Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Calm down! You are still not relaxed and not following the conversation.
NatF said: "Gone are the days where Rosewall was called a 23 slam champ ...". It seems that the world has NOT forgotten this and will not forget it. The fact that NoMercy and Dan Lobb (what a perfect tennis pair) don't like this is not my problem. I am not using Wiki, I just responded to NatF what the people (not me) think about that matter. Is their info from Wiki I don't know. You can ask them. Fortunately the world would not accept the weird methods of NM about the selective counting of titles.
No more response from me on this matter which is crystal clear.
Again calm down and breathe deep! And please send congrats to the new RED champions. They deserve it.
I am very calm, as said various times.
What the world (or part of it) maybe knows can be wrong. I just posted the example, with Laver having supposedly won 200 titles, when he won more. Even in the Laver Cup Trophy there are just 200 lines, as per 200 titles.
And from where they took that number?
Wikipedia.
Or for example the wiki page of the similar M1000. The value of those Rosewall’s 23 is the same as the value of these Wikipedia pages.
 
Ha. Interesting. Just months ago you said that next to Rosewall's amateur slams you don't count also Laver's because all they were "scrappy".
Please tell me then how many titles do you count for Laver. What about the other non-slam titles as an amateur? They were maybe ultra-challengers in your view and maybe not subject of counting too.
I see that, as always, you didn’t understand the meaning of the post.
The meaning was that there are so many wrong info on the web and around, that are not reliable. Like the 23 Majors of Rosewall, the 109 tournaments of connors or the 200 tournaments of a Laver.
But if you like to accept as good that 23, you should accept also the 109 or the 200.
They are all wrong, but it’s what the world knows.
 
Last edited:
You found nothing that reported Rosewall's singles and doubles results together as one number.....and your numbers above are unidentified as to era or time period....not helpful.

The Red champions won on a garbage penalty goal.
Please start with the first lessons. Then other will come.

I see. Football is so far from you like tennis.
 
I am very calm, as said various times.
What the world (or part of it) maybe knows can be wrong. I just posted the example, with Laver having supposedly won 200 titles, when he won more. Even in the Laver Cup Trophy there are just 200 lines, as per 200 titles.
And from where they took that number?
Wikipedia.
Or for example the wiki page of the similar M1000. The value of those Rosewall’s 23 is the same as the value of these Wikipedia pages.
I don't know. Ask the writers. I disagree with other numbers. But here I agree with that number. 23 is correct.
Wiki is wrong about the total titles of maybe all players from the past. But that's another big case.
The issue of Connors (and many other) is commonly known. They say what ATP says. But as KG told in another thread Connors' wikipage is almost correct with all not-sanctioned titles. I don't know. If it's so it's good, better than not showing anything.
 
I see that, as always, you didn’t understand the meaning of the post.
The meaning was that there are so many wrong info on the web and around, that are not reliable. Like the 23 Majors of Rosewall, the 109 tournaments of connors or the 200 tournaments of a Laver.
But if you like to accept as good that 23, you should accept also the 109 or the 200.
They are all wrong, but it’s what the world knows.
Those posts had nothing to do with the web info. You always have meant and said that the amateur slams were a joke. You directly said that Laver has no GS in 1962. Generally you ignores the amateur division as too too weak. Not arguing here, just mentioning your opinion.
So please tell me how many titles you do count for Laver. How do you evaluate the amateur titles of Laver - weak, very weak, ultra weak, super good (!?!) based on your opinion on the amateurs?
If the number 200 for Laver bothers you please feel free to update it. wiki is a open source. The world would know more exact figures.
 
This is an interesting question, how to evaluate weak slams.

Laver won the 1961 and 1962 Wimbledon titles by beating a list of players of whom possibly only one (Santana) was among the top ten in the world.

Arthur Ashe won the 1970 Australian Open without beating a top ten player (Ralston withdrew from his match).

There are many weak titles on any champion's list, including Rosewall's.
 
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
1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Nadal T1... becomes GOAT contender IMO
5) Rosewall T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
 
Djok is far above Borg and Sampras. In any aspect.
I think that the three are very close.
I agree with you that Djoker has won more (even a lot more) but I believe that the historical importance (icon) of Borg and the 12 W & USO (the two bigger ones of that period) of Pete do group the three in my eyes (and in my opinion in the eyes of many).
I understand the opinion of those who put Djoker in front of the two.
 
The whole goat stuff may be exciting for some, but better to sit back and enjoy and appreciate the achievements by those great tennis players. Its certainly correct, that some players transcended their own era by setting great individual records, like Tilden with his utter dominance and a 950 % or what record over 10 years, Budge with his great peak run at ams and pros, Gonzalez with his long reign as king of the pro hill, Rosewall with his longevity, Laver with his true Grand Slams and 211 and counting tournament wins, Borg with his reign at RG and Wim, Sampras with his great fastcourt record. Now Nadal has set a record, which is among the most amazing in tennis, one of the very few records, where the men did better than the women. The dirty dozen at the most tough major is sensational. One aspect i find especially interessant, is that Nadal is facing now at RG with Thiem a genuine tough challenger of the new generation, who has the right work ethic. While at Wim and on hc some of the old folks like Anderson, Cilic or Isner are making runs to the final, but do freeze, when it really matters. I hope that Zverev or Tsitsipas can learn from him and make a move now at Wim or USO.
RG is not about grinding. Following a New York Times article of today, the majority of exchanges at RG have only 2-3 strokes, way less than the exchanges at the USO lately Obviously Nadal finds it easier to land and dictate with his big forehand at the faster conditions at RG, than on the slower courts at Flushing. If i see it right, most of the last 8 at RG this year were pretty big hitters.
Nadal and Moya expressed, that he had a tough time, especially mentally, after his Indian Wells injury and his lackluster performances earlier in the clay season. But he regrouped mentally, with Rome giving him a big boost. Now i expect him to do well at Wim, he came close last year, and on the slow courts of Flushing, he is at least co-favorite, when healthy.
 
I think that the three are very close.
I agree with you that Djoker has won more (even a lot more) but I believe that the historical importance (icon) of Borg and the 12 W & USO (the two bigger ones of that period) of Pete do group the three in my eyes (and in my opinion in the eyes of many).
I understand the opinion of those who put Djoker in front of the two.
The issue is that Borg and Sampras are not even close to Nole. He is far above IN ANY ASPECT.
The historical importance in every sport is measured with the achievements. Borg and Samp became famous with their titles (slams). Nole surpassed them in every possible way. Borg and Samp had weaknesses on some surfaces. Nole is good on all surfaces.
 
The whole goat stuff may be exciting for some, but better to sit back and enjoy and appreciate the achievements by those great tennis players. Its certainly correct, that some players transcended their own era by setting great individual records, like Tilden with his utter dominance and a 950 % or what record over 10 years, Budge with his great peak run at ams and pros, Gonzalez with his long reign as king of the pro hill, Rosewall with his longevity, Laver with his true Grand Slams and 211 and counting tournament wins, Borg with his reign at RG and Wim, Sampras with his great fastcourt record. Now Nadal has set a record, which is among the most amazing in tennis, one of the very few records, where the men did better than the women. The dirty dozen at the most tough major is sensational. One aspect i find especially interessant, is that Nadal is facing now at RG with Thiem a genuine tough challenger of the new generation, who has the right work ethic. While at Wim and on hc some of the old folks like Anderson, Cilic or Isner are making runs to the final, but do freeze, when it really matters. I hope that Zverev or Tsitsipas can learn from him and make a move now at Wim or USO.
RG is not about grinding. Following a New York Times article of today, the majority of exchanges at RG have only 2-3 strokes, way less than the exchanges at the USO lately Obviously Nadal finds it easier to land and dictate with his big forehand at the faster conditions at RG, than on the slower courts at Flushing. If i see it right, most of the last 8 at RG this year were pretty big hitters.
Nadal and Moya expressed, that he had a tough time, especially mentally, after his Indian Wells injury and his lackluster performances earlier in the clay season. But he regrouped mentally, with Rome giving him a big boost. Now i expect him to do well at Wim, he came close last year, and on the slow courts of Flushing, he is at least co-favorite, when healthy.
I didn't get your point about these 950%.
 
1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Nadal T1... becomes GOAT contender IMO
5) Rosewall T1/T2
6) Borg T2
7) Sampras T2
8) Djokovic T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
A great day for Nole.
Not only has he simply won a slam, but he has won the 5th Wimbledon in an unlikely match.:eek::eek::eek:
Although the media is not interested in Serbian:mad:, Nole has accomplished a phantasmagorical feat that projects him high in my ranking....
in the territories of Muscles. Nadal and the big 3 are close.


1) Federer T1
2) Laver T1
3) Gonzalez T1
4) Nadal T1
5) Rosewall T1/T2
6) Djokovic T1/T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
 
the Novak of the last few years is certainly the king of all times of the mentality.
the Novak of the early years maybe not.
Yeah, peaking Djokovic is a bloody monster deep in an epic match mentally but there's been a lot of missed opportunities and matches that's he's needlessly extended through poor play as well.

At his best he's maybe the most annoying rock ever lol. But let's not forget that he lost a lot of winnable matches in 2012-2014 as well, even in 2015 he played a poor match tactically against Stan in the FO final.
 
Yeah, peaking Djokovic is a bloody monster deep in an epic match mentally but there's been a lot of missed opportunities and matches that's he's needlessly extended through poor play as well.

At his best he's maybe the most annoying rock ever lol. But let's not forget that he lost a lot of winnable matches in 2012-2014 as well, even in 2015 he played a poor match tactically against Stan in the FO final.
Yes, I wanted to mean just that. There are some aspects of the champions that have been mythologized.
For example Sampras was super cold. In slam tournaments always won close matches. In the Masters 1000 he almost always lost the close matches.
Borg was terrific in the 3 out of 5. We thinks that he was unbeatable because he was cold in the clutch moments. But at the US Open it was very down. Even in tie-breaks he was anything but glacial.
 
Last edited:
the Novak of the last few years is certainly the king of all times of the mentality.
the Novak of the early years maybe not.
Maybe you have forgotten the epic matches vs Roger on US in 2010 and 2011 and vs Rafa on AO in 2012. The strong mentality is largely visible in big big matches when both players have even chances to win. Especially playing vs the top rivals.
 
Yeah, peaking Djokovic is a bloody monster deep in an epic match mentally but there's been a lot of missed opportunities and matches that's he's needlessly extended through poor play as well.

At his best he's maybe the most annoying rock ever lol. But let's not forget that he lost a lot of winnable matches in 2012-2014 as well, even in 2015 he played a poor match tactically against Stan in the FO final.
All three of today's "Big 3" have a habit of giving away tons of clinching points, which you did not see from the likes of Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Borg, Sampras. This is something new for the top players.
 
Mentality comes with success. Djoker now is certainly a cool customer, but he has the advantage, that he has built a winning aura around himself as Nr. 1. But he lost surprisingly several big finals, especially at USO, where his best surface is laid down. For a time, he looked like a second Lendl, by losing quite many GS finals against Murray or Wawrinka. Sometimes even now he has the habit, to get passive and inactive, not going offensively for the kill. Such was the case now at 3-2 final set against Fed, and he later spoilt a lot of 30-30 points on Feds serve with tame and passive returning, when Feds serve lost a bit of sting due to tiredness. In some tight RG matches vs. Nadal he let Nadal back into the match, who went on the offensive with his big forehand. And this year, against Thiem at RG he looked anything like that mental beast, that the press is now claiming. In tight five setters i would go with people like Newcombe, Borg, Becker and Sampras, with their serves they certainly could close out matches.
 
Yeah, peaking Djokovic is a bloody monster deep in an epic match mentally but there's been a lot of missed opportunities and matches that's he's needlessly extended through poor play as well.

At his best he's maybe the most annoying rock ever lol. But let's not forget that he lost a lot of winnable matches in 2012-2014 as well, even in 2015 he played a poor match tactically against Stan in the FO final.
Well, 2012-2014 were not the perfect seasons for Nole but 3 slams, 10 Masters and 2 ATP finals were a good achievement. He lost several finals and semis but the opponents were Nadal, Fed and Murray. The only match I remember Nole could have won in that period was US 2012 vs Murray. The other matches I think were not close.

I think he didn't played badly on RG 2015. First, Stan was extremely good in that match. Second, it's my opinion that Nole didn't entered RG fully fresh. He won consecutively AO, IW, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome.
 
Mentality comes with success. Djoker now is certainly a cool customer, but he has the advantage, that he has built a winning aura around himself as Nr. 1.
The history shows that Djoker's mentality is rather inherent than a result of a success. Still at 19/20 he had about 10 wins vs No 2 Nadal, No 1 Fed, No 3 Roddick, No 5 Davydenko. 1-2 wins of young players vs top players could be considered a surprise. Many wins indicate about something more than pure tennis qualities.
But he lost surprisingly several big finals, especially at USO, where his best surface is laid down. For a time, he looked like a second Lendl, by losing quite many GS finals against Murray or Wawrinka.
Why surprisingly? Murray and Wawrinka were strong players at that time.
In some tight RG matches vs. Nadal he let Nadal back into the match, who went on the offensive with his big forehand.
Novak has 1 win and 6 losses vs Nadal at RG. Out of these 6 losses only 1 match was tight - RG 2013. All the other were regular wins for Rafa.
In tight five setters i would go with people like Newcombe, Borg, Becker and Sampras, with their serves they certainly could close out matches.
The good serving has been always an important part of the game. But important is also the return. Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and I would include Fed are most probably the best returners. So, the serving of Newcombe, Borg, Becker and Sampras would not have been so effective if they were good returners. Agassi was a good returner but not as good as the current top players.
 
Well, 2012-2014 were not the perfect seasons for Nole but 3 slams, 10 Masters and 2 ATP finals were a good achievement. He lost several finals and semis but the opponents were Nadal, Fed and Murray. The only match I remember Nole could have won in that period was US 2012 vs Murray. The other matches I think were not close.

I think he didn't played badly on RG 2015. First, Stan was extremely good in that match. Second, it's my opinion that Nole didn't entered RG fully fresh. He won consecutively AO, IW, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome.
He achieved a lot in 2012-2014 but probably not as much as he should have imo.

He played passively against Stan in that final that was his problem. His worst final was probably against Murray in 2013 at Wimbledon but he had an absolute epic against Del Potro in the SF. He was unfortunate with draws a couple of times in those years e. g. drawing Wawrinka in the SF and QF of the USO and AO.
 
He achieved a lot in 2012-2014 but probably not as much as he should have imo.

He played passively against Stan in that final that was his problem. His worst final was probably against Murray in 2013 at Wimbledon but he had an absolute epic against Del Potro in the SF. He was unfortunate with draws a couple of times in those years e. g. drawing Wawrinka in the SF and QF of the USO and AO.
What a player should win is a extremely complex question. Especially in the monster competition in those years. Next to Fed and Nadal they were Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo. Not to exclude also the common big fighter Ferrer. 6-7 top fighters - not predictable.

I disagree that Wim 2013 was the worst final for Novak. Despite the win in straight sets both played a top 3 and half hour match. Novak seemed to be a bit more tired after the 5 hours battle with Delpo. Andy had a comfortable win to Janovicz. Novak led 4-1 in the second set I think but lost his advantage with many unforced errors. In the same time Andy was too too solid. Finally, this was not a winnable match having in mind the circumstances.

IMO the slam matches Novak should have won at any price were US 2014 vs Nishi, US 2012 vs Murray and Wim 2010 vs Berdych.
 
Top