Who are your greatest players ever(1921-present)?

smoledman

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
 
Last edited:
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Rosewall, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...

The distinction and separation of the 3 eras should be made official by the tennis governing bodies. I've never thought it fair to compare greats Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl to the modern era players. The importance of certain tournaments has changed so much.

I've always thought players choose the importance and status of a tournament based on whether they show up or not.
 
Ofcourse the "kids" favourite Bill Tilden.
f681de965e7a2e010141eb435d64bfbe.jpg
 
I said it so many times ... you just can't ranked them ... It's impossible. OK, we can separate the Open Era.

Then, most of guys who actually watched Budge are dead. You could read the history books, old newspapers still. e.i. Don Budge won so many majors back in 1938, 1939 ... I think he managed to win all majors. Before 'The Open Era' so many things were messed up.

Tennis was so different. So, the question is how you compare all of this stuff ... I didn't watch Budge. There are some old clips regarding Laver and his old matches on YouTube.

So, nice try with your thread but it didn't work out, sorry :). Well, maybe it did. We are talking :unsure:
 
Luka888 said:
I said it so many times ... you just can't ranked them ... It's impossible. OK, we can separate the Open Era.

Then, most of guys who actually watched Budge are dead. You could read the history books, old newspapers still. e.i. Don Budge won so many majors back in 1938, 1939 ... I think he managed to win all majors. Before 'The Open Era' so many things were messed up.

Tennis was so different. So, the question is how you compare all of this stuff ... I didn't watch Budge. There are some old clips regarding Laver and his old matches on YouTube.

So, nice try with your thread but it didn't work out, sorry :). Well, maybe it did. We are talking :unsure:
Click to expand...

I read about Don Budge and his clashes with Von Cramm in 1938 Wimbledon & Davis Cup. Those were considered epic matches and that was before 1939's CYGS! All I really know is he won 6 straight slams and nobody else has even won 5 straight. Sure the style of play was mostly S&V, but that's how it was, who cares? I'd love to see Rafa play with a 70sq wooden racquet, that would be hilarious.
 
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen playing anyone from 1921 to the early seventies, so I can’t provide an answer.
 
Last edited:
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...
Actually, Wimbledon still had the Challenge Round in 1921, which Tilden won.

If Tilden had been required to play through, he might have lost, as he was suffering from food poisoning.

1922 was the first Wimbledon to abolish the Challenge Round.
 
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...
1968-1987 the AO wasn't rotating surfaces. 100% of the tournaments were on grass
 
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...
Should include Jack Kramer in the preopen era, he is ridiculously underrated. Why are Kuerten, Murray and Wawrinka included? Did you put three slams as threshold?
 
I think the point is Murray and Wawrinka dont belong on a list of the games all time greatest champions which I would concur with, particularly not Wawrinka. Even though he has 1 more slam I am pretty sure Wawrinka belongs behind Lleyton Hewitt and possibly even Safin.
 
Mainad said:
Well, why Kramer and not the other 3? They all won 3 Slams.
Click to expand...

Kramer is a very different case. He was one of those who didnt win nearly as many as he would due to the Pro game situation at the time, something which ironically he helped foster further by making the pro game even more lucrative and a draw away from the amateur game and the slams. He was a truly dominant player though, it took Gonzales several years as a pro to start overcoming him, and by then Kramer was likely past his own prime. The tour ran a head to head of the new established best amateur and him for many years since it was the equivalent of a Goliath task since for the longest time nobody could beat him or win a head to head tour against him. His power and attacking game were scary and intimidating to face for years; and his contributions to the game through his building of the pro game (even if he helped drive it into the ground eventually) should be considered to. Many believe he belongs in the top 10 all time ahead of possibly even people like Lendl and Connors. He certainly rates above Murray and especialy a real weak 3 slam winner like Stan Wawrinka.

Gonzales has only 2 slams, but I am sure you know better than to judge him or rank him by that. Kramer is probably not as great as Gonzales, but the same logic applies to him.
 
trailgraves said:
Kramer is a very different case. He was one of those who didnt win nearly as many as he would due to the Pro game situation at the time, something which ironically he helped foster further by making the pro game even more lucrative and a draw away from the amateur game and the slams. He was a truly dominant player though, it took Gonzales several years as a pro to start overcoming him, and by then Kramer was likely past his own prime. The tour ran a head to head of the new established best amateur and him for many years since it was the equivalent of a Goliath task since for the longest time nobody could beat him or win a head to head tour against him. His power and attacking game were scary and intimidating to face for years; and his contributions to the game through his building of the pro game (even if he helped drive it into the ground eventually) should be considered to. Many believe he belongs in the top 10 all time ahead of possibly even people like Lendl and Connors. He certainly rates above Murray and especialy a real weak 3 slam winner like Stan Wawrinka.

Gonzales has only 2 slams, but I am sure you know better than to judge him or rank him by that. Kramer is probably not as great as Gonzales, but the same logic applies to him.
Click to expand...

Trouble is that everyone's opinion is subjective. We can't really argue over should have's and would have's because we can never really know. We can only go on actual achievements and what the stats say and, when applying those, you have to be consistent to make it worthwhile.
 
NatF said:
Kramer was a giant of his time who spent years at the top of the ranking in the pro era. He's probably in the conversation with guys like Lendl, Agassi, Connors etc...rather than Murray and Wawrinka.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not getting into any more arguments with you over this sort of thing because whenever the dreaded name of Murray is mentioned you immediately reach for your half-empty glass and proceed to pour the remainder away. My reply to trailgraves on this is where I stand on this sort of thing and ditto with you.
 
Mainad said:
Trouble is that everyone's opinion is subjective. We can't really argue over should have's and would have's because we can never really know. We can only go on actual achievements and what the stats say and, when applying those, you have to be consistent to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, when I think of pantheon of legends in a historic sense though I dont think of Murray and certainly not Wawrinka. As I said I am pretty sure Wawrinka belongs behind Hewitt despite technically having 1 more slam. Murray atleast is the best 3 slam winner atleast results wise, and better than many 4 slam winners, while Wawrinka has to be by far the worst, and inferior to many 2 slam winners. And I love Stan but the results are what they are- Career high year end ranking #4, 1 Masters title, 1 additional slam final. And even if you get more subjective, while I know some rank about Stans peak playing level and his number of big wins over Djokovic, his total dominance off of clay at the hands of a nearly 100 year old Federer hardly makes me think he would be lifted by a subjective argument either.

Kramer is just often short listed in legends lists for the reasons I explained, yes it is subjective, but there are good reasons behind why he is often short listed.
 
Mainad said:
To be honest, I'm not getting into any more arguments with you over this sort of thing because whenever the dreaded name of Murray is mentioned you immediately reach for your half-empty glass and proceed to pour the remainder away. My reply to trailgraves on this is where I stand on this sort of thing and ditto with you.
Click to expand...

This post just shows what an embarrassment you are. I'm not saying anything bad about Murray, I'm saying Kramer is like a tier 2 ATG. But obviously you take in the worst possible way. Truly pathetic.
 
NatF said:
This post just shows what an embarrassment you are. I'm not saying anything bad about Murray, I'm saying Kramer is like a tier 2 ATG. But obviously you take in the worst possible way. Truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

You don't say anything "bad" about Murray but you have to put him down all the same whenever you get the opportunity. When did you last say something positive about him or would that fill up your half-empty glass a bit too much? If anybody dares to include Murray in any list of accomplished players you almost immediately come steaming in to make sure we know that he shouldn't be included. You can never let it go and that's why I get so frustrated with you so please don't act the innocent with me, I know you too well.
 
Mainad said:
You don't say anything "bad" about Murray but you have to put him down all the same whenever you get the opportunity. When did you last say something positive about him or would that fill up your half-empty glass a bit too much? If anybody dares to include Murray in any list of accomplished players you almost immediately come steaming in to make sure we know that he shouldn't be included. You can never let it go and that's why I get so frustrated with you so please don't act the innocent with me, I know you too well.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I do put him down - though I would say I put him in the right historical context - but that wasn't an example there. Which is why it was pathetic from you. If someone says "Actually I think Agassi is greater than Murray", that's putting Murray down according to you :-D All I was doing was trying to give you some information about Kramer, someone who many of his contemporaries consider the greatest of all time. Perhaps try not to be such a fanboy all of the time and you might actually absorb some extra knowledge...

Kramer was someone who should be put in the upper echelons of the ATG's IMO. Murray is not on that level and I don't think it's unfair to say that...
 
tennisaddict said:
Murray and Wawrinka in the list ? LOL. Might as well include Raonic and Nishikori.
Click to expand...
Murray & Stan each won 3 slams and been in finals in the Rafa/Fed/Djokovic era. If not for those 3, they may have 5 or 6 each.
When does a one-time finalist Raonic and Nishikori ever count as an all-time great? gimme a break
 
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...

Where's Newcombe and Nastase for 1968-87?
 
smoledman said:
The reason I pick 1921 is that was the year that no slam event had a 'Challenge Round' that allowed the champion from the previous year a straight ticket into the finals.

Pre Open Era:

Tilden, Perry, Von Cramm, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson

Early Open Era(1968-1987), when AO was rotating surfaces and time slots and generally being skipped by many top players

Laver, Ashe, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker

Modern Open Era(1988-present), the tour is basically set up as it is now with minor changes

Wilander, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka

As you can see a # of players straddle 2 eras which makes things even more interesting when discussing who is 'greatest ever'.
Click to expand...
Cochet?
 
Mainad said:
Well, why Kramer and not the other 3? They all won 3 Slams.
Click to expand...
Because Kramer played under completely different circumstances which were not comparable at all to today and where total number of slams was not the be all end all. He is way above in terms of greatness compared to three slam winners of today like Murray or Wawrinka, same as Gonzales being way above a two slam winner. Kramer did not only win pro slams but was also undefeated in these old pro tours destroying Gonzáles who is a legit GOAT candidate 96-27 in one of them (I know that this was not prime Gonzáles but he also never really avenged that beat down).
 
Open era: Federer, Nadal, Sampras , Djokovic, Agassi, McEnroe, Edberg. I put Pete ahead of Djokovic because Pete's serve in this era would've been better than Fed's and nullify Djokovic somewhat.
Djokovic got a lot of major wins against his lesser mirror image Murray and a 90% Rafa but loses to Wawrinka in slam finals.
Pete in today's tennis would be like Raonic but with better speed, better volleys, and a better baseline game. The guy had the mental, finesse net & power game to beat you. Pete is holding his serve and only needs to break Djokovic once.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Lob said:
The distinction and separation of the 3 eras should be made official by the tennis governing bodies. I've never thought it fair to compare greats Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl to the modern era players. The importance of certain tournaments has changed so much.

I've always thought players choose the importance and status of a tournament based on whether they show up or not.
Click to expand...
Plus the racket technology and strings have changed a lot. Although,a small shift may be coming as I'm starting to see more players S&V (Raonic, Zev, Tsitsipas) & come in recent years instead of being anchored to the baseline.
 
NatF said:
Sometimes I do put him down - though I would say I put him in the right historical context - but that wasn't an example there. Which is why it was pathetic from you. If someone says "Actually I think Agassi is greater than Murray", that's putting Murray down according to you :-D All I was doing was trying to give you some information about Kramer, someone who many of his contemporaries consider the greatest of all time. Perhaps try not to be such a fanboy all of the time and you might actually absorb some extra knowledge...

Kramer was someone who should be put in the upper echelons of the ATG's IMO. Murray is not on that level and I don't think it's unfair to say that...
Click to expand...
Murray, like Hoad, Raonic, Cilic, Nishikori, could have won more without injuries.

Tough to rate.
 
Mr.Lob said:
The distinction and separation of the 3 eras should be made official by the tennis governing bodies. I've never thought it fair to compare greats Borg, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl to the modern era players.
Click to expand...

Why should eras be made "official" when player comparisons and GOAT lists certainly are not official? Records are kept, but no one is required to care about them.
 
smoledman said:
Murray & Wawrinka have each won 3 slams. The other 2 have not, I can't believe I even responded to this idiocy.
Click to expand...

The risk of including those players is that since it is "the greatest players" list, it is going to include too many other players, and the whole exercise is going to be a kind of pointless.

13 players as the greatest players of the Open era only until now is ridiculous, unless I don't understand what the purpose of the whole thing is.

The differences between these players are so big that you can divide only the Open era in three or four groups.

8-)
 
I cannot agree to the fact that Wawrinka is mentioned in this thread. He peaked at certain times and won 3 slams but never had the consistency to be no.1. Being no.1 is a must criteria to be even mentioned as one of the greatest of all time. I like Wawa, but it wouldn't be fair to include him in this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
The big 4 for every decade?
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
Bruno Santiago
Top10 Tennis Players Ever - Top 10 Greatest Of All Times - Best Players of each Era - Top10 GOATs -
Replies
47
Views
5K
Bruno Santiago
Bruno Santiago
M
Significance of 2025 US Open Final - Before Big 3 - How often did a Men's Grand Slam Final feature 2 players with 4 or more Grand Slams?
Replies
1
Views
193
tennnisfanatic
T
L
Tiers
5 6 7
Replies
319
Views
22K
kiki
kiki
M
Greatest List
2 3
Replies
130
Views
10K
abmk
abmk
Back
Top