Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 people always tend to turn to their own generation so obviously massive, and deserved, support for federer but as someone in the paper said yesterday, it might be hard to be considered as the best of all time if you can't even be seen as the best of your generation. nadal has now beaten federer 8 times out of ten in majors. on all surfaces. if frazier had beaten ali 8 out of 10, there is no chance we'd think of ali as the greatest (for those that do). but federer is clearly one of the absolute greats. nadal staking a claim. mcenroe was brilliant. have to say i was always a massive fan of pete sampras. for me, he goes very very close. but then there is rod laver. 2 grand slams, in 1962 and 1969 - the only player ever to do that (one as an amateur and one as a professional). and in between, he was effectively prevented for competing for them due to the ban on professionals (still won something like another 8 equivalent titles in the professional arena, inclusing a slam). how many might he have won otherwise. don't forget federer, sampras, agassi, nadal, borg, mcenroe etc etc - none of them won one! was world number one for seven years in a row. 11 majors (how many would federer won if you took out five of his best years?). stats are amazing. as for women, i know that there will be support for serena williams, stffi graf, chris evert, navratilova, billie jean king but no one comes close to the record of margaret court. two grand slams. 24 majors!! another 19 doubles majors and 19 mixed doubles majors. she won better than 90% of her singles in all majors - that is amazing. i think serena has 12 majors and so does king - makes court and king all the more impressive as they played the same era. navratilova has 18 majors and countless other titles so would have to be the closest challenger to court.
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 i added the women just to be 'comprehensive' but of course, for 'greatest', it obviously has to be a bloke.
gigabyte056 Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Am looking for Jimmy Connors. Study in science daily Empirically he was the best player of all times...
coblos Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Tough question. I voted Pete Sampras. We need to keep their DNA so in the future we can clone them and put them all head to head.
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 Am looking for Jimmy Connors. Study in science daily Empirically he was the best player of all times... interesting. i did think of connors, and he was undoubtedly a top player, and best in the world at one stage. but i remember how ashe so cleverly outplayed him at wimbledon - 75? and how newcombe beat him at the aussie open in 74, i think. good but hardly a laver/federer/sampras etc. i don't see him as better than any of the blokes named (hewitt is obviously not serious - as terrific a fighter as he has been, and as well as he played winning his majors). and the "study" is fascinating. i guess it all depends on how you want to put a study together to get the "empirical' results you want. i've set out the list below (actually, i haven't - my machine wouldn't do it but i encourage those interested to have a squizz) and i doubt you'll get many supporting their findings. i think i have seen all of those players, some more than others and many of them live, and it is a very very strange order. worth noting it starts late 60's so laver and many others out. but federer and sampras 7 and 8 with lendl 2 and vilas 4. that alone should have sent the entire thing to the delete bin. tom okker better than wilander? newcombe and rosewall so low? i don't care what system he used, this is a crock. reminds me of some mathematician who fronted up pre the recent australia v india cricket series to declare that "empirically" sachin tendulkar was better than bradman. as wonderful as tendulkar has been for so long, what a load of crap. it would be like coming up with stats to 'prove' that rex grossman was a better quarterback than brady, montana, bradshaw, farve, and about ten others. 1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 okay, apparently the machine did load the list, though it has made a complete hash of it? no idea what my computer gets up to. but seriously, orantes, gottfreid, okker, solomon and dibbs are all better than nadal, rosewall and newcombe? he is taking the piss.
Duane Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 i think mcenroe you cant go past those dummy spits, thats what made it stick with me.
Coolio Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 i added the women just to be 'comprehensive' but of course, for 'greatest', it obviously has to be a bloke. I was going to vote for Jason Stoltenberg, but surprisingly couldn't find him on your list Ken! Seriously though, I think the greatest player of all time is a woman. Esther Vergeer. Vergeer powers to another title defence to extend winning streak http://beta.itftennis.com/wheelchair/news/articles/scheffers,-vergeer-and-norfolk-win-australian-open-titles.aspx Todays win in the Australian Wheelchair open makes it 444 matches without a loss. That's not too shabby.
laficion Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Out of all these players, who smokes Habanos ? Then I'll vote.
TWalker Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Out of all these players, who smokes Habanos ? Then I'll vote. The only one I've seen smoking a cigar was McEnroe on Saturday Night Live, and being chased by the cops.
Ghabanos Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Can't say for sure who is the best but I Am 100% CERTAIN that it is NOT either of th Williams sisters
canadianbeaver Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Great question, but I went for best looking... am I crazy??
riazp Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Agassi, best of my era and he has persian blood like myself.
CaptainQuintero Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster1. Jimmy Connors11. Boris Becker21. Mats Wilander2. Ivan Lendl12. Arthur Ashe22. Goran Ivanišević3. John McEnroe13. Brian Gottfried23. Vitas Gerulaitis4. Guillermo Vilas14. Stan Smith24. Rafael Nadal 5. Andre Agassi15. Manuel Orantes25. Raul Ramirez6. Stefan Edberg16. Michael Chang26. John Newcombe7. Roger Federer17. Roscoe Tanner27. Ken Rosewall8. Pete Sampras18. Eddie Dibbs28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov9. Ilie Năstase19. Harold Solomon29. Andy Roddick10. Björn Borg20. Tom Okker30. Thomas Muster Deff somthing wrong with your list Ken, it didn't even include:
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 Agassi was not the best of your era, Sampras was. overall wins, head to head, majors...not really all that close imho I was looking for Ana Ivanovic but oddly don't see her name on your list. For shame! Shes the breast best. By the way. The "somebody" who compared Federer-Nadal to Ali Frazier was Mike Wilbon on Pardon the Interuption (possibly in an article he wrote as well) i hadn't actually realised anyone had compared frazier ali to federer nadal but i'm rather chuffed now. as for cigars, i reckon the one who definitely would have was lew hoad. i'm too young to have seen him but the stories have him as the george best of tennis. was supposed to be supremely talented. 4 majors before switching to professional. both laver and gonzales (another who might have claims but i never saw him and don't know a lot about him other than he was apparently sensational) described him as the greatest. but there are way too many stories of him drinking all night and then turning up for games. imagine federer doing that! another who must also have claims - roy emerson. 12 majors - though a good few of them when most of his serious contemporaries had gone professional.
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 finally, i asked a mate of mine who has coached around the world and at one stage was ranked in the top 150 at one stage. "All statistics can be morphed to affirm the presenters own opinion. Rod Laver is undeniably the greatest ever having won the Grand Slam in 1962 and not being allowed to compete in a major title again until 1969 because he had turned pro. So for 6 years in his tennis prime he was not allowed to compete, when tennis caught up with the times and allowed professionals to again compete, low and behold Laver wins another Grand Slam. My thinking along with every other person who considers themselves a student of the game, is that had he been able to contest the 24 major titles he missed, he may have won a few( given he won the full Grand Slam either side). There shall be no discussion entered into other than how many Rocket(undeniably the greatest ever) would have won."
riazp Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Agassi was not the best of your era, Sampras was. overall wins, head to head, majors...not really all that close imho. I was looking for Ana Ivanovic but oddly don't see her name on your list. For shame! Shes the breast best. By the way. The "somebody" who compared Federer-Nadal to Ali Frazier was Mike Wilbon on Pardon the Interuption (possibly in an article he wrote as well) BLASPHEMY!!! You're just jealous because there was not a great jewish tennis player
khomeinist Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Undeniably? Haha. Good one. As if players can be compared across generations in any sport given improvements in technology/nutrition/training regimes/etc. I like the Grass Court stud(ette)s. Particularly Federer, Boris, Venus, Navratilova, Borg, Conners..... Who cares who is 'best' as there is no answer.
Ken Gargett Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 Undeniably? Haha. Good one. As if players can be compared across generations in any sport given improvements in technology/nutrition/training regimes/etc. I like the Grass Court stud(ette)s. Particularly Federer, Boris, Venus, Navratilova, Borg, Conners..... Who cares who is 'best' as there is no answer. the across generations argument is always valid in any sport - agreed. but athletes can only do their best in their own era and it does give a reasonable picture. for example, there is simply no possible argument that bradman is not the greatest batsman of all time. heather mackay the finest womans' squash player, walter lindrum the greatest billiards player. i'm sure there are other examples. most sports/games etc are not so clear and i think tennis is one of those. all things being equal, i still think laver tops the lot. and interesting to see your list of grass players - no laver, newcombe etc etc. until recently - well, last decade or two, aussies played on nothing else. one of the reasons for success at wimbledon and davis cup (where we could pick our surface). i suspect you can argue who is greatest of all but it becomes much harder to argue that laver is not the greatest on grass.
khomeinist Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Hey. I just haven't seen much Laver. Bits here and there. I grew up watching Conners/Wilander/Edberg/McEnroe/etc. I am sure Laver would have done well with that crowd. Maybe not so well with Becker/Agassi/Federer but who knows! I think we have to distinguish between 'skill' games like billiards/baseball/cricket and largely 'athletic' games like rugby/football/tennis/track. I hope you can see my distinction. Skill and athleticism are involved in both of my categories but the stronger/faster athletes of today really show their advantage in the latter category of sporting games. There are many baseball players, for example, that were good enough 50 years ago to play at a high level today. Bob Gibson. Ted Williams. Etc. I would call bat control and ball placement 'skills.' Perhaps tennis is more a skill game than I am allowing. I do know that the best athletes playing football and track sports are centainly our contemporary representatives.
Ken Gargett Posted January 29, 2012 Author Posted January 29, 2012 Hey. I just haven't seen much Laver. Bits here and there. I grew up watching Conners/Wilander/Edberg/McEnroe/etc. I am sure Laver would have done well with that crowd. Maybe not so well with Becker/Agassi/Federer but who knows! I think we have to distinguish between 'skill' games like billiards/baseball/cricket and largely 'athletic' games like rugby/football/tennis/track. I hope you can see my distinction. Skill and athleticism are involved in both of my categories but the stronger/faster athletes of today really show their advantage in the latter category of sporting games. There are many baseball players, for example, that were good enough 50 years ago to play at a high level today. Bob Gibson. Ted Williams. Etc. I would call bat control and ball placement 'skills.' Perhaps tennis is more a skill game than I am allowing. I do know that the best athletes playing football and track sports are centainly our contemporary representatives. i do understand what you are saying but i also think that if an athlete/sportsman was great in his era, then even with improved training/disipline/diets/equipment etc, they'd be great in other eras. wally lewis remains the greatest league player i have seen yet today, no way would coaches tolerate the smoking/drinking etc and poor attitude to training that was almost supposedly his hallmark. so he could have been even better. plenty of stories about one of australia's great halfbacks of many years ago - billy smith. often seen turning up for a sunday arvo game in the same clothes he left work in on friday. just a lot smellier and soaked in alcohol. still played like a champion. from what little i know of baseball, think that the old days saw a bit of that sort of thing? with tennis, you could possibly argue that size of a player, allowing supposedly for a more powerful serve, could matter today but then nadal and djokovic, and federer for that matter, are not tall people, so no reason laver couldn't have bulked up in a similar manner to nadal if necessary. and those old aussie tennis players were known for the harry hopman training which was streets ahead of anything at the time. they were extremely fit. he'd have them running up sand dunes in the summer sun for hours, amongst other things. one of the reasons that aussies were so dominant back in those years - their fitness levels were at a level that was well above opponents. as for the skill/atheleticism, i follow what you say - for me, golf would fall into the skill more than athletic side of things. not sure re baseball. cricket is most certainly a game of skill but at the same time, the better players must be top athletes. play five days in searing heat - fast bowlers running in and giving a huge effort, ball after ball after ball? they have to be super fit to be a success. i used to be a keeper at a very low level). after the first game of the season (i was never too good at pre-season training), usually two days over a weekend, i would be hardly able to move. it would involve several thousand squats (the keeping equivalent), several thousands short sprints, non stop concentration, plus diving about, endless catching etc etc. the legs would hardly work for several days. i know how bad it was for me. at test (five day) level, they need to be super athletes. but different things needed for different games, and different positions in team games. but this is a bit off the original topic. all that said, i'm surprised that agassi is getting such support in the vote. even in his era, sampras seemed to me to be the superior player.
Colt45 Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 ...i also think that if an athlete/sportsman was great in his era, then even with improved training/disipline/diets/equipment etc, they'd be great in other eras. So do you think Harry Potter's quidditch game would have been as good had he not had the Nimbus 2000?
Yoruba Hacker Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 I appreciate the support the Aussie contingent on this board will throw to Laver, who was preposterously great. That said, I'm not going to give undue credit to slams that were on grass for 75% of them. If three of the Majors were on grass, Fed would have won tons of Slams. And I don't do the "Rafa beats Fed most of the time therefore Fed can't be the best" thing either. Let's be honest, For stretches, both Watson and Trevino owned Jack, but you certatinly can't rate them ahead of him. Fed wins for the same reasons that Jack wins. Less for the wins themselves, which are tops, but for the collective excellence shown over a career. Ask any golfer and they'll tell you that Jack's number of top 5's in Majors is a much sicker number than the sick number of Majors he won. I forget the number of consecutive and total semis Fed has played in in majors, but until Rafa and Djoko get there, which will never happen, one guy stands on top, in my humble estimation. On four different surfaces (US Open and Aussie hardcourts are totally different). The better question was who was the best serve and volleyer. Tough to go against Pete.
.png.15b5f6bc4159a73805a9f118f79a68ca.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now