Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

thrust

Hall of Fame
According to you, what does Nadal needs to overcome Federer, Laver and Rosewall respectively?
:unsure:
In reality, players of the pre open era should be ranked separately from the open era. Overall, I would rank Nadal even or just above Federer, then Novak, Sampras, Borg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

clout

Hall of Fame
I think I've posted a list here before but that was definitely over a year ago and obviously, a lot has happened since. Also, I'm a noob when it comes to knowledge regarding the pre-open era so I'll just make a list for open era players only:

1. Roger Federer
2. Rafael Nadal (he could easily be number one this time next year)
3. Novak Djokovic (he could very well end up as number one, or number two at least, in a couple/few years as well)
4. Pete Sampras (can't believe how "small" his 14 looks these days, even as an Agassi fan I kinda feel for Pete on this one)
5. Bjorn Borg
6. Jimmy Connors
7. Ivan Lendl
8. Andre Agassi
9. John McEnroe
10. Boris Becker/Stefan Edberg/Mats Wilander/Rod Laver (none of these four would be incorrect)

It's hard to rank players but I tried doing my best :D(y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
According to you, what does Nadal needs to overcome Federer, Laver and Rosewall respectively?
:unsure:
The current difference b/w Nadal and Fed is 14,000 points based on the current pointing system. So, it depends what would be the achievements of both in the next years. For instance, this year (up to now) Nadal decreased the difference by 3,700 points (9,225 won by Nadal, 5,510 won by Fed).
The difference b/w Nadal and Laver is 32,000 points. The difference b/w Nadal and Rosewall is 41,000 points.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Count me among those who were less than enthralled with last nite's final which was hit-and-miss to say the least. While Medvedev did show plenty of moxie and I do expect him to win a major eventually I just can't get moi that excited about him. Don't see anything in his game that screams world-beater, that extra gear which the likes of Cash, Stich, Krajicek, Korda, Goran, Delpo and Cilic (to run a laundry list of recent one-Slammers) displayed fairly regularly. He strikes me as more businesslike in the Ferrer/Davydenko mold that ensures consistent results but will render him at risk against a redlining opponent like those guys just mentioned, let alone an ATG or GOAT.

One more thing:

I find it increasingly difficult, to make a hierarchy among the big 3 in this modern era. Indeed, one can make a veritable, reasonable case for each of them. We can surely marvel about Feds longevity, but imo ist even more astonishing, that Nadal is still in the top spot with 33 years. With his intense, energetic game i thought, he would be a spent force with 30. That he has won 5 majors over 30, which is imo the highest number in open era, in unbelievable. And don't talk about easy wins, Thiem and Medwedew both put on real challenges this year, at last some good signs of the younger generation.
The big 3, as it is now, are ultra close to each other, each has 54 big wins (after ATP counting), i would call Nadals Olympic win also a big win. If Nadal makes Nr. 1, each has 5 year end Nr. 1 positions. Fed has still an advantage in overall wins and weeks at Nr. 1, but the others are increasing their numbers, have better hth and have more Masters titles. Djokovic had probably the highest domination in 2011 and 2015 (against a stronger field than Fed in 2004-07) and the complete Masters set. Nadals 12 RG titles is maybe the most extraordinary achievement in tennis, given the fact, that RG is hardest to win and has the best preparation and form build up of all majors. Melbourne is very early in the season, Wim has an anachronistic, seldom played surface, and Flushing as the latest major, is often a battle of exhaustion and last man standing. Maybe we have a trinity of greatest players at the moment in this current era.
I don't think the received wisdom about RG being the most difficult major to win holds water upon scrutiny. The most physically demanding, maybe, but I'm not sure even that's true anymore now that everyone more or less plays HC tennis on clay and whatever edge RG gains in extended rallies over the AO/USO may well be offset by the extra stress either HC major puts on players' joints.

Plus we often neglect to consider the timing aspect, and this is why I tend to think it is in fact the USO that is in many ways the most difficult of the four majors: not only is it played on hard which makes it trickier for the clay/grass specialists, it's also held at the end of the summer which means players have had plenty of time to get into a groove which in turn nullifies the advantage that baseline robots with a workmanlike game (relatively speaking, of course) like Agassi and Djokovic may have over the rest of the field at the beginning of the year (one could point to Federer as an exception but he's been basically a baseliner with some forays to the net for most of his career), especially since everyone has had roughly equal wear and tear at this point.

That probably explains why nobody has yet to dominate the USO to the same extent as with the other three majors, and one could easily argue that Federer's and Sampras' most impressive Slam-specific achievement isn't their 8/7 Wimbledons but rather their USO record: Fed with his 5-peat and Pete with his own fivesome and most # of finals. Throw in Connors' mind-boggling consistency at Flushing Meadows and you've got three GUSOPAT contenders with a strong case for each.

Also I've been meaning to finish my dissertation on top clay-courters since 1991 but I can tell you Thiem doesn't compare very favorably at all to most of the previous RG champs in % of games won (and, yes, by subjective measures). In fact it's very debatable whether he would've done much better than a Corretja in the '90s or before, which is perhaps an indication of how depleted the current CC field is and why I must say all this talk about him possibly being the next big thing on clay strikes me as mostly hype.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
The current difference b/w Nadal and Fed is 14,000 points based on the current pointing system. So, it depends what would be the achievements of both in the next years. For instance, this year (up to now) Nadal decreased the difference by 3,700 points (9,225 won by Nadal, 5,510 won by Fed).
The difference b/w Nadal and Laver is 32,000 points. The difference b/w Nadal and Rosewall is 41,000 points.
If he ends his career with 21 Majors, beating Federer's record, he finishes this season as number 1 for the fifth time, reaches 250 weeks as number 1, reaches 95 titles, beating Lendl, ends with 1100 victories, the tenth mark of victories in the history of men's tennis, if he achieve all that in the next 2 or 3 years, do you think it would be enough for him to overcome the Swiss and be crowned as the best tennis player of the open era?
Greetings.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
As of now... and only for the Open Era, as it's too hard for me to compare entirely OE players with Laver, Rosewall and their contemporaries and predecessors. Also, 1-3, who I regard as essentially equal, are very close, and very much in motion. Call them 1 A-C.

1A - C: Roger, Rafa, Novak
4 - Borg
5 - Sampras
6 - Lendl
7 - Connors
8 - McEnroe
9 - Agassi
10 - Becker
 

KG1965

Legend
Sure. My list is based on overall players' achievements. No sympathies.
1 Ken Rosewall
2 Rod Laver
3 Roger Federer
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Novak Djokovic
6 Ivan Lendl
7 Bill Tilden
8 Jimmy Connors
9 Pancho Gonzales
10 Pete Sampras
Interesting Ivan, can you explain to we
- Lendl & Connors > Sampras & Borg (I don't see Borg in the top 10),
- Rosewall > Laver and >> Gonzales.

If you want, of course.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
If he ends his career with 21 Majors, beating Federer's record, he finishes this season as number 1 for the fifth time, reaches 250 weeks as number 1, reaches 95 titles, beating Lendl, ends with 1100 victories, the tenth mark of victories in the history of men's tennis, if he achieve all that in the next 2 or 3 years, do you think it would be enough for him to overcome the Swiss and be crowned as the best tennis player of the open era?
Greetings.
Of course, everything is possible. All depends on the next achievements. All depends if players will suffer injuries or not. Too many unknown things.

No 1 for fifth time is not a record. 250 weeks as No 1 is not record.
Lendl has 150 titles (at least I have so). 94 is the ATP number (wrong).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

DSH

Hall of Fame
Of course, everything is possible. All depends on the next achievements. All depends if players will suffer injuries or not. Too many unknown things.

No 1 for fifth time is not a record. 250 weeks as No 1 is not record.
Lendl has 150 titles (at least I have so). 94 is the ATP number (wrong).
How many titles do Connors (109), McEnroe (77) and Borg (64) really have?
:confused:
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Interesting Ivan, can you explain to we
- Lendl & Connors > Sampras & Borg (I don't see Borg in the top 10),
- Rosewall > Laver and >> Gonzales.

If you want, of course.
Sure, KG. Everything should have its explanation. I will not speak with stats which can be a little boring for you. ;) I will explain the stuff more macro oriented. But of course any stats are available.
The careers of Lendl and Connors were longer and more successful. They played almost 2 times more tournaments and matches than Sampras and Borg. Lendl had 10 strong years, Connors - 11, Borg - 7. All these factors result in far more titles, finals etc. Borg is No 12 in my list.

Almost the same is valid for Ros, Lav, Gonz. Gonz was an incredible player. His success is achieved mostly within 7 years - 1954-1961. Rosewall was on the top for 15 years, Laver - 13. They achieved far more success.
 

KG1965

Legend
Sure, KG. Everything should have its explanation. I will not speak with stats which can be a little boring for you. ;) I will explain the stuff more macro oriented. But of course any stats are available.
The careers of Lendl and Connors were longer and more successful. They played almost 2 times more tournaments and matches than Sampras and Borg. Lendl had 10 strong years, Connors - 11, Borg - 7. All these factors result in far more titles, finals etc. Borg is No 12 in my list.

Almost the same is valid for Ros, Lav, Gonz. Gonz was an incredible player. His success is achieved mostly within 7 years - 1954-1961. Rosewall was on the top for 15 years, Laver - 13. They achieved far more success.
I share in part (and partly not) but I understand your reasoning.
And of these dark times reasoning is rare.:)
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
How many titles do Connors (109), McEnroe (77) and Borg (64) really have?
:confused:
Connors - 151, out of which 132 regular titles and 19 weak draw or weak field titles
Lendl - 150, out of which 135 regular titles and 15 weak draw or weak field titles
McEnroe - 103, out of which 91 regular titles and 12 weak draw or weak field titles
Borg - 101, out of which 74 regular titles and 27 weak draw or weak field titles
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
Connors - 151, out of which 132 regular titles and 19 weak draw or weak field titles
Lendl - 150, out of which 135 regular titles and 15 weak draw or weak field titles
McEnroe - 103, out of which 91 regular titles and 12 weak draw or weak field titles
Borg - 101, out of which 74 regular titles and 27 weak draw or weak field titles
Thanks.
why then does ATP differ so much with your statistics?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Thanks.
why then does ATP differ so much with your statistics?
A very long theme. Very shortly, the ATP tour was not united and compact like now. They were 20-30 tournaments per year which were not part of ATP by different reasons. Some of these tournaments didn't want to be part of the ATP, other were not recognized by ATP politically or by any other reasons. But all of these tournaments were highly paid (often more than ATP tournaments) and highly attractive for the players.
ATP was/is a political organisation and prefers to be silent about the past. Do you know an interesting fact about the ATP actions (or better a lack of actions) - Grand slam cup was not a part of ATP, all the years it was held were ignored by ATP ... till some years ago when surprisingly ATP recognized GSC (after 15-20 years) but ... it didn't assign points and it didn't rearrange the ranking.:oops:
That's why I don't work with the ATP database. It is just insufficient.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Have you discovered anything in the meantime about that tournament won by Ivan in Zurich v Sampras, isn't it a real tournament but just an exhibition match? I found nothing. :(
I don't think it was a tournament. The one day he played Sampras in Zurich, the other day again vs Samp in Geneve.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
A very long theme. Very shortly, the ATP tour was not united and compact like now. They were 20-30 tournaments per year which were not part of ATP by different reasons. Some of these tournaments didn't want to be part of the ATP, other were not recognized by ATP politically or by any other reasons. But all of these tournaments were highly paid (often more than ATP tournaments) and highly attractive for the players.
ATP was/is a political organisation and prefers to be silent about the past. Do you know an interesting fact about the ATP actions (or better a lack of actions) - Grand slam cup was not a part of ATP, all the years it was held were ignored by ATP ... till some years ago when surprisingly ATP recognized GSC (after 15-20 years) but ... it didn't assign points and it didn't rearrange the ranking.:oops:
That's why I don't work with the ATP database. It is just insufficient.
Thanks again.
I am interested to know who was the 1 at the end of the season from 1968 to 1972, before the ATP began with its ranking in 1973: Nastase was the first male tennis player to receive that recognition.
Obviously Rod Laver was the best of the season in 1969 thanks to his unparalleled season.
And another thing, you know that Federer was recently designated as the oldest male tennis player to be number 1 in the open era.
Do you think Rosewall was number 1 at the same age as the Swiss, even a little older?
 
Last edited:

KG1965

Legend
I don't think it was a tournament. The one day he played Sampras in Zurich, the other day again vs Samp in Geneve.
Ivan, I have another problem with the title won by Lendl to Bolzano in 1990 (Italian city where is spoker german) in the final on Ivanisevic.
I found a newspaper article released in those days where reference is made to a 4-men tournament in ... Bologna (always Italy) between Lendl, Ivanisevic, Canè and Edberg.
It is not clear, though. You have a clear source that in Bolzano Ivan did you win a tournament?


La Repubblica (italian newspaper)
ALL STAR TENNIS CANE' IN TRE SET BATTE EDBERG

BOLOGNA Paolo Canè ha battuto per 7-5, 2-6, 6-3, lo svedese Stephan Edberg, numero uno del mondo, nella semifinale del torneo-esibizione All Star tennis classic. L' italiano incontrerà questa sera in finale lo jugoslavo Goran Ivanisevic (numero nove Atp) che nell' altra semifinale ha sconfitto con un doppio 6-3 Ivan Lendl (numero tre). Canè, che attualmente è sopra la centesima posizione, ha giocato in maniera brillante, anche se aveva di fronte un avversario che è parso stanco. Canè ha concluso strappando nel terzo set il servizio a Edberg nell' ottavo gioco, vincendo in quasi due ore.

LOS ANGELES TIMES (translate ...the newspaper does not allow me to read in English, I must forcibly translate it into Italian)
Giovedi ', la corte superiore Lendl ha vinto la mostra in Italia MILANO (???), Italia Ivan Lendl ha sconfitto Goran Ivanisevic di Jugoslavia, 6-2, 7-6, nella finale di una manifestazione di tennis a Bolzano (??) giovedì sera. Stefan Edberg "sconvolto dall'italiano Paolo Cane, 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, nella semifinale di una mostra a Bologna (??).
3 cities???
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Ivan, I have another problem with the title won by Lendl to Bolzano in 1990 (Italian city where is spoker german) in the final on Ivanisevic.
I found a newspaper article released in those days where reference is made to a 4-men tournament in ... Bologna (always Italy) between Lendl, Ivanisevic, Canè and Edberg.
It is not clear, though. You have a clear source that in Bolzano Ivan did you win a tournament?


La Repubblica (italian newspaper)
ALL STAR TENNIS CANE' IN TRE SET BATTE EDBERG

BOLOGNA Paolo Canè ha battuto per 7-5, 2-6, 6-3, lo svedese Stephan Edberg, numero uno del mondo, nella semifinale del torneo-esibizione All Star tennis classic. L' italiano incontrerà questa sera in finale lo jugoslavo Goran Ivanisevic (numero nove Atp) che nell' altra semifinale ha sconfitto con un doppio 6-3 Ivan Lendl (numero tre). Canè, che attualmente è sopra la centesima posizione, ha giocato in maniera brillante, anche se aveva di fronte un avversario che è parso stanco. Canè ha concluso strappando nel terzo set il servizio a Edberg nell' ottavo gioco, vincendo in quasi due ore.

LOS ANGELES TIMES (translate ...the newspaper does not allow me to read in English, I must forcibly translate it into Italian)
Giovedi ', la corte superiore Lendl ha vinto la mostra in Italia MILANO (???), Italia Ivan Lendl ha sconfitto Goran Ivanisevic di Jugoslavia, 6-2, 7-6, nella finale di una manifestazione di tennis a Bolzano (??) giovedì sera. Stefan Edberg "sconvolto dall'italiano Paolo Cane, 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, nella semifinale di una mostra a Bologna (??).
3 cities???
I have Bolzano from NM. Lendl def. Korda in semis and Ivanisevic in the final. It was held on 4-5 Dec. No source about that.
Bologna was held on 6-7 Dec.

So, yes. Both were different tournaments.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Thanks again.
I am interested to know who was the 1 at the end of the season from 1968 to 1972, before the ATP began with its ranking in 1973: Nastase was the first male tennis player to receive that recognition.
Obviously Rod Laver was the best of the season in 1969 thanks to his unparalleled season.
And another thing, you know that Federer was recently designated as the oldest male tennis player to be number 1 in the open era.
Do you think Rosewall was number 1 at the same age as the Swiss, even a little older?
1968 - Laver
1969 - Laver
1970 - Laver
1971 - Laver and Rosewall co-No 1
1972 - Nastase

Rosewall definitely deserves No 1 spot for 1971 no matter solely or co. And at the end of 1971 he was 37. I think this answers your question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Ivan, I have another problem with the title won by Lendl to Bolzano in 1990 (Italian city where is spoker german) in the final on Ivanisevic.
I found a newspaper article released in those days where reference is made to a 4-men tournament in ... Bologna (always Italy) between Lendl, Ivanisevic, Canè and Edberg.
It is not clear, though. You have a clear source that in Bolzano Ivan did you win a tournament?


La Repubblica (italian newspaper)
ALL STAR TENNIS CANE' IN TRE SET BATTE EDBERG

BOLOGNA Paolo Canè ha battuto per 7-5, 2-6, 6-3, lo svedese Stephan Edberg, numero uno del mondo, nella semifinale del torneo-esibizione All Star tennis classic. L' italiano incontrerà questa sera in finale lo jugoslavo Goran Ivanisevic (numero nove Atp) che nell' altra semifinale ha sconfitto con un doppio 6-3 Ivan Lendl (numero tre). Canè, che attualmente è sopra la centesima posizione, ha giocato in maniera brillante, anche se aveva di fronte un avversario che è parso stanco. Canè ha concluso strappando nel terzo set il servizio a Edberg nell' ottavo gioco, vincendo in quasi due ore.

LOS ANGELES TIMES (translate ...the newspaper does not allow me to read in English, I must forcibly translate it into Italian)
Giovedi ', la corte superiore Lendl ha vinto la mostra in Italia MILANO (???), Italia Ivan Lendl ha sconfitto Goran Ivanisevic di Jugoslavia, 6-2, 7-6, nella finale di una manifestazione di tennis a Bolzano (??) giovedì sera. Stefan Edberg "sconvolto dall'italiano Paolo Cane, 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, nella semifinale di una mostra a Bologna (??).
3 cities???
They played also in Florence and Turin that year in Italy. Obviously Lendl played all of them :D
 

Drob

Professional
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.
.

Agree and as I recall the 2012 USO there was something about Novak that did not look completely right. He looked tired. Which is no excuse. The better man won.

Murray, when in the bosom of Uncle Ivan was a tremendous force, justifying the hype. A loss is a loss. But combine a 4 hour 43 minute, grueling semifinal against Delpo, which must have taken a physical and mental toll, and a peak and super-motivated Murray, and the 2013 Wimbledon final loss is nothing to be ashamed of. Likewise, 2015 French Open, while Novak may have made tactical mistakes, Stan was a totally focused ANIMAL - a fierce beast intent on tracking, catching, killing and eating his prey. I don't see anybody beating Stan Warwinka at that RG final.

A loss is a loss. No excuses. Just saying, Nole did not screw it up, or give it up in those matches. There was no lack of mental toughness. He was beaten by the better player in those three instances.
 
Last edited:

Drob

Professional
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.

Do you mean that Rosewall has more than 23?

I would agree with that:

8 Traditional Slam
15 Pro Slams
2 WCT Finals
1 Challenge Round Hat-Trick
11-0 Davis Cup singles record 1955

= 27
 

Drob

Professional
Thanks again.
I am interested to know who was the 1 at the end of the season from 1968 to 1972, before the ATP began with its ranking in 1973: Nastase was the first male tennis player to receive that recognition.
Obviously Rod Laver was the best of the season in 1969 thanks to his unparalleled season.
And another thing, you know that Federer was recently designated as the oldest male tennis player to be number 1 in the open era.
Do you think Rosewall was number 1 at the same age as the Swiss, even a little older?

When was that? Did Federer reach No. 1 at some point in 2017? Plainly he was the Player of the Year for '17 whether he won the award or not. But did he reach No. 1 for a time? Or, right after the '18 AO? I always concentrate on year-end, so I don't know much about changes in rankings during the season. Assuming he has been No. 1 in '17 or '18, he might well have been older than Rosewall. In fact, his only possible competitor for oldest No. 1 would be Tilden, who was very arguably the true No. 1 for 1930 and possibly even 1931. If we say Tilden was No. 1, he would be have been older than Federer.

Rosewall was the cover of Tennis Yearbook for the 1970 season and many considered him No. 1. 1971 was a toss-up and you could argue he was No. 1, although I would not. I would not have him No. 1 in either year, but close.

At the end of 1970, Rosewall would have just turned 36.

As far as a during-season No. 1 ranking, he was close enough to the top spot that, hypothetically, he might have been No. 1 at the end of May, 1972, right after his WCT triumph, age 37. Maybe a little older than Roger, who I guess reached No. 1 for a little while when he was 36?

But, in Roger's case, the No. 1, however short-lived, was unambiguous. W Rosewall, it is opinion.
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Do you mean that Rosewall has more than 23?

I would agree with that:

8 Traditional Slam
15 Pro Slams
2 WCT Finals
1 Challenge Round Hat-Trick
11-0 Davis Cup singles record 1955

= 27
He maybe has less.
Counting the Amateur Slams along with the Open Era ones is something that I don’t do.
Also in the Open Era ones there are some that considering them as Majors, we really need to be very generous, for example AUS72
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Do you mean that Rosewall has more than 23?

I would agree with that:

8 Traditional Slam
15 Pro Slams
2 WCT Finals
1 Challenge Round Hat-Trick
11-0 Davis Cup singles record 1955

= 27
Rosewall had a great career, no doubt, but did he ever have a great season?
 

Drob

Professional
Rosewall had a great career, no doubt, but did he ever have a great season?
Try 1963. WCS, US Pro, Wembley, French Pro.

You are on some kick of insisting a player must win 100 matches to have a "dominant season."

Dan, you keep bringing this up, regardless of the thread and its subject matter. You brought it up twice in another thread over the weekend. I let it slide. But you persist.

Your criteria of 100 wins to have a dominant season would leave out Tilden's best seasons; Lacoste 1927, Cochet '28; Crawford '33; Perry '34; Budge '38 and '39; Kramer '47; Hoad '56; Gonzalez '57; Rosewall '62 and '63; Connors '74; Borg '80 (Borg's '79 makes your it if you count non-sanctioned and exhibitions); McEnroe '84; Lendl '86 and '87; Federer '04, '06, 07; Nadal 2010, and; Djokovic 2011 and 2015.

1962 may or may not be a mega season for Doomsday. But he won 9 of 13 tourneys and tours, four-man events excluded (possibly 10 of 13 - I am not sure about he NZ tour), including Wembley and RG, on a 60-9 record.

The aforementioned '63 - what some call the Pro Grand Slam. He won 96 matches that year. But, of course, you demand 100 match victories to call a year dominant. The number is 100. The number shall be 100. One hundred shall be the number.

And, Dan, I think you are not being entirely forthcoming. You well know that Rosewall nearly always stayed in Australia for two to three months after the Aussie tour in January. He did this to be w his family. He was never planning to continue to play tennis after a few years with Pros, it just happened because of his success. Starting the season late most years was his way of making a compromise between tennis and his love for his family. Look at McCauley or Pro Tennis Historian records and it is clear that Rosewall rejoins the tour around April - May. (This perhaps changes in the mid-1960s). The Rowley (sic?) book, among other sources, talks about this. And you must have known this, knowing all things Aussie.

You are in outer space on 100 wins business. I cannot believe that Urban intended for 100 match victories to be a requirement for a "dominant season." You erase almost all dominant seasons.

As I wrote in the other thread, 100 match wins is very cool. The fact Laver did it six times is an almost incredible accomplishment. It is a small, but useful argument in favor of Rocket as GOAT. And 100 wins is a great enhancement when talking about the greatest seasons. It elevates certain Tilden years ('27, '30, '31, '33) but these are not mega seasons, although '30 gets close; it elevates Sedgman's 1952 season; Hoad's '59 and some others. A few of these might be dominant seasons (i.e. Sedgman) but others are not, despite the 100 wins. One is borderline - Emerson '64.

But Laver was a superman. Players did not go around winning 100 matches in a year. It was rare. Gonzalez, for heaven's sake, only did it twice in his career, and once won 96. Possibly Lendl might have done this once, if you count up his non-sanctioned and exhibitions. Even adding the independent events and exhibition matches, McEnroe did not reach 100 in 1984. It simply is not done anymore. And it hardly ever was done in the old days.

This construct of 100+ wins/50+ victory margin is interesting. But the way you are trying to use it - to block at the gate all these "dominant", all-time years by the greatest players, is way out of line. The construct is not that valuable. It certainly is not anything to determine "dominant" season.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Try 1963. WCS, US Pro, Wembley, French Pro.

You are on some kick of insisting a player must win 100 matches to have a "dominant season."

Dan, you keep bringing this up, regardless of the thread and its subject matter. You brought it up twice in another thread over the weekend. I let it slide. But you persist.

Your criteria of 100 wins to have a dominant season would leave out Tilden's best seasons; Lacoste 1927, Cochet '28; Crawford '33; Perry '34; Budge '38 and '39; Kramer '47; Hoad '56; Gonzalez '57; Rosewall '62 and '63; Connors '74; Borg '80 (Borg's '79 makes your it if you count non-sanctioned and exhibitions); McEnroe '84; Lendl '86 and '87; Federer '04, '06, 07; Nadal 2010, and; Djokovic 2011 and 2015.

1962 may or may not be a mega season for Doomsday. But he won 9 of 13 tourneys and tours, four-man events excluded (possibly 10 of 13 - I am not sure about he NZ tour), including Wembley and RG, on a 60-9 record.

The aforementioned '63 - what some call the Pro Grand Slam. He won 96 matches that year. But, of course, you demand 100 match victories to call a year dominant. The number is 100. The number shall be 100. One hundred shall be the number.

And, Dan, I think you are not being entirely forthcoming. You well know that Rosewall nearly always stayed in Australia for two to three months after the Aussie tour in January. He did this to be w his family. He was never planning to continue to play tennis after a few years with Pros, it just happened because of his success. Starting the season late most years was his way of making a compromise between tennis and his love for his family. Look at McCauley or Pro Tennis Historian records and it is clear that Rosewall rejoins the tour around April - May. (This perhaps changes in the mid-1960s). The Rowley (sic?) book, among other sources, talks about this. And you must have known this, knowing all things Aussie.

You are in outer space on 100 wins business. I cannot believe that Urban intended for 100 match victories to be a requirement for a "dominant season." You erase almost all dominant seasons.

As I wrote in the other thread, 100 match wins is very cool. The fact Laver did it six times is an almost incredible accomplishment. It is a small, but useful argument in favor of Rocket as GOAT. And 100 wins is a great enhancement when talking about the greatest seasons. It elevates certain Tilden years ('27, '30, '31, '33) but these are not mega seasons, although '30 gets close; it elevates Sedgman's 1952 season; Hoad's '59 and some others. A few of these might be dominant seasons (i.e. Sedgman) but others are not, despite the 100 wins. One is borderline - Emerson '64.

But Laver was a superman. Players did not go around winning 100 matches in a year. It was rare. Gonzalez, for heaven's sake, only did it twice in his career, and once won 96. Possibly Lendl might have done this once, if you count up his non-sanctioned and exhibitions. Even adding the independent events and exhibition matches, McEnroe did not reach 100 in 1984. It simply is not done anymore. And it hardly ever was done in the old days.

This construct of 100+ wins/50+ victory margin is interesting. But the way you are trying to use it - to block at the gate all these "dominant", all-time years by the greatest players, is way out of line. The construct is not that valuable. It certainly is not anything to determine "dominant" season.
Well, I guess we may disagree on the significance of 100 wins with a 50+ margin of wins over losses. To me, that sounds like a great season, and it overshadows seasons where the top guy wins 50 or 60 matches. There is much more effort and CONSISTENCY required to get to 100, and to do it twice against strong fields (as Gonzales and Hoad did) is a signal indicator of dominance.

I am not sure what your objection is to 100 as a marker. Sure, we could reduce it to 90 or 80, but then the numbers of players swell out and the distinctive nature of the achievement becomes more commonplace. That does not help us to separate the men from the boys.

I think of 100 as a minimum, as many of the achievers passed 110 or more. Today, the players are physically incapable of playing that many matches, so they are supposed to get a bye on this? Sorry, those are the breaks. If you don't play, you don't win.

I am confused about your Rosewall statements. Sure he spent the early months of each year in Australia, but he wasn't playing with his children at home, he was competing fiercely on the tennis court. Only in 1961 did he sit out.

Apart from 100 wins, which the pros themselves talked about as an indicator of achievement, the strength of the field should be taken into account, I am not sure why you would ignore that marker, it is crucial in evaluating any year. 100 wins is not the only marker but it does help eliminate some years on an a priori basis.
 

Drob

Professional
Well, I guess we may disagree on the significance of 100 wins with a 50+ margin of wins over losses. To me, that sounds like a great season, and it overshadows seasons where the top guy wins 50 or 60 matches. There is much more effort and CONSISTENCY required to get to 100, and to do it twice against strong fields (as Gonzales and Hoad did) is a signal indicator of dominance.

I am not sure what your objection is to 100 as a marker. Sure, we could reduce it to 90 or 80, but then the numbers of players swell out and the distinctive nature of the achievement becomes more commonplace. That does not help us to separate the men from the boys.

I think of 100 as a minimum, as many of the achievers passed 110 or more. Today, the players are physically incapable of playing that many matches, so they are supposed to get a bye on this? Sorry, those are the breaks. If you don't play, you don't win.

I am confused about your Rosewall statements. Sure he spent the early months of each year in Australia, but he wasn't playing with his children at home, he was competing fiercely on the tennis court. Only in 1961 did he sit out.

Apart from 100 wins, which the pros themselves talked about as an indicator of achievement, the strength of the field should be taken into account, I am not sure why you would ignore that marker, it is crucial in evaluating any year. 100 wins is not the only marker but it does help eliminate some years on an a priori basis.

I just listed about 20 consensus "all-time seasons" or "dominant" years that would not be considered such under your narrow criteria. Most of the greatest players with the greatest seasons would be left out. That is my "objection".

1920-30s, only Tilden reaches 100, in four years, and this after his peak. Vines does not, Perry does not, Budge does not, nobody does.

1940 and '41 - Bobby Riggs wins 101 both years. These are not generally considered dominant years and Riggs is farther down the list of the greats.

1948 and '50 - Jack Kramer, owing to very long WCS against Riggs and Gonzalez, respectively.

1950 and 1952 - Jaroslav Drobny (104-8 in 1952). Not known as dominant years and Drobny is a special case: stateless and staving off depression, he needed to play tennis 12 months a year.

Trabert 1955.

Gonzalez twice, 1956 and 1957. These are all-time, mega seasons, two of the very few that qualify as such under the 100+/50+ stringency.

Hoad twice. AGAIN YOU MISREPRESENT HOAD TO US. He did not make your 50-plus victory margin in 1959, but was 100-61. Don't be calling this a dominant year, please, Dan. You can read the record as well as anyone.

Speaking of the record - you will see that 1958-62, at least, there is a gap in Rosewall's record between late January and late April or May. He doesn't play any matches. Yes, he stayed home to be with his family. Sure he practiced, and he probably played some exhibitions, but he was there in order to be with his family.

Moving into the Open Era, Connors ('76) and Borg ('78 and '79) only just barely hit 100, but you have to count plain exhibition matches - which you said in the other thread you don't want to do - not just independent tournaments. But only the '79 Borg year is "dominant".

Ivan Lendl played 102 matches in 1985, counting only official and non-sanctioned tournaments, not exhibitions. In 1989 he won 105 counting the independent tourneys, no exhibitions. Earlier in his career, in 1980 and 1982, he won more than 100 official matches, but those are not "dominant years." Although all splendid years, none of these four are all-time mega seasons. For Lendl, those would be '86 and '87.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the 1984 McEnroe season, widely considered one of, if not the, best single season, fails to meet your manliness criterion, as Junior only won 96 matches.

Since Lendl, I don't believe any player has won 100 matches.

So, you are left with recognizing . . . what? Of these 100-victory years, Gonzalez '56 and '57 qualify otherwise as all-time, or dominant years. Laver '62, '67 and '69 can be counted. (IMO the Kramer '48, Trabert '55 and Hoad '56 make the list of greatest single seasons, but at the bottom of that list).

No Tilden
No Lacoste
No Cochet
No Crawford
No Perry
No Budge
No Rosewall
No Connors
No Borg
No McEnroe
No Lendl
No Sampras
No Federer
No Nadal
No Djokovic

Enjoy your list of "truly dominant" seasons.
 
Last edited:

Drob

Professional
Rosewall with 46 big titles on grass and 18 grass majors, who can compete with that...
NatF. Can you educate me. Rosewall 18 grass majors. Singles? How do you get that figure; what tournaments are you referring to? Thanks.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I just listed about 20 consensus "all-time seasons" or "dominant" years that would not be considered such under your narrow criteria. Most of the greatest players with the greatest seasons would be left out. That is my "objection".

1920-30s, only Tilden reaches 100, in four years, and this after his peak. Vines does not, Perry does not, Budge does not, nobody does.

1940 and '41 - Bobby Riggs wins 101 both years. These are not generally considered dominant years and Riggs is farther down the list of the greats.

1948 and '50 - Jack Kramer, owing to very long WCS against Riggs and Gonzalez, respectively.

1950 and 1952 - Jaroslav Drobny (104-8 in 1952). Not known as dominant years and Drobny is a special case: stateless and staving off depression, he needed to play tennis 12 months a year.

Trabert 1955.

Gonzalez twice, 1956 and 1957. These are all-time, mega seasons, two of the very few that qualify as such under the 100+/50+ stringency.

Hoad twice. AGAIN YOU MISREPRESENT HOAD TO US. He did not make your 50-plus victory margin in 1959, but was 100-61. Don't be calling this a dominant year, please, Dan. You can read the record as well as anyone.

Speaking of the record - you will see that 1958-62, at least, there is a gap in Rosewall's record between late January and late April or May. He doesn't play any matches. Yes, he stayed home to be with his family. Sure he practiced, and he probably played some exhibitions, but he was there in order to be with his family.

Moving into the Open Era, Connors ('76) and Borg ('78 and '79) only just barely hit 100, but you have to count plain exhibition matches - which you said in the other thread you don't want to do - not just independent tournaments. But only the '79 Borg year is "dominant".

Ivan Lendl played 102 matches in 1985, counting only official and non-sanctioned tournaments, not exhibitions. In 1989 he won 105 counting the independent tourneys, no exhibitions. Earlier in his career, in 1980 and 1982, he won more than 100 official matches, but those are not "dominant years." Although all splendid years, none of these four are all-time mega seasons. For Lendl, those would be '86 and '87.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the 1984 McEnroe season, widely considered one of, if not the, best single season, fails to meet your manliness criterion, as Junior only won 96 matches.

Since Lendl, I don't believe any player has won 100 matches.

So, you are left with recognizing . . . what? Of these 100-victory years, Gonzalez '56 and '57 qualify otherwise as all-time, or dominant years. Laver '62, '67 and '69 can be counted. (IMO the Kramer '48, Trabert '55 and Hoad '56 make the list of greatest single seasons, but at the bottom of that list).

No Tilden
No Lacoste
No Cochet
No Crawford
No Perry
No Budge
No Sedgman
No Rosewall
No Connors
No Borg
No McEnroe
No Lendl
No Sampras
No Federer
No Nadal
No Djokovic

Enjoy your list of "truly dominant" seasons.
Nastase 72-73 and Vilas 77 are over100 seasons.
Vilas is something like 150-14 in 1977, 136-14 in ATP matches.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
My list(based on how much I enjoy watching them play):

1. Rios
2. Mecir
3. Okker
4. Sampras
5. Nalbandian
6. Federer
7. Gasquet
8. Monfils
9. Edberg
10. Rosewall
 
Well, I guess we may disagree on the significance of 100 wins with a 50+ margin of wins over losses. To me, that sounds like a great season, and it overshadows seasons where the top guy wins 50 or 60 matches. There is much more effort and CONSISTENCY required to get to 100, and to do it twice against strong fields (as Gonzales and Hoad did) is a signal indicator of dominance.

I am not sure what your objection is to 100 as a marker. Sure, we could reduce it to 90 or 80, but then the numbers of players swell out and the distinctive nature of the achievement becomes more commonplace. That does not help us to separate the men from the boys.

I think of 100 as a minimum, as many of the achievers passed 110 or more. Today, the players are physically incapable of playing that many matches, so they are supposed to get a bye on this? Sorry, those are the breaks. If you don't play, you don't win.

I am confused about your Rosewall statements. Sure he spent the early months of each year in Australia, but he wasn't playing with his children at home, he was competing fiercely on the tennis court. Only in 1961 did he sit out.

Apart from 100 wins, which the pros themselves talked about as an indicator of achievement, the strength of the field should be taken into account, I am not sure why you would ignore that marker, it is crucial in evaluating any year. 100 wins is not the only marker but it does help eliminate some years on an a priori basis.
Dan, this is your latest ridiculous obsession. On the other thread I used the example of McEnroe in 1984. 82-3 win loss record. A great season. But your response was that you may bend the rules and allow this to qualify for your fantasy list of great seasons. Yet you seem to regard a season of 100 wins and 49 losses as a great season that qualifies automatically. A 100-49 season is a MUCH worse season than 82-3. No players in recent times have reached 100 wins in a season. This is because they play less. Does this mean they are inferior players because they play less? No. I am all for recognising the achievements of players on the pre-open era pro tour, but not by inventing ridiculous criteria like yours to judge them on. And saying the same thing 100 times doesn't make your argument any stronger.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I just listed about 20 consensus "all-time seasons" or "dominant" years that would not be considered such under your narrow criteria. Most of the greatest players with the greatest seasons would be left out. That is my "objection".

1920-30s, only Tilden reaches 100, in four years, and this after his peak. Vines does not, Perry does not, Budge does not, nobody does.

1940 and '41 - Bobby Riggs wins 101 both years. These are not generally considered dominant years and Riggs is farther down the list of the greats.

1948 and '50 - Jack Kramer, owing to very long WCS against Riggs and Gonzalez, respectively.

1950 and 1952 - Jaroslav Drobny (104-8 in 1952). Not known as dominant years and Drobny is a special case: stateless and staving off depression, he needed to play tennis 12 months a year.

Trabert 1955.

Gonzalez twice, 1956 and 1957. These are all-time, mega seasons, two of the very few that qualify as such under the 100+/50+ stringency.

Hoad twice. AGAIN YOU MISREPRESENT HOAD TO US. He did not make your 50-plus victory margin in 1959, but was 100-61. Don't be calling this a dominant year, please, Dan. You can read the record as well as anyone.

Speaking of the record - you will see that 1958-62, at least, there is a gap in Rosewall's record between late January and late April or May. He doesn't play any matches. Yes, he stayed home to be with his family. Sure he practiced, and he probably played some exhibitions, but he was there in order to be with his family.

Moving into the Open Era, Connors ('76) and Borg ('78 and '79) only just barely hit 100, but you have to count plain exhibition matches - which you said in the other thread you don't want to do - not just independent tournaments. But only the '79 Borg year is "dominant".

Ivan Lendl played 102 matches in 1985, counting only official and non-sanctioned tournaments, not exhibitions. In 1989 he won 105 counting the independent tourneys, no exhibitions. Earlier in his career, in 1980 and 1982, he won more than 100 official matches, but those are not "dominant years." Although all splendid years, none of these four are all-time mega seasons. For Lendl, those would be '86 and '87.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the 1984 McEnroe season, widely considered one of, if not the, best single season, fails to meet your manliness criterion, as Junior only won 96 matches.

Since Lendl, I don't believe any player has won 100 matches.

So, you are left with recognizing . . . what? Of these 100-victory years, Gonzalez '56 and '57 qualify otherwise as all-time, or dominant years. Laver '62, '67 and '69 can be counted. (IMO the Kramer '48, Trabert '55 and Hoad '56 make the list of greatest single seasons, but at the bottom of that list).

No Tilden
No Lacoste
No Cochet
No Crawford
No Perry
No Budge
No Rosewall
No Connors
No Borg
No McEnroe
No Lendl
No Sampras
No Federer
No Nadal
No Djokovic

Enjoy your list of "truly dominant" seasons.
Well, you have to set the bar somewhere...I think that your Hoad stats are off in 1959, I will recheck.

Sure, I stick with 100, that gives us a level to cut out some of the fluffy and over-hyped years.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I just listed about 20 consensus "all-time seasons" or "dominant" years that would not be considered such under your narrow criteria. Most of the greatest players with the greatest seasons would be left out. That is my "objection".

1920-30s, only Tilden reaches 100, in four years, and this after his peak. Vines does not, Perry does not, Budge does not, nobody does.

1940 and '41 - Bobby Riggs wins 101 both years. These are not generally considered dominant years and Riggs is farther down the list of the greats.

1948 and '50 - Jack Kramer, owing to very long WCS against Riggs and Gonzalez, respectively.

1950 and 1952 - Jaroslav Drobny (104-8 in 1952). Not known as dominant years and Drobny is a special case: stateless and staving off depression, he needed to play tennis 12 months a year.

Trabert 1955.

Gonzalez twice, 1956 and 1957. These are all-time, mega seasons, two of the very few that qualify as such under the 100+/50+ stringency.

Hoad twice. AGAIN YOU MISREPRESENT HOAD TO US. He did not make your 50-plus victory margin in 1959, but was 100-61. Don't be calling this a dominant year, please, Dan. You can read the record as well as anyone.

Speaking of the record - you will see that 1958-62, at least, there is a gap in Rosewall's record between late January and late April or May. He doesn't play any matches. Yes, he stayed home to be with his family. Sure he practiced, and he probably played some exhibitions, but he was there in order to be with his family.

Moving into the Open Era, Connors ('76) and Borg ('78 and '79) only just barely hit 100, but you have to count plain exhibition matches - which you said in the other thread you don't want to do - not just independent tournaments. But only the '79 Borg year is "dominant".

Ivan Lendl played 102 matches in 1985, counting only official and non-sanctioned tournaments, not exhibitions. In 1989 he won 105 counting the independent tourneys, no exhibitions. Earlier in his career, in 1980 and 1982, he won more than 100 official matches, but those are not "dominant years." Although all splendid years, none of these four are all-time mega seasons. For Lendl, those would be '86 and '87.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the 1984 McEnroe season, widely considered one of, if not the, best single season, fails to meet your manliness criterion, as Junior only won 96 matches.

Since Lendl, I don't believe any player has won 100 matches.

So, you are left with recognizing . . . what? Of these 100-victory years, Gonzalez '56 and '57 qualify otherwise as all-time, or dominant years. Laver '62, '67 and '69 can be counted. (IMO the Kramer '48, Trabert '55 and Hoad '56 make the list of greatest single seasons, but at the bottom of that list).

No Tilden
No Lacoste
No Cochet
No Crawford
No Perry
No Budge
No Rosewall
No Connors
No Borg
No McEnroe
No Lendl
No Sampras
No Federer
No Nadal
No Djokovic

Enjoy your list of "truly dominant" seasons.
Hoad was definitely above 100 wins, that tally excludes the first phase of the Grand Prix de Europe. He won a number of matches in the first phase.

Anyway, 100 was well above the other players, none of whom had either 100 or a 40+ edge.
 

Drob

Professional
Just so I am straight - Dan and Urban are jazzed about Nastase and Vilas, and place their best seasons with those of Laver and Gonzalez,, while they diminish the best seasons of Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, Perry, Budge, Vines, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

That would be utterly mind-boggling.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Just so I am straight - Dan and Urban are jazzed about Nastase and Vilas, and place their best seasons with those of Laver and Gonzalez,, while they diminish the best seasons of Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, Perry, Budge, Vines, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

That would be utterly mind-boggling.
Are you saying that we are not wedded to the status quo? Heaven forbid, such naughty people we are....such shocking behaviour.

The more I think about Urban's 100+ threshold, the more sense it seems to make.

Some of those amateur 100+ seasons were against relatively weak fields, as were Tilden's, Budge in 1938 (very weak), Budge in the early fifties, whereas Hoad in 1956 had relatively tough opposition against fellow Aussies. In 1959, Hoad faced the toughest field ever assembled.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Now, as i have written before, i diminish nobody and nothing. I simply see a century of wins in a season as a cool mark to have. A cool mark in itself. And why not? I don't see any reason against it. You have to be in great physical and mental form to reach it. Why not give Riggs, Lendl for 1982, Vilas, Nasty or Ashe some props? Maybe their highpoints are a bit underrated today.
And that the modern players play and win less matches, so it is and so let it be. In a time, when people bring up any kinds of records, which enhance and favor the modern players, which the old players simply couldn't reach because of different circumstances, why not ? .And the number of wins in a season is still a mark, which the ATP recognizes. Two years ago, the ATP edited an official statement, that Nadal had 60 season wins again for the 8th or 10th time in his career, This year the ATP officially praises Medwedew to reach 50 wins. Today, it seems that records only count, if Fed, Nadal or Djoker can or will reach them. Nobody talked about Jimbos 109 ATP tourney wins, let alone his overall titles, until Fed reached 100 tourney wins. Now suddenly its a great record. Before it was a Mickey Mouse record. I am sure. If Fed or Djoker had reached 100 wins in season, it would be the greatest thing next to Coca Cola.
 
Are you saying that we are not wedded to the status quo? Heaven forbid, such naughty people we are....such shocking behaviour.

The more I think about Urban's 100+ threshold, the more sense it seems to make.

Some of those amateur 100+ seasons were against relatively weak fields, as were Tilden's, Budge in 1938 (very weak), Budge in the early fifties, whereas Hoad in 1956 had relatively tough opposition against fellow Aussies. In 1959, Hoad faced the toughest field ever assembled.
I think the real reason you like the idea of 100+ wins is revealed in your last sentence.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Winning a 100 matches but not dominating the major events would be rather hollow...It's not even like hitting 100 wins was a recognised achievement in those days, so why it's being elevated right now I don't know (well I do know but that's another point entirely). I will say 100 wins is a nice mark to reach but it seems arbitary for determining great seasons. The closest anyone in the modern era has come is Federer with 92 wins and 5 losses in 2006, most players won't even play 100 matches today let alone win 100.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
As of now... and only for the Open Era, as it's too hard for me to compare entirely OE players with Laver, Rosewall and their contemporaries and predecessors. Also, 1-3, who I regard as essentially equal, are very close, and very much in motion. Call them 1 A-C.

1A - C: Roger, Rafa, Novak
4 - Borg
5 - Sampras
6 - Lendl
7 - Connors
8 - McEnroe
9 - Agassi
10 - Becker
I'm kind of thinking the same way. 20 years from now, Big3 will be remembered as more spectacular than each of the Big3 members individually. It's almost like one career (apart from Federer's 2-3 season without Rafa). They are in a league of their own.

I too rank Borg above the rest, but it's almost impossible to think of Borg without thinking of McEnroe at the same time.

Lendl was such an impressive player, who had to face ATGs in just about every final; Borg, Connors, Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg...
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
I'm kind of thinking the same way. 20 years from now, Big3 will be remembered as more spectacular than each of the Big3 members individually. It's almost like one career (apart from Federer's 2-3 season without Rafa). They are in a league of their own.

I too rank Borg above the rest, but it's almost impossible to think of Borg without thinking of McEnroe at the same time.

Lendl was such an impressive player, who had to face ATGs in just about every final; Borg, Connors, Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg...
Lendl often seems to get overlooked - at least by some - in these discussions. Sometimes, I still debate the relative "merits" of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl.

Per The Big 3, as many greats as there have been, I don't think any of the OE players can match any of them as all-around players and with their remarkable longevity and drive. Obviously, they have distinctive games and personalities, but while they're still active and still the top players on tour, I'll let it all sort out before definitively ranking them. And it may still be tough.
 
Top