Does anybody know ?
Couldn't agree with you more. It's a travesty to have Graf below Sampras AND Navratilova. I'd put Graf as number one for the unparalelled greatness. She bursted into the tennis scene and stayed on top for almost the entire career and she held her head high even among the formidable foes, the likes of Seles and Navratilova. She left pro tennis with grace while ranked number 3. There has not been and will never be another tennis play (male or female) like Graf. NEVER!SonicSpeed said:It came out already.
I personally don't agree with their list because all 3 women have accomplished far more than Pete, even if you do factor in the tougher competition for the men. I would have put Pete at 4...and bump each woman up by one spot.
Isn't it just a stupid idea to include men and women on one list? It's not really feasible to compare Graf and Sampras.Happyneige said:Couldn't agree with you more. It's a travesty to have Graf below Sampras AND Navratilova. I'd put Graf as number one for the unparalelled greatness. She bursted into the tennis scene and stayed on top for almost the entire career and she held her head high even among the formidable foes, the likes of Seles and Navratilova. She left pro tennis with grace while ranked number 3. There has not been and will never be another tennis play (male or female) like Graf. NEVER!
This is not to take anything away from Sampras but I can clearly see Pete's records and accomplishments being challenged by current and future players. Federer will catch up with him and will tear Pete's record apart.
Got time to post your list AndrewD? Even top 20?AndrewD said:An altogether unpleasant list. If Graf, Court and Borg had been American they'd rank 1-3. Of course, Tennis magazine is written for an American audience so it's not really surprising but it is disappointing.
1. Steffi GrafYours!05 said:Got time to post your list AndrewD? Even top 20?
This is list is so ridiculous in so many ways:need2play said:40. Gabriela Sabatini
39. Patrick Rafter
38. Virginia Wade
37. Gustavo Kuerten
36. Jennifer Capriati
35. Stan Smith
34. Lleyton Hewitt
33. Hana Mandlikova
32. Tracy Austin
31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
30. Arthur Ashe
29. Lindsay Davenport
28. Ilie Nastase
27. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
26. Jim Courier
25. Venus Williams
24. Guillermo Vilas
23. Evonne Goolagong
22. Martina Hingis
21. Roy Emerson
20. Ken Rosewall
19. Roger Federer
18. Boris Becker
17. Serena Williams
16. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander
14. Stefan Edberg
13. Monica Seles
12. Andre Agassi
11. John McEnroe
10. Ivan Lendl
9. Billie Jean King
8. Rod Laver
7. Jimmy Connors
6. Margaret Court
5. Bjorn Borg
4. Chris Evert
3. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
Even with the magazine's disclaimer discounting laver's pre-1965 slam, his slam again in 1969 alone is still sufficient to rank him ahead of evert and connors.Kevin Patrick said:Here’s the disclaimer, for those of you who can’t believe they’re seeing Rod Laver at No. 8: Our Top 40 list focuses on the players’ achievements in the last 40 years, which required that we discount Laver’s pre-1965 accomplishments, including his first Grand Slam, in 1962. Even so, a single feat of the red-headed left-hander is enough to land him high on this list: a second Grand Slam, in 1969.
Ummmm..the fact that Borg couldn't win at neither the US Open NOR Oz?Type40 said:Yes, no kidding it's not based purely on major titles, otherwise there'd be no explanation for why Sampra who couldn't win at the french, is above Borg who won it 6 times, and wimbledon 5 times.
I would suggest you look over Court's records before saying that. Between 65 and 73 she beat Bueno, King, Richey and Goolagong in winning her Australian Open titles. All of them were top 10 and 3 of them are Hall of Fame players.Arafel said:Evert's association with the magazine is very minor and has no influence over the rankings. They ranked based on the last 40 years. Yes, I would put Evert over Court for the last 40 years. Heck, I would probably put Evert over Court period, since many of Court's GS titles were in Australia where most of the top players didn't play, even back in the 60s.
Not true, when they were playing, the top men played NONE of the Majors. The moment the Open Era came about, Emmo quit winning Majors.AndrewD said:It might have applied for a period of in the mid 70's to early 80's but when Court was playing - just the same as with Emerson- if you were a top player you played all of the majors.
Borg never played the Australian Open. Many people didn't make the trip down despite its "major" status. It's one of the reasons that simply measuring majors as the sole criterium for greatness is flawed.Camilio Pascual said:Ummmm..the fact that Borg couldn't win at neither the US Open NOR Oz?
Your argument is mystifying, Sampras won more Majors at MORE Majors, what IS your point again?
Actually, I do like Navratilova's tennis a lot. She had a great attacking style. Her tennis stands up through different eras and her results show it. Her commitment to fitness (along with Lendl at the time) changed the game. Plus, she's got some of the best hands and courtsense of anyone in tennis history. Also, she's the best tennis player in history. Not just a singles player. Not just a doubles player.Aykhan Mammadov said:Boys, why do u lie youself ? Do u have eyes ? If u didn't have I'd say that you can rely on only historical results. But you do have. So what? Do you like or liked Navaratilova's tennis so much? In comparison with Federer or Sampras ?
There's a bit of semantics in that. Of course we can only talk about the top players capable of playing during the non-Open era. To talk about anything else is only speculation and could allow someone to argue that Laver may well have won a third Grand Slam if he'd been able to play the majors. They could also, easily suggest that if he hadn't missed 6 years of playing in the majors, during his prime (he went pro at 24 and couldnt play the majors until he was 30) he'd have surely won more than 11 major titles. If he had then this whole topic would be done and dusted.Camilio Pascual said:Not true, when they were playing, the top men played NONE of the Majors. The moment the Open Era came about, Emmo quit winning Majors.
Too easy to earn a good living playing professional football (Aussie Rules or Rugby) or cricket. Probably the same as it is in the States with baseball, basketball and gridiron. Easier to be assured of a good income rather than take a risk and go for an inordinantly high one.Camilio Pascual said:PS - What has happened to tennis in Oz? Is it considered to be as big there as it was in the 50's and 60's? I was a teenager in the 60's and remember the Aussies as the great and highly respected enemy to be overcome by us Americans, which we finally did after years of struggle. I miss the Aussies.
Borg played in the Austrailian Open in 1974 and lost in the 3rd round.random1 said:Borg never played the Australian Open. Many people didn't make the trip down despite its "major" status. It's one of the reasons that simply measuring majors as the sole criterium for greatness is flawed.
Hallelujah! Another "keeper". Living near Kooyong, I saw both Court and Emmo lots, playing and practising. Well, you didn't ever know you were watching history in the making, but you knew Court was a one-off. As for Emmo, in those days he semed like a kind of stopgap to us - while we waited for the next Laver (or Hoad) to appear - at any moment. Much as he was appreciated and enjoyed, I hung out to see Rosewall's backhand rather than Emmo's neat efficiency. I have to say, posters going only by the record books tend to rate him too highly as a rule...AndrewD said:<snip>The simple fact is the very best players in the world were almost all Australian so they played the Aus Open. <snip>
I still rate Emmo highly but, as shown in that list I posted, quite a bit below the others. Id have rated Rosewall, of the Aussies, above him but thought the 1965-2005 time period favoured Emmo. As a 'great' he's below Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Sampras and Gonzalez but on a par with the next best of them.
As far as Court goes, I will maintain two things until I drop. Firstly, that she was the most dominant player of either sex and in any generation. Secondly, but most significantly, that her accomplishment in winning 3 majors in 73 after giving birth to a child and being pregnant with the second one (she found out she was pregnant a weeks after losing to Riggs) is the greatest accomplishment of any player and of any sex.
How often do we hear about that? Almost never, but why? Predominantly because Court didn't want the attention. If it had been BJK or Evert we'd never hear the end of it and neither should we have. However, Court wasn't a self-promoter. Also, very significantly, she didn't agree to join the original women's pro tour and, more significantly, wanted nothing to do with King's WTT. Court was a traditionalist and no-one wanted to admit that, in the era of Women's Lib, they'd been beaten by a wife and mother. Which, in hindsight is ludicrous, as the statement Court's accomplishment makes is that you can be wife, mother and professional athlete all at the same time which should be empowering and liberating. However, that just didn't fit the zeitgeist. It'd also be more widely publicised that Court, when she lost to Riggs, was both pregnant and injured. However, excuses weren't Court's style and they didn't suit King or Riggs's agenda either.
So the greatest accomplishment by a female tennis player (or any player, in my opinion) is neatly glossed over and she's relegated to a position that in no way fits her place in the game's history.
Second that as well. Something Sedgman said: "Dot[Hart] used to go in and volley. You know that's our way."Personally, I think the Australians and Americans should be doing more in collaboration to stop the entire men's pro tour shifting to a sleep inducing brand of slow court play. Roddick's a good player but he's a fast court player so give him a court he can play on. Until they speed up the clay courts I see no reason why we should be slowing the hard courts down.
According to this bio: http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/borgbjor.shtml he never played the AO, yet Wikipedia agrees with you that he played once, in '74. In any case, at most he played one time, and that was before he reached his peak performance.beernutz said:Borg played in the Austrailian Open in 1974 and lost in the 3rd round.