7
70sHollywood
Guest
Sorry, I meant Men or Women!
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
Sorry, I meant Men or Women!
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I definitely used to find the women easier, but this thread has got me thinking about it again and now I am not sure.
I think the lesson here is less thinking!
I am certain of Serena at number 1 though. Aside from her stats and so on it's just the sheer dominance in terms of her game. Even looking at it pound for pound, era for era I cannot imagine anyone being better than her. I actually feel Connolly is the next best in this regard, the way people used to talk about her even long after she had retired.
I was trying to think which man has/had this same kind of aura. Which player just seemed like nothing that had come before and was so good that it was hard to imagine them being bettered in the immediate future?
Dan, Just another of your curious claims. You (especially YOU!!!) know exactly how strong Hoad was till Wimbledon. Please make better jokes!
mattosgrant, You err agreeing with Dan. Of course Hoad was the great favourite for 1956's Wimbledon because he was clearly better than Rosewall. Lew had won the Australian and the French Championships and had a positive hth against Rosewall. Rosewall was better than Hoad only AFTER Wimbledon.
in 1968 Laver was better on grass than Rosewall (as often). Rosewall was already 33 plus.
mattosgrant
Banned
Oh the women were probably harder actually. I went with the general consensus on Graf and Serena as the top 2, but really it isnt clear to me if one or both should be ahead or behind Navratilova, Evert, Court. I think Serena is the best player and would have a winning overall record prime to prime with each, but whether she is the greatest (or even 2nd greatest to Graf) is another story. Lenglen and Wills on paper were more dominant for a longer time than anyone, but how do you accurately compare them, particularly Lenglen who due to travel and health issues still doesnt have the numbers despite the dominance. Connolly is a what if who was more dominant as a teenager than anyone ever, with Seles very close behind in that regard.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
What little video I've seen of Little Mo is very impressive in terms of the quality of her shotmaking. I think it's a possible mistake to discount her level of play compared to more recent players.
mattosgrant
Banned
Regarding level of play evaluations that is another thing that is so hard. Comparing players with wood racquets to ones playing with the modern graphite ones that are so much more advanced. That is one reason I usually go mostly with achievements, since while it is possible to compare modern day players with similar equipment in level of play, it gets nearly impossible beyond that.
I have seen some of Mo playing on tape though and it was very impressive. She was like a machine and impeccable groundstrokes, and extremely powerful considering it was wood, so accurate, and never missing. She also intimidated by her sheer demeanor and will out there. Some historians believe she is the true best ever, and they might be right.
"Curious"? Bobby, no one doubts that Hoad was the betting favourite to win Wimbledon in 1956, it was widely reported at the time. Are you joking, Bobby?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Problem I have with Serena is that she has had a lot of years that were NOT so great unlike Court who was almost always great or Evert or Lenglen. Serena may be the GOAT but I do have some reservations about her status. To be the GOAT obviously means you have to have high standards. Serena could be the GOAT but I reserve my right to wait on this.
Dan, You are erring. You above wrote that Rosewall was the betting favourite. See your own post No. 98.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I believe John Barrett, for one, says that Connolly is the greatest women player of the wood era, and Serena the greatest of the graphite era.
Connolly is of course a "what if?" case, but I also think she played in a relatively weak era. So she may have kept winning virtually everything until the late 1950s if she hadn't been injured - but we know that, even with her injury, no Tier 1 great emerged until Court in the early 1960s. So, I think that maybe her invincibility may be overstated just a little bit.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Margaret Osborne duPont, Louise Brough, Doris Hart, Shirley Fry, Althea Gibson, among others. I wouldn't call that a weak era.
Limpin, I agree.
My mistake...Rosewall was the betting favourite at Wimbledon for 1956..it was reported in Time magazine.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
We all make mistakes Dan. It happens. No big deal.
Dan, Thanks. But then Time magazine must have had drunken journalists. Hoad was way better than Rosewall in 1956 till Wimbledon.
They gave the exact line in numbers...these guys knew the betting rounds. Rosewall attracted the smart money, Hoad had underperformed in previous Wimbledon's, but Rosewall had almost won in 1954. So Rosewall was the smart favourite.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Tier one greats are GOAT candidates. They don't always overlap.
mattosgrant
Banned
Well she faced Bueno and Hart who are quite great players, both 6 slam winners. Bueno a legend at Wimbledon, and Hart one of those who won the Career Slam. Also Shirley Fry who also achieved the Career Slam. It might not have been the strongest ever, but it doesnt seem like a weak one either facing Bueno, Hart, and Fry all solidly in their primes. I dont count the great Osborne Du Pont so much, who was clearly past her prime, though still playing. Nor Gibson who was playing but well before her best.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
The problem I have with saying whom is the greatest female player ever (so I don't) is that the goal posts appeared to have moved. Now it's seems to be all about how many majors said player has accumulated when it's only since the mid to late 80s when all 4 majors have carried a similar weight - this benefits Graf and those that followed.
Did Wills Moody or Lenglen ever play the Australian? Evert, Bueno and BJK rarely played it.
The French also has a chequered attendance of top players - Evert missing 3 years at her absolute dominance. Cawley rarely playing it.
I've read that tournaments such as the Family Circle Cup and WCT Championships carried more weight than both The French and Australian during certain periods.
I think in more recent times, I'd only stick my neck out to say that both Court and Navratilova have had the best careers if you factor in all disciplines - although Lenglen wasn't too shabby on this front.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
She did - and won a million dollar bonus for doing so.
Evert came close but a virus in 1983 (Wimbledon - her only loss there that wasn't SF or better) put paid to that.
A few others.
Men:
Ramanathan Krishnan - for his touch play. The softest hands I ever saw.
Wilhelm Bungert - for his classical strokes (and his ramrod back!)
Manuel Santana - I just really liked the guy and his style
and two others I miss right now
Nalbandian - for the purity of his backhand, and general shotmaking
Safin - for the thunderous power of his backhand
Women:
Not so many. I like women who are mobile. So my list is:
Goolagong - for the gracefulness of everything. Her movement, her shots, her behaviour, winning or losing.
Mandlikova - again movement, and ability to produce the unexpected. I forgive her mentality!
Mauresmo - movement again, and the most classic volleying style, even in modern conditions. The best volleyer, male or female, of the 21st century (apart from Cara Black).
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
1- Pancho
2-Laver
3-Fed
4- Sampras
5- Rosewall
6- Rafa
7-Borg
8-Novak
9-Connors
10- Lendl
Not rating budge, tilden , vines and others as I don't know much about them.
Another thing if Novak wins 1 more major, I will put him at 5 above Rosewall.
2-Laver
3-Fed
4- Sampras
5- Rosewall
6- Rafa
7-Borg
8-Novak
9-Connors
10- Lendl
Not rating budge, tilden , vines and others as I don't know much about them.
Another thing if Novak wins 1 more major, I will put him at 5 above Rosewall.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Open era only:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
NatF
Bionic Poster
Open Era:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
Pre Open Era:
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Kramer
6. Budge
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Riggs
10. Perry
Overall:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Pancho
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Rosewall
10. Kramer
Something like that.
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Borg
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Agassi
10. Becker
Pre Open Era:
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Tilden
4. Rosewall
5. Kramer
6. Budge
7. Vines
8. Hoad
9. Riggs
10. Perry
Overall:
1. Laver
2. Federer
3. Pancho
4. Sampras
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Rosewall
10. Kramer
Something like that.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
What happens to your lists if Djokovic wins the Grand Slam this year?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
This was harder than I thought, and subject to change without notice. 
Pre Open:
Laver
Gonzalez
Budge
Tilden
Kramer
Vines
Hoad
Rosewall
Trabert
Perry
Open:
Federer
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
McEnroe
Overall:
Laver
Federer
Gonzalez
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Connors
Lendl
Pre Open:
Laver
Gonzalez
Budge
Tilden
Kramer
Vines
Hoad
Rosewall
Trabert
Perry
Open:
Federer
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
McEnroe
Overall:
Laver
Federer
Gonzalez
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Connors
Lendl
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
He probably goes above Federer. Let's not get ahead of ourselves though
At my age, getting ahead of myself can be dangerous.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
No Tier 1 greats to contend with though. Of course someone has to win the majors in every era, and you're just listing off those who actually did. None of those is in contention for all-time top 10 status though.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
It may be that they were all so good, that with the exception of Conolley who reigned briefly, they all most cancel each other out.
Probably the best depth in women's tennis with the late 90s early 00s rivalling it.
NatF
Bionic Poster
This was harder than I thought, and subject to change without notice.
Pre Open:
Laver
Gonzalez
Budge
Tilden
Kramer
Vines
Hoad
Rosewall
Trabert
Perry
Open:
Federer
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
McEnroe
Overall:
Laver
Federer
Gonzalez
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Connors
Lendl
Interesting that you include Laver for both Pre and Open era lists. I simply considered Open Era achievements in the Pre Open era listings.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I considered Laver's open era achievements: The Grand Slam, 3 consecutive years as #1 (and probably the best player in absolute terms for 5-6 years, barring injuries that I didn't even know about until much later), 74 open era titles (if I recall correctly), 5 open era majors plus two TCC titles, numerous Masters equivalent titles. In my view, even without the Grand Slam he'd be a strong candidate for top 10 in the open era.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I agree, I'd put him quite high even just with his Open Era achievements.
Does your list reflect how you see their levels of play as well?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Good question. I would say that my lists are primarily based on sustained level of play. If they were based solely on stats, Rosewall would be higher in my pre-open list and would probably make my all time list. In Rosewall's case, his career stats are spread out over an extraordinarily long career, but, he was only on top for about 2 years as I see it.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
This was harder than I thought, and subject to change without notice.
Pre Open:
Laver
Gonzalez
Budge
Tilden
Kramer
Vines
Hoad
Rosewall
Trabert
Perry
Open:
Federer
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
McEnroe
Overall:
Laver
Federer
Gonzalez
Sampras
Borg
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Connors
Lendl
Laver is arguably among the top in pre-open and open achievements. Actually imo if you examine his pre-open achievements and open achievements separately I don't think he's number one (although close) in pre-open achievements and I don't think he's number one in open achievements. However if you combine them he does have an argument to be number one all time.
Level of play is a different thing. I think for example that Jack Kramer is among the very top if not the top for all time level of play. For achievements he is also great but not as high as that of for example, his great rival Pancho Gonzalez. Of course very few if any are higher than Gonzalez for accomplishments.
Kramer does have a number of years as the top player in the world. That to me means a lot.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Dan, I see the point but we know that Hoad was virtually invincible in 1956 till Wimbledon. Rosewall lost in the previous Wimbledon to unseeded Nielsen.
Limpin, I again must correct you: Laver was the best from 1968 to 1979 when he retired.
Get serious and apologize for your mean lie!
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Or less so, by todays standards
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
You sound like a thirteen year old girl here.
Phoenix1983, Okay, but how does Limpinhitter sound for you who made a mean and absurd lie about me (40 open era majors for Rosewall) in order to suggest I'm a village idiot????
I'm sure many 13 years old girls possess more intelligence and good manners than you and Limpin...
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Considering the lack of video evidence I like to give Rosewall some benefit of a doubt regarding his playing level - hard to judge when his best matches have not been seen, he won enough big matches throughout his career for me to put him within the top 10 at least. Someone like Agassi who you place above him was only #1 for one year, albeit in the Open Era.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I admit to a bit of bias in favor of Budge because I have seen him play in pratice, way past his prime, of course. But, seeing him play up close was an epiphany for me in terms of how great past players were. Kramer, Tilden, Vines, may well have played at a higher level. But, I've read several of the opinions of his contemporaries and later players who have said that Budge was the greatest of all time, and those opinions are most likely based, in large part, on level of play considering the records of Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall. So, I am comfortable putting him where I did.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Having seen Rosewall play several times, in my opinion, I've probably seen a dozen players who played at a higher level. In my view, Rosewall's greatness was not how high his peak level of play was, but, how consistently he played at or near his best. It seems that he was always prepared to exploit any drop off of his toughest opponents' levels of play.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Did you see him in the early 60's? I've only seen a few matches of him from the Open Era. I might agree with your overall assessment but top 12 level of player plus his resume is enough to be in the top 10 IMO.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A lot of people put Budge right at the top of the all time greats list. Kramer does and many others like Sidney Wood. Tilden felt for 365 days a year Budge was the best although I wonder about leap years! LOL.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
There aren't many who have played at an average higher level than Rosewall but I also imo seen a number of greater players. Rosewall however was so tough that he could give any player a battle. He was always vulnerable however because he didn't have the overwhelming power of some players, even when he was at his peak. Laver is an obvious example of a player who could overwhelm him but Rosewall was always there if there was the slightest letdown.
