Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
Given how we argue about tennis, I think it would be a good idea to keep politics out of this forum.
Flash, I would say, the Muslim invasion is rather a serious religious problem than a political.
hahaha.good idea.Shall we compare former politicians to current ones?
Like Obama/Federer or Nadal/Merkel against Tilden/Roosevelt or Hoad/Churchill??
would be fun.
...and you are the perfect example of that, right?
I agree....this forum used to have a Rants and Raves that was eventually totally removed as it got to heated. Politics should probably be avoided.
I agree. It's a tennis forum. Politics and religion often lead to horrible arguments.
Using the term "invasion" is very political. If you disagree, let's say we let religious matters outside of this forum as well.
Flash and pc1: Okay, I understand.
So difficult to pick over a century of competition. If we narrow it down to 1900 - 2012 and split it evenly pre and post 1956, it will suggest two top 5s something like this.1900-1956 ......Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Vines, Kramer. With Lacoste a maybe. 1957-2012 .....Rosewall, Laver, Federer,Sampras, Borg. Other contenders...Lendl,McEnroe, Nadal. However, I am pretty comfortable with the 1957-2012 top 5. It's the earlier top 5 I am less sure about.
Doug, Excellent choice.
Joining the Crusades anytime soon?
Hoad stated in 1953, when rejecting Kramer's offer to turn pro for 1954 and tour against Kramer in a best-of-100 series, that he wanted to win Wimbledon twice BEFORE turning pro, which he did.
Rosewall could have waited to win at Wimbledon before turning pro, and gained a better contract for doing so, although he would need to have waited until 1958 to do so.
GOAT Candidates: Rosewall, Tilden, Federer
Other five (no particular order): Gonzales, Laver, Lendl (very underrated), Sampras, Borg
Other all-time greats: Budge, Perry, Cochet, Kramer, Connors, Agassi, Nadal, McEnroe, Wilander, Lacoste, Becker, Edberg
He will be there pretty soon: Djokovic
Federic, I could be glad you rank Rosewall in the first group but I find it strange you put Laver into a lower group than Rosewall and the other two.
And I'm surprised that you put Connors in the third tier. I think he is as underrated as Lendl.
I've just explained on the other thread why I consider Rosewall superior to Laver. In my opinion his career achievements are just better. Laver is a giant, but not a GOAT candidate in my opinion. I think this forum is overrating him
We should consider that Laver won three Grand Slams and Rosewall "only" one.
most of the tennis world happens to agree with this forum
Nope, two against one. The 1962 Grand Slam doesn't count, it was against amateur players: 1967 and 1969 are the real ones, against Rosewall's 1963.
It doesn't matter that much to me.
I just look at their career achievements... I think they speak clearly. 19 undisputed Majors against 14. 1957-72 against 1964-69. Head-to-head in big tournaments: Rosewall 9, Laver 7 (and Rosewall was four years older).
treblings, tennis world is not always the truth per se, but regarding Laver tennis world and this forum are correct in putting him into first tier.
i was just stating what i believe is a fact. this forum has a reputation of over and underrating players, Laver is not one of them, imo.
you´re more than welcome to your opinion and i enjoy reading your debates even if i don´t regularly contribute. it all helps making youngsters aware of the history of our beautiful sport
isn´t that the truth
as you said before, some players are underrated and nearly forgotten and it´s a good thing that they get discussed here and remembered. i don´t mind even if for example kiki overpromotes Jan Kodes in a rather ridiculous way.
because Kodes should be remembered.
or someone like your own Hanne Nüsslein or many of the other pro players who where banned from the amateur scene
Mmmm I'm not do sure about that. Older historians perhaps, but I find current experts/people in the tennis world to see things a bit differently
they probably lean more towards the more current players?
just to clear up a possible misunderstanding. i was talking about Laver being in the first tier not the undisputed goat
Ok yeah I think Laver is generally considered first tier. I was going more in line with Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden not being mentioned/considered much by contemporary media. Generally it's Fed, Laver, Sampras, Borg and Nadal that are thought upon as high tier greats by conntemporary media
that´s what i really like about this forum. it discusses great players that in my opinion get overlooked by the media and the tennis playing world in general. you don´t see me posting much here, because i have to confess i´m not into ranking
but i like that they get talked about here and recognized
That's what I enjoy also. It's (hopefully) reasonable discussion about history and past players.
treblings, I agree. By the way, Nüsslein is not my own since he was German and I'm from Austria but it's nice you called him by his very nickname, Hanne, which sounds a bit female....
he´s one of your favourite players, admit it
i know that he´s German of course, read the wonderful book.
and we´re both Austrian, is it snowing at the moment in your hometown?
Forza, You surely are right that the modern experts and fans are more focussed to current players. But even if we have a Federer hype world-wide, many experts still appreciate Rod Laver (and forget about Rosewall, Gonzalez, Tilden, as the ugly Tennis Channel list showed).
I only can agree.
Yes, Nüsslein is one of my favourite players. He is so much underrated and unknown to many fans and maybe even experts. I rank him top claycourt player of the 1930s, ahead of von Cramm, Perry, Crawford...
Yes, it's snowing just now in my city where Danube is seldom as blue as described in that wonderful Waltz...
i wonder whether the danube was in fact blue when Strauss wrote his famous waltz
Nüsslein being the top claycourt player of the 30´s?
Nüsslein won 9 of his 11 pro majors on clay. He defeated Kozeluh, Vines, Cochet, Tilden (who even had beaten Budge in the SFs of Southport 1939). After his 1938 crushing Tilden at Paris, Big Bill said that Nüsslein was stronger than Lacoste...
Tilden also reported that Hans used to beat von Cramm in practice matches. He lost their only official match in four sets when he was handicapped by a cold.
I disagree, because Pro Majors were not so great in the 30s. They become great only in 1939, when Budge joined the professional circuit, and Perry and Vines started to play more tournaments (until 1938 they preferred tours). In my opinion the only real Major won by Nüsslein was Southport 1939.
I still rate von Cramm ahead of him. Anyway, he was a great player (world no. 3 in 1939 for sure), whose career was destroyed by federation's stupidity: how can you ban a 15/16 years old boy?
Federic, You are rather bold to take off 10 majors from Nüsslein. For instance in 1934 he won the prestigious US Pro beating Vines (probably world's No.1) and Kozeluh. In 1933 he won the pro world championship defeating a still fabulous Tilden and Kozeluh. In other majors he beat strong Cochet plus Tilden. Don't underrate players like Plaa and Ramillon. Both were world pro champions.
Tilden was a force in all years of the 1930s. F.i. in 1934 he defeated von Cramm on clay clearly at Berlin. It is reported that Nüsslein had the edge against Tilden.
I also rank Nüsslein among the top three for 1933 to 1936 plus 1938.
In 1935 he beat America's NO.1, Allison in an official pro/am match.
Federic, Yes it was a shame that German Tennis Federation banned Nüsslein for lifetime and never was ready to revise that verdict...
Nusslein is one of the unfortunate cases in sports history of what if. He probably would be one of the great figures in tennis history (to my mind he is) if he was allowed to stay an amateur.
Yes, pc1, I can see hypothetical Roland Garros finals von Cramm vs. Nüsslein...
I don't underrate Ramillon or Plaa, they were good players, but surely not big ones, they never won anything big (Frenc Pro 1931-32 were weak titles, we don't even know if they really happened ). Plaa won in Berlin 1932, which was a pretty good tournament but not a Major in my opinion (Tilden was past his prime, Nusslein was not in his prime yet, and obviously a lot of strong amateurs were missing).
Talking about Nusslein, the 1933 World Pro can't be considered a Major in my opinion: another pretty good tournament, but Kozeluh and Tilden were 38 and 40 at the time (and Kozeluh was not a big champion in my opinion).
In 1934 he had an amazing victory at US Pro against Vines, but we know that Vines was not unbeatable on clay.
On other Pro Slams he won, he faced mainly old players, while Perry and Vines were on tours (moreover, in my opinion Cochet never shined as a Pro: he had some good moments, but surely nobody will remember him for his Pro career).
From my point of view, Nusslein won only a proper Major, Southport 1939, but I can accept who says he won two Majors, for his 1934 win over Vines, which was surely a big achievement. That said, I really can't credit him more than two Majors.
So if someone asks me about Nusslein, I will introduce him like this: "an underrated Pro player from the 30s, particularly strong on clay. He won several tournaments in his circuit, even if many of them had depleted fields (because at the time amateurs had another circuit, and the strongest Pros preferred touring). Anyway, with his not-so-rare victories over Tilden and Vines, he can clame a place between the most distinctive players of the 30s. His biggest victory was Southport 1939, an English tournament on clay, which was surely a Major in that season."
I can say he was a sort of Muster of the 30s: enormously strong on clay, but only one Major ;D
Federic, I must correct you: The 1931 and 1932 French pro were surely held. I keep the French papers of that time. I concede: Only French players participating. Ramillon was a world pro champ of the 1920s (depleted field).
Kozeluh was a seven times world champion.
Tilden was awesome in 1932 and about as strong as the best amateurs. For 1931 some posters here (not me) rank Big Bill even No.1.
Nüsslein was very strong indoors, see his great match against Budge at WEmbley.
Nüsslein's win over Vines in 1934 was not amazing (but still great) because he usually beat him on clay...
Cochet was very strong in 1936. he never won a set against Nüsslein in all of their ten matches. Cochet won several amateur tournaments after WW2!
So we really can't count them as Majors.
Just four Pro Slam, all with depleted fields except US Pro 1932 (which was still not a Major in my opinion).
He was surely strong, no doubts about it.
Never said he was bad on indoor courts, I simply stated that he was one of the very best of the time on clay.
Can't understand why it was not amazing...
so, Nadal victories over Federer on clay are not amazing because he usually beat him there?
Little amateur tournaments with depleted fields, I can't count them in any manner. His only important victory has a Pro was the 1936 French tournament, which missed Nusslein, Tilden and Vines. In my opinion is clear that he was not so strong during his Pro years.
Roma locuta, causa finita. Or not?
Why only four majors for Kozeluh? He also was seven times world champion in the 1920s (Deauville and Beaulieu).
I agree that Cochet was weaker as a pro as an amateur till 1933. But he was still rather strong in the 1930s and even after the war (when he won tournaments against strong players).
How can you count his Bristol Cups as Majors? They had very weak fields...
I disagree, my impression is that after he turned Pro he was strong just on occasion. He was 32 when he turned Pro and he had not Tilden's longevity.
Federic, don't you value the 1972 and 1973 Wimbledon as majors because many pros were absent?
The 1972 edition was surely a Major: many absent, but also many strong players. On the contrary, I don't count the 1973 edition as a Major: only one of the top-10 players, it was the weakest Slam of the Open Era (except some A.O. editions).
Federic, We are dancing on dangerous ice if we begin to divide majors in true majors and non-majors depending on how many top players participate.
Wimbledon 1972 yes (with only 3 or 4 top players participating) and W.1973 no (with two top players participating)? That's too accidental.
It is ridiculously dangerous to just rank not on the field. We have discussed this in the past. Do we then decide on how strong the individual players are at this point? Of course not. Is the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic a double major because Laver won it by defeating Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Emerson, Okker, Ashe (a few times), Okker (a few times), Ralston and Roger Taylor? Laver did win 13 consecutive best of five matches without a loss against possibly the strongest field of all time. It was a prestigious event.
Incidentally the 1973 Wimbledon had Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes and Jimmy Connors, Metrevili, Roger Taylor and a young Borg. Nastase, Kodes and Taylor were originally seeded before the boycott. Connors would not have been but in retrospect he was probably deserving of one of the top few seeds, imo probably top five considering his record and strength.
Admittedly majors at times can lose prestige like the Australian Open for a number of years. Clearly the Year End Masters and the WCT Championship was de facto majors at that time.
Only Nastase was in the top-10 at the time of W '73. Kodes was under the top-10 (#15 on the original tournament seeding).
On the contrary, at W '72 we had Smith and Nastase (two best players that season), Kodes (seeded #8 at the US Open, so he was a top-10 at Wimbledon also), and Orantes (#10 at the US Open, he may have not been at Wimbledon, but was surely near).
Smith #1 at the time of the tournament
Nastase #4 at the time of the tournament, but #1 or 2 that season
Kodes around #8 at the time of the tournament
Orantes probably a top-10 at the time of the tournament (not sure, anyway)
Nastase #1 at the time of the tournament
Kodes #15 at the time of the tournament (#9 in the year-end chart)
Moreover, W' 73 missed 80-85 of the top-100 players, while W '72 missed only WCT Players.
It is not the same thing in my opinion.
W 1972 was obviously depleted, but four top-10 and many top-100 is way better than just one top-10 and a few top-100.
I mean, with today's rankings, W '72 would look like this:
#1 seed Djokovic
#2 seed Federer
#3 seed Tsonga
#4 seed Gasquet
...and W '73 like this:
#1 seed Djokovic
#2 seed Raonic
Which one is better?
Separate names with a comma.