Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Yes, its part of the oddities of tennis history, and i confess that i have no definitive solution. I have always believed that Laver won 5 US pros, and Rosewall 3 (including his 1971 win at Boston), Gonzalez 8 and even Borg 3. And so stand the record books. Also Wembley was continued after 1967, and Rosewall won one more in 1968 (called Kramer Tournament of Champions) and Laver another 2 in 69 and 70, when it was called British Covered Courts. Its especially difficult to decide what was a biggie in the early open years, when many open majors (with the exception of 1969) had weak field without most top contenders due to the political struggles of promoters and federations.

Even if we don't consider the events after 1967 for the MAJORS balances, it's clear that Laver won 5 US Pros and Rosewall 3 altogether. But it's a significant difference between majors till 1967 and "normal" events in open era.

For instance Rosewall's 1971 US Pro win is important for his 1971 ranking (a tough tournament win) but not for his all-time majors sum.

Note: I do not think so because it's "better" for Muscles. I would think so also in the reverse case!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Thanks for your time. I am happy with your response. I know he is not in top ten and I was just wondering whether he would be in top 20. He was my childhood hero, and even now I scan youtube and watch him with starry eyes. You don't forget your childhood heroes. I must say I am very happy with the bolded part.

I know it's very difficult to rank and once again, thanks for your response

Edberg was on top for about a year and a half after Lendl had passed his prime. He dominated a very tough Courier at the 91 USO. Rod Laver ranks Edberg 10th in the open era, and doesn't rank Becker.

 

[krosero]

I'm "bashing" Federer only when people, for instance almost all posters on GeneralPPD, overrate Roger as the ultimate GOAT, not considering that Federer played in a weak era, that 17 majors is very good but not overwhelming in comparison to Rosewall and Laver and that the GOAT should have a better backhand than he actually has...

If Federer needs a better BH to be the GOAT (which I don't agree with), then Rosewall can come in under the same criticism for his serve. I don't call it a "bad" serve because at that level there's no such thing as bad strokes; but it was weaker than the majority of alltime greats' serves. Far weaker than the very best serves.

Newcombe took great advantage of Rosewall's second serve at Wimbledon in '70; and Rosewall served 11 doubles in that match. He also made some critical double-faults in the third set against Hoad in '56.

Vines dropped Rosewall down on his top 10 alltime list largely due to his serve.

Rosewall is probably the greatest of all the greats who had a non-notable serve. You could also mention HL Doherty, Bill Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Emerson, Connors. I have also read that the serve was the weakest part of Nusslein's game.

 

[abmk]

^^

That statement form BobbyOne is unbelievable ...... The irony of it all .....

Rosewall's serve on an average was 10 times the liability that federer's BH when not in form.

Enuff said !

 

[kiki]

as bad as it is, still doesn't trump the conversation b/w you and your other 'profiles' ......:twisted:

and if you actually went through the posts in this thread, there are plenty of posts from me responding to others ...

That, I fully agree.Nadalagassi is a guy that read a lot of tennis pages in sporting magazines but has yet to integrate that info in a coherent way...

 

[kiki]

you do realise when someone like kiki who places federer in the 2nd or 3rd tier of all time greats, his credibility goes right out of the window ..........obviously people will respond to dumb posts like those scathingly .....

people respect opinions when they are based on facts , not when they are immersed in hypocrisy, bias and ignorance ......

...and you talk about credibility???

 

[kiki]

Ignore him - he and kiki post the same drivel over and over again even when you try and get an earnest insight out of them. At least the others in this forum back up their opinions with articles, videos, book quotes, etc.

...and I back them up with visual experience, which is much better than that.Anybody aged from 6 onwards can do an excelletn recopilation of data...now, how many posters here say Laver,Rosewall,Roche,Emmo,Ashe et all live?? 5% maybe?

 

[kiki]

1. federer
2. sampras
3. borg
4. gonzales
5. tilden
6. lendl
7. nadal
8. mac
9. connors
10.agassi

..........

30. laver
40. rosewall

laver and rosewall - because they won mostly in the weakest era of all time !!!!

while you tennis knowledge remains at -0, at least, your sense of humour has improved tremendously...that is a major achievement on these boards and deserves a big BRAVO

 

[abmk]

...and you talk about credibility???

yes .....you don't understand the word ? well , considering you don't have any .... I wouldn't be surprised .....

 

[kiki]

all those players are better than someone like drsydale who beat him at the US Open in 68 .....

roddick, tsonga,scud in particular inflict blowouts on Kodes outside of clay , one of the representatives of the Laver era - weakest era of all time !!

As formerly stated, your sense of humour is becoming GOAT...

 

[kiki]

Thanks for that funny joke!

I Think that list is not fully accurate...I´d put Rosewall 30 and Laver 40...that´s it¡¡¡

 

[abmk]

^^

I assure you that while the top 10 list was meant to be a joke , that post wasn't .....

roddick, tsonga and scud at the peak of their powers are considerably better than Kodes off clay .... Most who have seen them play would agree ....

 

[kiki]

I think you are new here.

Kiki is probably jealous of Roger Federer. The weak era crap is something that they invent to belittle Roger. We all recently saw how an old washed up Hewitt took a set off Novak Djokovic at his fave surace this year, lolz This poster is obsessed with Roger and is here only to express extreme hatred for Roger. If you try to reason with that particular poster, the response would be "*******" or something like that. According to Kiki, Roger is in the third tier. Why waste time arguing with such a person?

I consider Roger Federer as one of the greatest players of all time and I am happy with it. I think the term GOAT is a disservice to all the players who have played so well in different time playing against different opponents and with different equipments.

Correction:I´d be jealous of Roger if he´d married Martina Hings, not Mirjana Vavrinec.

 

[abmk]

I think you are new here.

Kiki is probably jealous of Roger Federer. The weak era crap is something that they invent to belittle Roger. We all recently saw how an old washed up Hewitt took a set off Novak Djokovic at his fave surace this year, lolz This poster is obsessed with Roger and is here only to express extreme hatred for Roger. If you try to reason with that particular poster, the response would be "*******" or something like that. According to Kiki, Roger is in the third tier. Why waste time arguing with such a person?

I consider Roger Federer as one of the greatest players of all time and I am happy with it. I think the term GOAT is a disservice to all the players who have played so well in different time playing against different opponents and with different equipments.

that's correct.

He can't bear the fact that federer has in general consensus overtaken Laver as the GOAT and continues to stretch the lead over him even more .....

 

[abmk]

Top 10 for open era only:

1. federer
2. sampras
3. borg
4. nadal
5. lendl
6. mac
7. connors
8. agassi
9. becker
10. edberg

wilander just misses out ...

 

[kiki]

has anybody done here an exercise of equivalence of nº of majors if a player is considered in any other era, based on weak and strong eras consensus?

Let´s take Jan Kodes.let´s take Novak Djokovic.As it has been clearly and longly stated by seasoned psoters, 1970´s is about 2,5 more difficult to win a major than in th2 2000´s.So , if we transport Kodes to 2010, he´d have the equivalent of 7 majors of the era 20000´s.While, if we tranport Djokovic into , say, 1974, he´d have 2-3 majors equivalent of the 70´s era.

Interesting, very very telling and a good system to weighten titles to make a clarifying analogy...

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

has anybody done here an exercise of equivalence of nº of majors if a player is considered in any other era, based on weak and strong eras consensus?

Let´s take Jan Kodes.let´s take Novak Djokovic.As it has been clearly and longly stated by seasoned psoters, 1970´s is about 2,5 more difficult to win a major than in th2 2000´s.So , if we transport Kodes to 2010, he´d have the equivalent of 7 majors of the era 20000´s.While, if we tranport Djokovic into , say, 1974, he´d have 2-3 majors equivalent of the 70´s era.

Interesting, very very telling and a good system to weighten titles to make a clarifying analogy...

Brilliant!

 

[kiki]

Brilliant!

Thanks.Now, we should define a conversion rate that puts every era at their own place.

 

[Chillaxer]

As soon as Federer got a prime Nadal as main opponent he mostly lost to Rafa...

If they'd been the same age, wonder how the slam counts would have ended up?

 

[BobbyOne]

^^

That statement form BobbyOne is unbelievable ...... The irony of it all .....

Rosewall's serve on an average was 10 times the liability that federer's BH when not in form.

Enuff said !

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just too defensive...

 

[BobbyOne]

If Federer needs a better BH to be the GOAT (which I don't agree with), then Rosewall can come in under the same criticism for his serve. I don't call it a "bad" serve because at that level there's no such thing as bad strokes; but it was weaker than the majority of alltime greats' serves. Far weaker than the very best serves.

Newcombe took great advantage of Rosewall's second serve at Wimbledon in '70; and Rosewall served 11 doubles in that match. He also made some critical double-faults in the third set against Hoad in '56.

Vines dropped Rosewall down on his top 10 alltime list largely due to his serve.

Rosewall is probably the greatest of all the greats who had a non-notable serve. You could also mention HL Doherty, Bill Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Emerson, Connors. I have also read that the serve was the weakest part of Nusslein's game.

krosero, Rosewall's service cannot have been a weakness considering that this player has won more majors than any other player. You can't do it with a weak service.

You might be right regarding US 1956 and Wimbledon 1970 but we should consider that these two matches were played when Rosewall had a rather bad day.

Some experts have said that Rosewall improved his service after turning pro. And I guess it was again weaker when he became an oldie.

 

[forzamilan90]

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just to defensive...

it's a weakness against only one player, and that's Nadal, against anyone else Fed's backhand is pimp

 

[kiki]

Federer´s Bh may be stronger than Rosewall´s serve, I agree.But Rosewall had that return of serve to turn things around...

 

[abmk]

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just to defensive...

seriously, get rid of those tinted glasses .....

federer's BH >>>> rosewall's serve ...

federer has had matches where he's easily outclassed the best BHs he's faced in BH-BH battles :

agassi, safin, murray, djoker, nalby , wawrinka , gasquet etc ....

in an era of mostly baseline play, if one ground stroke is a weakness , there is no way that player wins more than 5 majors, let alone 17 majors ...

fed's BH is very good, rosewall's serve was average at best ...

federer's ability to "reset" points on the BH side is probably unmatched , his variety on that side is atleast in the top 5, if not the very best ...

 

[Dan Lobb]

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just too defensive...

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

 

[hoodjem]

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

I reject the premise that a player cannot be a GOAT candidate if he or she has one weak or merely adequate shot.

I don't believe that we should exclude Muscles because of his serve or Fed because of his backhand. It is probably record-book results that matter most.

 

[monfed]

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

 

[TMF]

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

You're one of many people have said this for the umpteen times.

And since the GS today is worth two Laver 1969 GS, you can argue Fed's 3 slams + 1 final is just as impressive as Laver's 69 because Fed is the only player who have done it on a 3 different surfaces.

 

[monfed]

You're one of many people have said this for the umpteen times.

And since the GS today is worth two Laver 1969 GS, you can argue Fed's 3 slams + 1 final is just as impressive as Laver's 69 because Fed is the only player who have done it on a 3 different surfaces.

and he's done it twice too! (2006,2007). Without Ralph(a clay freak), Fed would've had 2 consecutive CYGS in this era. :shock:

Plus Laver never played a freak like Ralph on clay. His moonballs would've gone above Laver's head!

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

I agree. Well said.

 

[BobbyOne]

I reject the premise that a player cannot be a GOAT candidate if he or she has one weak or merely adequate shot.

I don't believe that we should exclude Muscles because of his serve or Fed because of his backhand. It is probably record-book results that matter
most.

But at least one is entitled to hint to such a weakness. Most Federer fans are not aware that their idol has any weakness at all.

 

[BobbyOne]

and he's done it twice too! (2006,2007). Without Ralph(a clay freak), Fed would've had 2 consecutive CYGS in this era. :shock:

Plus Laver never played a freak like Ralph on clay. His moonballs would've gone above Laver's head!

Who the hell is Ralph??

 

[hoodjem]

Who the hell is Ralph??

Nadal.

How many slams would Fed have, if not for Nadal? 24? 25? 26?

 

[Mustard]

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

Pancho Gonzales has 8 years as the best player in the world, more than anybody else in the history of tennis. He faced all the best players of the time, and despite very strong opposition, he was never toppled as the world's best player before he went into his first retirement at the end of 1961.

Federer is just one of many GOAT candidates.

You're one of many people have said this for the umpteen times.

And since the GS today is worth two Laver 1969 GS, you can argue Fed's 3 slams + 1 final is just as impressive as Laver's 69 because Fed is the only player who have done it on a 3 different surfaces.

How is it worth two? There was a lot of difference between the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Laver actually hated the Forest Hills grass.

 

[BobbyOne]

Nadal.

How many slams would Fed have, if not for Nadal? 24? 25? 26?

It's a riddle for me how one can change Rafael or Rafa or Rafe to Ralph...

How many slams would Muscles have, if not for Laver? 30?

 

[Mustard]

How many would Laver have if not for Rosewall? He'd have another 6 pro majors and the 1968 French Open, as well as 2 WCT Dallas titles (a tournament Laver never did win).

 

[BobbyOne]

How many would Laver have if not for Rosewall? He'd have another 6 pro majors and the 1968 French Open, as well as 2 WCT Dallas titles (a tournament Laver never did win).

Yes, just as I had thought. And this brings me again to my older speculations about an always amateur Rosewall (without a pro Laver). Even more than 30 majors are arguable...

 

[pc1]

Pancho Gonzales has 8 years as the best player in the world, more than anybody else in the history of tennis. He faced all the best players of the time, and despite very strong opposition, he was never toppled as the world's best player before he went into his first retirement at the end of 1961.

Federer is just one of many GOAT candidates.



How is it worth two? There was a lot of difference between the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Laver actually hated the Forest Hills grass.

Of course it's not worth two Grand Slams today. By that logic the New York Mets winning the World Series in 1969 is .5 World Series. Makes absolutely no sense.

Skill sets are different nowadays and as I have written numerous times before, the question is now whether a player from a few years ago can adapt to today's racquets, it's is also a big question how a player today would adapt to tiny wood racquets and not have to rely on the current racquets and strings ability to generate heavy spin on groundies and serve.


Perhaps it's harder to adapt to wood? If that's true maybe Laver's Grand Slam is a harder feat. Can anyone say that is not true with total conviction?

 

[Limpinhitter]

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

There's a little more to measuring the greatness of a tennis player than merely counting up his major championships, especially players from the pre-open era. If all you're going to do is count major titles, why bother making a list. We can figure it out without you.

BTW, I haven't read where Laver said that. Can you provide a source? But, the way you wrote it, it appears that Laver is saying that Federer would have to win 2 Grand Slams today to equal his one Grand Slam.

 

[fed_rulz]

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just too defensive...

wow, i'd loved for Rosewall to've played against Nadal, on clay. why the cop-out, "at least against Nadal"? Is it because it's easy to find evidence of Federer's flubbed BHs against Nadal (and only on clay, of course)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3uI-A8fGM

before you protest that these are just highlights, there are plenty of these for a lot of matches that Federer has played. I know I'm wasting my time with you because you come across as one of those who can never be swayed with new evidence; your opinions seem cut in stone despite many pointing out that it's illogical.

 

[fed_rulz]

krosero, Rosewall's service cannot have been a weakness considering that this player has won more majors than any other player. You can't do it with a weak service.

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

 

[BobbyOne]

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

Rosewall won more majors than Federer plus he played in a stronger era.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Rosewall won more majors than Federer plus he played in a stronger era.

Rosewall won less majors than Federer plus he played in a weaker era.

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

/BobbyOneisatroll

He is the Rosewall edition of NSK.

 

[BobbyOne]

wow, i'd loved for Rosewall to've played against Nadal, on clay. why the cop-out, "at least against Nadal"? Is it because it's easy to find evidence of Federer's flubbed BHs against Nadal (and only on clay, of course)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3uI-A8fGM

before you protest that these are just highlights, there are plenty of these for a lot of matches that Federer has played. I know I'm wasting my time with you because you come across as one of those who can never be swayed with new evidence; your opinions seem cut in stone despite many pointing out that it's illogical.

I'm ready to learn. But not many posters have blamed my opinions as illogical. Most have agreed with my statements or at least have not contradicted me.. Among those who yet have contradicted me were two very fanatic guys: Federer fanatic, TMF, and Dan Lobb, Hoad fanatic...

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall won less majors than Federer plus he played in a weaker era.



/BobbyOneisatroll

You are third in that proud list!

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

You are third in that proud list!

I am ecstatic to be a part of it. I hope this means you will ignore all of my posts instead of just the relevant parts that you disagree with.

I'm ready to learn. But not many posters have blamed my opinions as illogical. Most have agreed with my statements or at least have not contradicted me.. Among those who yet have contradicted me were two very fanatic guys: Federer fanatic, TMF, and Dan Lobb, Hoad fanatic...

Federer's backhand has held up just fine. Nadal is pretty much the only one who was able to exploit it once Federer got his head in the game. It will never compare to his forehand, but that isn't a knock on his backhand.

 

[BobbyOne]

I am ecstatic to be a part of it. I hope this means you will ignore all of my posts instead of just the relevant parts that you disagree with.



Federer's backhand has held up just fine. Nadal is pretty much the only one who was able to exploit it once Federer got his head in the game. It will never compare to his forehand, but that isn't a knock on his backhand.

I would like to ignore you.

But note: Most posters here would disagree with you that Federer has won more majors than Rosewall and that he played in a stronger era than Muscles.

I concede that Federer now has three top opponents but he won many of his majors before they came along and reached their prime.


Rosewall played and won against Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors and Vilas. I hope that's enough for you, Federer fanatic!

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

I would like to ignore you.

But note: Most posters here would disagree with you that Federer has won more majors than Rosewall and the he played in a stronger era than Muscles.

I concede that Federer now has three top opponents but he won many of his majors before they came along.

Rosewall played and won against Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors and Vilas. I hope that's enough for you, Federer fanatic!

I'm extremely hurt that most posters would disagree about era strength. Other experts who aren't members of this forum tend to still rank Federer at #1, so perhaps they know something as well.

Of course, I know anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "true" expert or is instead a fanatic, but this is where we end up when we appeal to authority to try and end debates.

Thanks for the list of names that shows that the era was very competitive. It still says nothing about the actual level in comparison to other eras.

 

[piece]

has anybody done here an exercise of equivalence of nº of majors if a player is considered in any other era, based on weak and strong eras consensus?

Let´s take Jan Kodes.let´s take Novak Djokovic.As it has been clearly and longly stated by seasoned psoters, 1970´s is about 2,5 more difficult to win a major than in th2 2000´s.So , if we transport Kodes to 2010, he´d have the equivalent of 7 majors of the era 20000´s.While, if we tranport Djokovic into , say, 1974, he´d have 2-3 majors equivalent of the 70´s era.

Interesting, very very telling and a good system to weighten titles to make a clarifying analogy...

Just to make sure Kiki isn't referring only to himself (and perhaps bobbyone) here, I'd like to ask pc1, krosero, hoodjem, Borg number 1, urban, steve132, timnz, mustard, NonP and Moose Malloy - all 'seasoned posters' - whether they agree with the bold statement. Anyone I've forgotten to list, feel free to chime in.

 

[TMF]

There's a little more to measuring the greatness of a tennis player than merely counting up his major championships, especially players from the pre-open era. If all you're going to do is count major titles, why bother making a list. We can figure it out without you.

BTW, I haven't read where Laver said that. Can you provide a source? But, the way you wrote it, it appears that Laver is saying that Federer would have to win 2 Grand Slams today to equal his one Grand Slam.

Laver said it during 2007 AO.

Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won because standards are much higher these days.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer