maybe he should have. Don't think it changed the course of the tournaments though by any means. IMO the best potential matches should be in the prime slots, sometimes and maybe a lot of the time that will be Federer but on a couple of occasions in the last couple of years on paper maybe he should have gone in the day.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'd say 3rd and 4th rounds Fed was right to be in the night spot but for the QF I definitely think Wawa and Tsonga should have had it,

So IMO Federer was given two extra night matches more than maybe he should have. Don't think it changed the course of the tournaments though by any means. IMO the best potential matches should be in the prime slots, sometimes and maybe a lot of the time that will be Federer but on a couple of occasions in the last couple of years on paper maybe he should have gone in the day.
They could have put Stan-Tsonga in the night session for the QF, but 2 extra matches ?
If you are referring to AO 17 and AO 18 combined, then yes.

The Federer-Struff match this year in 2R should've been the day session and I was surprised it wasn't. But since Djoko's team requested for the day session, things changed.
 
Really you mean this !!! Maybe it's a joke.
Please check how many are the active years of Kramer as a pro.
Please check the strength of his opponents in the first 2 series (out of 4 total).
Please answer yourselves why Kramer didn't played vs Gonzalez in World series after 1950.
In fact, Ivan, I must partially change my mind about what I wrote about Kramer BPOAT, after seeing how he won in his Era.
Jack was probably seen as unbeatable and considered the greatest by many champions who have played in his time but by carefully looking at his career he gets out some extra benefits:mad: in the Tours, and while I can properly consider the World Tours to 4-men, not I can do the same with the World Tours 1v1.
Ultimately Jack has won much less than many champions that have followed over time and although it is true that this is his period and must be analyzed his period with the eyes and the mind of that historical period is also true that being the best player winning 10 tournaments can not be equal to being number one winning the only tournament.
Let me explain: if by hypothesis to be the best player in a year the player only need to win a match v the second opponent, ... I can consider the best player but its value is extremely low.
I have to rethink Kramer again and try to place him in the best of worlds. It will not be easy.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
They could have put Stan-Tsonga in the night session for the QF, but 2 extra matches ?
If you are referring to AO 17 and AO 18 combined, then yes.

The Federer-Struff match this year in 2R should've been the day session and I was surprised it wasn't. But since Djoko's team requested for the day session, things changed.
That post was following on from my other one where I said Djok vs Monfils should have been a night match so yes two across both.

And yeah I mean I do think it seems likely Djokovic's team requested the day session but I don't feel like getting into it.
 
TV will have a say in calling the shots too. They like the big stars on prime time. Why did Wimbledon get a roof? A large part of the reason would be to guarantee tv coverage for the BBC and the overseas tv networks. The Slams are a commercial business, an entertainment business and a sport.
The big stars will always get favouritism to some degree in any field.
Just common sense.
 
All big time sport has become more commercialized over the years, from tennis to football/soccer to boxing to athletics/ track & field. Look at the Olympics and the World Cup. It's the way of the world, from sport to the media to entertainment, everything. I don't like it myself, but money talks.
I agree, yes, there should be as level a playing field as possible in purely sporting terms.
You agree there should be a fair sport but you are easily put up with the commercializing. Well, that's the big problem. I don't accept the commercializing at all. And if the fans, experts, newspapers speak loud and are united that the sport should be fair than the problems can be solved.
Otherwise nothing will happen if they hide themselves in the mouse holes.
 
IMO the scheduling stuff has been overblown a little bit. The one match which was definitely a mistake IMO was putting Djokovic vs Monfils on during the day instead of Federer vs Struff. That would have made things fair - though it seems like Djokovic's team may have requested a day match? So it's not clear it the tournament is at fault there.

I can't remember the scheduling too much in 2017, but he was competing with Murray and Stan I guess for the primetime slot.

I guess the question is how far do we extend this? Is it only unfair for Federer to be given the prime courts and timeslots or does that apply to other top players? Should the #100 and #57 get equal chances to play on the best courts?
Overblown? The admittance of Tiley means a lot more than an usual statement of a torunament director. The worse thing is that he considers this practice normal and natural. And he made a hint that other tournament directors agree with this (very similar as make this).
To your question Tiley didn't mentioned other players for doing this. He specifically said that Federer deserved these privileges for being the one in the generation.
 
The scheduling stuff has been overblown, I agree.
I suppose the scheduling is a balancing act between the integrity of the tournament as a sporting event and the commercial interests which are more and more important these days.
Australian open needs an integrity??? It's not prestigious enough ??? Or the demand and the commercials are low ???
Maybe that's why it increases the prize money every year by 10% or so.
 
Says the guy who uses those words, but is a living, breathing example of sh*tty , biased & delusional evaluations


I illustrated what fairness is here :

"That's not a fair comparison.
Federer played the day session in R2 vs a low ranked guy in Rubin at Rod Laver arena.
Use that as comparision.

I don't know what court Sampras played his first round match in Wim 02.

They don't have top/most popular players outside of main courts in the recent years. That's not Federer specific. (Edit) If you say they could/should have had Fed play a match on Margaret Court Arena in R1/R2 , then yeah, I'll agree. "

Its just that your sh*tty mind refused to read/comprehend it as it went against your crappy delusional views.
:D
The fanatics are very very bad for the world - in any form.
 
They could have put Stan-Tsonga in the night session for the QF, but 2 extra matches ?
If you are referring to AO 17 and AO 18 combined, then yes.

The Federer-Struff match this year in 2R should've been the day session and I was surprised it wasn't. But since Djoko's team requested for the day session, things changed.
Ha-ha. Now Djoko's team had the fault. After you've been proven wrong in the other thread that this wasn't the case. Live in your delusions!
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Ha-ha. Now Djoko's team had the fault. After you've been proven wrong in the other thread that this wasn't the case. Live in your delusions!
oh look, the delusional nutjob Ivan69 at it again.

I've have pretty strong evidence backing up what I said in that thread.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ceives-special-treatment.631159/post-12889252
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ceives-special-treatment.631159/post-12890622

And delusional nutjobs in that thread including you were shut up because of that.

 
yes, I agree.
That's why a fanatic like you, that too a delusional one like you is very bad.
Everybody can see in this forum who is fanatically biased. You are caught by other posters in every thread you enters.
They are many decent Federer fans in the forum. You are just not among them.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Everybody can see in this forum who is fanatically biased. You are caught by other posters in every thread you enters.
They are many decent Federer fans in the forum. You are just not among them.
oh you mean the other BS posters whose BS I expose ?



Most of the posters laugh at you and recognise you are a total tool.

fanatic of using numbers (though in many cases you don't even know sh*t about how numbers should actually be used and when)

fanatically biased towards Rosewall (& to an extent towards Laver)

fanatically biased against Federer

apply some burnol on that massive butthurt.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Teenagers, teenagers! Can they really grow up?:rolleyes: Sometimes they can, sometimes not.
yes. But that's not relevant here.
Now can we get back to you getting some psychological help ?
You really need for your delusions, being a total tool, nutjob, inability to read/comprehend anything that against your views/opinions, to heal your massive butthurt etc. etc.
 
yes. But that's not relevant here.
Now can we get back to you getting some psychological help ?
You really need for your delusions, being a total tool, nutjob, inability to read/comprehend anything that against your views/opinions, to heal your massive butthurt etc. etc.
Oh, hugely relevant.
Only the teenagers use a vulgar language when they have no arguments.
Only the teenagers write before they think.
Only the teenagers cry fanatically on the stadiums and in the threads to prove their bias to a player or team.

Good bye! It's too boring with you.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Oh, hugely relevant.
Only the teenagers use a vulgar language when they have no arguments.
Only the teenagers write before they think.
Only the teenagers cry fanatically on the stadiums and in the threads to prove their bias to a player or team.

Good bye! It's too boring with you.
oh the arguments are all shown precisely and you got owned every single time. But your delusional mind continues to stay in a state of denial. :D
The strong words used against you are because you are all of those. You are that sad an individual.
That's the reality.

The amount of butthurt within you is so big that you are resorting to calling people who call out your BS as teenagers,

LOL !!!

Like I said , get some help !
 
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
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT

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

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
Kramer BPOAT

1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Borg T1
5) Federer T1
6) Djokovic T1
7) Sampras T1/T2
8) McEnroe T1/T2
9) Connors T2
10) Nadal T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Rosewall T2/T3
13) Riggs T2/T3
My ranking GOAT Post War II
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two Americans is halved.


1) Gonzalez T1
2) Federer T1
3) Laver 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
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Borg T1
5) Hoad T1
6) Federer T1
7) Djokovic T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Anderson -- 2nd GOAT of all time.
AO 72 - Greatest tournament of all time

Lets all dance and celebrate for that !

:D:D
Trash Mal Anderson all you want, but he was a slam winner and won Wembley against top players in 58 or 59. Also, in that 72 AO he defeated John Newcombe, a great grass court player of that time. Had Laver won that tournament, I doubt it would be so trivialized. Laver did play the AO the year before but lost to a much less player, career wise, than Anderson.
 
My ranking GOAT Post War II
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two Americans is halved.


1) Gonzalez T1
2) Federer T1
3) Laver 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
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Borg T1
5) Hoad T1
6) Federer T1
7) Djokovic T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3
What does BPOAT stand for? Am too lazy to go through previous posts to find out-LOL!
 
A lot of silence here after the stormy months in the last years. :) This allowed me to make long lasted researches in the last 4 months about the 2 tennis giants Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall - more or less underestimated by some posters. I prepared short resumes of both with the main intention that if discussing a player we need to know his career in full details.
Let's start with Ken Rosewall - "loved", hated and maybe most underestimated player by posters.

I think I have discovered 99.99% of the single matches (possibly I could miss a couple of matches which I don’t know) and about 90-95% of the double matches (I don’t have an info whether double matches were played on 104 tournaments Ken has participated + some tour stops). It does not include the matches in the junior sections of the tournaments in the early years as well as the veteran matches.

Ken Rosewall's general career info

Career period - 32 years, 10 months, 5 days
Age at 1st men tournament - 14 years, 5 months, 14 days
Age at last men tournament - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last men tournament final - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last title - 43 years, 0 months, 25 days

Total career matches played - 3,929 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 2,583 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,346

Tournament entries - 560 (all time No 1)
Tour entries - 35 (all time No 1 most probably)

Career achievements

Total wins - 2,865 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 1,853 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,012

Total losses - 1,064
incl. single matches - 730
incl. doubles matches - 334

Total titles - 287 (all time No 2 after Laver)
incl. single titles - 139
incl. doubles titles - 121
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 20

Total big titles (best+second best tournaments and tours) - 160 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single titles - 69
incl. doubles titles - 76
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 8

Total majors (pro majors + grand slams + Davis cup + Kramer cup) - 55 (all time No 1)
incl. single titles - 23 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles titles - 25 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 1

Total finals (incl. second places) - 199
incl. single finals - 111
incl. doubles finals - 88

Total semis (incl. third places) - 176
incl. single semis - 124
incl. doubles semis - 52

Total quarters (incl. fourth places) - 94
incl. single quarters - 59
incl. doubles quarters - 35

Ranking
Top 20 player - 26 years
Top 10 player - 22 years
Top 5 player - 18 years
Top 3 player - 15 years
No 3 - 2 years
No 2 - 7 years
No 1 - 6 years

Competition
Wins vs Top 10 - 658 (all time No 1)
Losses vs Top 10 - 480
Balance vs Top 10 - +178


Now based on all data I have about all the players I can definitely say that Ken's career is one of the most impressive (could be also the most impressive) in the all-time tennis history. Having already all the figures I am still amazed (shocked) that a player has played nearly 4,000 matches through his career, 2 or 3 times more than most of the tennis legends. The efficiency of these matches is really epic – 267 titles in 560 tournaments (48%) and 20 titles in 35 tours (57%).

I don't pretend about a copyright of the info unlike a poster here does so. The tennis info is for all people. I just wanted to prepare this full collection and to share it in the forum because everyone has the right to know it. As far as I know nobody did such full collection of a pre-OE player before.

The info above will be constantly updated when I found new data. I will highly appreciate if somebody is willing to help me with the doubles matches which I don't have an info for. I can send a list of the tournaments and tour stops where I miss an info.

Later I will post Laver's resume. Unfortunately I need time for editing the format of the info. It appears very chaotic when pasted.
 
Last edited:
A lot of silence here after the stormy months in the last years. :) This allowed me to make long lasted researches in the last 4 months about the 2 tennis giants Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall - more or less underestimated by some posters. I prepared short resumes of both with the main intention that if discussing a player we need to know his career in full details.
Let's start with Ken Rosewall - "loved", hated and maybe most underestimated player by posters.

I think I have discovered 99.99% of the single matches (possibly I could miss a couple of matches which I don’t know) and about 90-95% of the double matches (I don’t have an info whether double matches were played on 104 tournaments Ken has participated + some tour stops). It does not include the matches in the junior sections of the tournaments in the early years as well as the veteran matches.

Ken Rosewall's general career info

Career period - 32 years, 10 months, 5 days
Age at 1st men tournament - 14 years, 5 months, 14 days
Age at last men tournament - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last men tournament final - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last title - 43 years, 0 months, 25 days

Total career matches played - 3,929 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 2,583 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,346

Tournament entries - 560 (all time No 1)
Tour entries - 35 (all time No 1 most probably)

Career achievements

Total wins - 2,865 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 1,853 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,012

Total losses - 1,064
incl. single matches - 730
incl. doubles matches - 334

Total titles - 287 (all time No 2 after Laver)
incl. single titles - 139
incl. doubles titles - 121
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 20

Total big titles (best+second best tournaments and tours) - 160 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single titles - 69
incl. doubles titles - 76
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 8

Total majors (pro majors + grand slams + Davis cup + Kramer cup) - 54 (all time No 1)
incl. single titles - 23 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles titles - 25 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 0

Total finals (incl. second places) - 199
incl. single finals - 111
incl. doubles finals - 88

Total semis (incl. third places) - 176
incl. single semis - 124
incl. doubles semis - 52

Total quarters (incl. fourth places) - 94
incl. single quarters - 59
incl. doubles quarters - 35

Ranking
Top 20 player - 26 years
Top 10 player - 22 years
Top 5 player - 18 years
Top 3 player - 15 years
No 3 - 2 years
No 2 - 7 years
No 1 - 6 years

Competition
Wins vs Top 10 - 658 (all time No 1)
Losses vs Top 10 - 480
Balance vs Top 10 - +178


Now based on all data I have about all the players I can definitely say that Ken's career is one of the most impressive (could be also the most impressive) in the all-time tennis history. Having already all the figures I am still amazed (shocked) that a player has played nearly 4,000 matches through his career, 2 or 3 times more than most of the tennis legends. The efficiency of these matches is really epic – 267 titles in 560 tournaments (48%) and 20 titles in 35 tours (57%).

I don't pretend about a copyright of the info unlike a poster here does so. The tennis info is for all people. I just wanted to prepare this full collection and to share it in the forum because everyone has the right to know it. As far as I know nobody did such full collection of a pre-OE player before.

The info above will be constantly updated when I found new data. I will highly appreciate if somebody is willing to help me with the doubles matches which I don't have an info for. I can send a list of the tournaments and tour stops where I miss an info.

Later I will post Laver's resume. Unfortunately I need time for editing the format of the info. It appears very chaotic when pasted.
Great work Ivan, Thanks!
 
A lot of silence here after the stormy months in the last years. :) This allowed me to make long lasted researches in the last 4 months about the 2 tennis giants Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall - more or less underestimated by some posters. I prepared short resumes of both with the main intention that if discussing a player we need to know his career in full details.
Let's start with Ken Rosewall - "loved", hated and maybe most underestimated player by posters.

I think I have discovered 99.99% of the single matches (possibly I could miss a couple of matches which I don’t know) and about 90-95% of the double matches (I don’t have an info whether double matches were played on 104 tournaments Ken has participated + some tour stops). It does not include the matches in the junior sections of the tournaments in the early years as well as the veteran matches.

Ken Rosewall's general career info

Career period - 32 years, 10 months, 5 days
Age at 1st men tournament - 14 years, 5 months, 14 days
Age at last men tournament - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last men tournament final - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last title - 43 years, 0 months, 25 days

Total career matches played - 3,929 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 2,583 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,346

Tournament entries - 560 (all time No 1)
Tour entries - 35 (all time No 1 most probably)

Career achievements

Total wins - 2,865 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 1,853 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,012

Total losses - 1,064
incl. single matches - 730
incl. doubles matches - 334

Total titles - 287 (all time No 2 after Laver)
incl. single titles - 139
incl. doubles titles - 121
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 20

Total big titles (best+second best tournaments and tours) - 160 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single titles - 69
incl. doubles titles - 76
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 8

Total majors (pro majors + grand slams + Davis cup + Kramer cup) - 54 (all time No 1)
incl. single titles - 23 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles titles - 25 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 0

Total finals (incl. second places) - 199
incl. single finals - 111
incl. doubles finals - 88

Total semis (incl. third places) - 176
incl. single semis - 124
incl. doubles semis - 52

Total quarters (incl. fourth places) - 94
incl. single quarters - 59
incl. doubles quarters - 35

Ranking
Top 20 player - 26 years
Top 10 player - 22 years
Top 5 player - 18 years
Top 3 player - 15 years
No 3 - 2 years
No 2 - 7 years
No 1 - 6 years

Competition
Wins vs Top 10 - 658 (all time No 1)
Losses vs Top 10 - 480
Balance vs Top 10 - +178


Now based on all data I have about all the players I can definitely say that Ken's career is one of the most impressive (could be also the most impressive) in the all-time tennis history. Having already all the figures I am still amazed (shocked) that a player has played nearly 4,000 matches through his career, 2 or 3 times more than most of the tennis legends. The efficiency of these matches is really epic – 267 titles in 560 tournaments (48%) and 20 titles in 35 tours (57%).

I don't pretend about a copyright of the info unlike a poster here does so. The tennis info is for all people. I just wanted to prepare this full collection and to share it in the forum because everyone has the right to know it. As far as I know nobody did such full collection of a pre-OE player before.

The info above will be constantly updated when I found new data. I will highly appreciate if somebody is willing to help me with the doubles matches which I don't have an info for. I can send a list of the tournaments and tour stops where I miss an info.

Later I will post Laver's resume. Unfortunately I need time for editing the format of the info. It appears very chaotic when pasted.
The informations that you have and the work that you have done is super.

I think that all-time overall career of Rosewall is the most impressive of all, perhaps superior to Laver's. The man was phenomenal.

All the data would need to be commented (positively), we should all be grateful to a champion like that.

Infinite Ken.
 
My ranking GOAT Post War II
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two Americans is halved.


1) Gonzalez T1
2) Federer T1
3) Laver 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
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Borg T1
5) Hoad T1
6) Federer T1
7) Djokovic T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3
Did you update this recently? Because you posted a different ranking for both GOAT and BOAT in the other top 10 of all time topic.
 
Did you update this recently? Because you posted a different ranking for both GOAT and BOAT in the other top 10 of all time topic.
This has an update to 9 january ... it may have updated another thread more recently.:oops:
There are some similar threads and I have a tendency to change my opinion often though not radically. Especially when IMHO the differences are minimal.

You are right ... in another thread I updated my ranking while this was some time that was not used and remained hidden. ;)

My ranking GOAT Post War II - MALE
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two americans is halved.

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

My ranking BPOAT Post War II - MALE
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Djokovic T1
5) Borg T1
6) Federer T1
7) Hoad T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3

I undoubtedly prefer the GOAT Ranking, it fascinates me less a ranking made only on the perception of the peak (as it used so many years ago).

The only change concerns Djokovic, which I think has overtaken Borg and Sampras (GOAT Ranking). I see the three very close, probably he had overtaken them before, I simply have the feeling that in the last few months, especially after the record in Melbourne Nole can be placed ahead in my GOAT Ranking.

As for the BPOAT Ranking, it is not that Djokovic in Melbourne has become a better player than before, perhaps retracing his career I realized that I had underestimated him. Again I think there are minimal differences with Borg and Federer (and I assume Hoad).
 
Last edited:
Top