Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Moxie]

Regarding who is greater between Djokovic and Sampras...

Would Sampras have clinched the year-end No. 1 six times if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?
Would Sampras have won 14 slams if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?
Would Sampras have spent 286 weeks at No. 1 if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990s?

Would Sampras have won the French Open if it weren't played on clay? I guess you're trying to say that Sampras didn't have to play the two GOATs of his era, but then we go back to comparisons of competition, and that's well-trod territory. See @Front242 's above. If it's only about Roger and Rafa, then Djokovic did get a grace period for his Nole-Slam when they were both in their career troughs.

 

[Fiero425]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Fiero, but this thread was started by you...albeit 4 years ago. In your original post, you had Sampras at 3 and Borg at 4. While I get moving Nadal and Djokovic up, I'm unclear as to how Borg moved over Sampras, for you. OK, everyone is allowed to change their mind. Personally, I've loved Borg and not Sampras, but Borg never won 2 of the 4 Majors.

I'm going senile and repeat'n myself; whataya want? :cuckoo: I just find it ironic IMO Sampras is dropping like a stone due to being propped up by us in 2002! That finish was hardly impressive winning that USO over his pigeon; Agassi! He had a finishing kick after going 2+ years without winning anything; not just majors, but nothing! I was just as culpable giving him a pass w/o even playing a FO final!

 

[Moxie]

I'm going senile and repeat'n myself; whataya want? :cuckoo: I just find it ironic IMO Sampras is dropping like a stone due to being propped up by us in 2002! That finish was hardly impressive winning that USO over his pigeon; Agassi! He had a finishing kick after going 2+ years without winning anything; not just majors, but nothing! I was just as culpable giving him a pass w/o even playing a FO final!

Darling, if you could stop being so hysterical about everything, maybe we could get your real opinion. I don't know why you've taken so against Sampras, but it's not like he won his last Major against a nobody. In any case, Sampras won 14 Majors, and has many other accolades. I'm not going to summon my inner-@Kieran, and go to bat for Pete, but he doesn't get booted lower than he deserves just because he was once boosted as the GOAT. I made the argument against him when he was tied with Rafa, for the career Slam. I'd be willing to entertain the argument as to where Novak is, in terms of Pete, on the list. But I have to say, as folks have been quite strict about numbers of Majors won, I'm not going to be so willing to grade on a curve, either. In any case, it was Sampras that carved out his spot on the top of the Majors mountain for others to shoot for, and I'll give him that credit.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If Djokovic repeats his 2012-2014 run, he will win another 3 slams. He’s got 12 now, so with additional 3 he will have 15. That’s just 1 less than Nadal’s 16.

Yes, but I am afraid that 16 is not static.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, but I am afraid that 16 is not static.

Boy, I hope not. With Nadal healthy and renewed for the fight, and with only 11 months separating them in age, it seems like a climb for Djokovic.

 

[Obsi]

Would Sampras have won the French Open if it weren't played on clay?

French Open has always been played on clay.

I guess you're trying to say that Sampras didn't have to play the two GOATs of his era, but then we go back to comparisons of competition, and that's well-trod territory.

Do you believe Sampras would have clinched year-end No. 1 six times, spent 286 weeks at No. 1 and won 14 slams if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?

See @Front242 's above. If it's only about Roger and Rafa, then Djokovic did get a grace period for his Nole-Slam when they were both in their career troughs.

It’s not just about Roger and Rafa. Tennis is now much more widespread worldwide than 20 years ago so much more people are competing to be top professional players.

Yes, but I am afraid that 16 is not static.

I think Djokovic will end up with more than 15.

Boy, I hope not. With Nadal healthy and renewed for the fight, and with only 11 months separating them in age, it seems like a climb for Djokovic.

Nadal is more prone to injuries than Djokovic.
Nadal’s style of play is more taxing on body than Djokovic’s.
Nadal has played 1045 matches and Djokovic 946 so less wear and tear on Novak’s body.

 

[Fiero425]

French Open has always been played on clay.

...Do you believe Sampras would have clinched year-end No. 1 six times, spent 286 weeks at No. 1 and won 14 slams if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?

..It’s not just about Roger and Rafa. Tennis is now much more widespread worldwide than 20 years ago so much more people are competing to be top professional players.

...I think Djokovic will end up with more than 15.

...Nadal is more prone to injuries than Djokovic.
Nadal’s style of play is more taxing on body than Djokovic’s.
Nadal has played 1045 matches and Djokovic 946 so less wear and tear on Novak’s body.

Of all the things which drive me bonkers; the manipulation of tennis history-rec. bk! It was unintentional early on due to happenstance like The USO going :cuckoo: with surface and rules' changes in the 70's, then AO's move from 1st major to last, now back as 1st for noble &/or less than noble reasons! Even talking about the FO going "Madrid" seems more extreme in shaping history and undervaluing the achievements of other players who "earned" their FO titles on the slow Terre battue of Roland Garros! That's been a staple for as long as I can remember! It's not as slow, but it's still RG! It would be obscene to change the surface IMO! It boggles the mind! I have to go air out my brain! I'll be back after I finish hyperventilating!

Update: I thought it was resolved not to try and overlap eras! It would be as silly as taking Sampras and taking him back in time to play Tilden! Why go there?

The level of play and growth is a normal progression of society ...cell phones bring the world to the most remote of areas in the world now! If you see it from my perspective, today's participation is akin to my era when out of nowhere and total inexplicability the Jamaican bobsled team made a name for themselves! They barely have ice for drinks; how in the world did they train in the oppressive conditions of "The Islands?" Today, with resources, anything's possible and is "blah" in comparison!

You're preaching to the choir concerning Nadal/Djokovic dynamics! Nole has a chance to help his numbers, but it would be a miracle for him to come back with the same heart and soul of 2011 & 2015, getting it all back like Fedal today! I'm hopeful though!

 

[Moxie]

French Open has always been played on clay.

Sorry, I should have realized a little sarcasm might be lost on you.

 

[Fiero425]

Sorry, I should have realized a little sarcasm might be lost on you.

At my age, I take everything about as seriously as a heart attack! :spank:

 

[Moxie]

At my age, I take everything about as seriously as a heart attack! :spank:

But it was Obsi I was saying that to, ol' pal!

 

[Front242]

Regarding who is greater between Djokovic and Sampras...

Would Sampras have clinched the year-end No. 1 six times if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?
Would Sampras have won 14 slams if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990’s?
Would Sampras have spent 286 weeks at No. 1 if Federer and Nadal had played in the 1990s?

This kind of rubbish post always annoys me as it makes no sense. Here's another for you, except this one is likely true.

Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015 and the USO 2015 if Federer wasn't over the hill?
Would Djokovic have won the 2016 French Open if Nadal didn't withdraw with a wrist injury in the 3rd round? Nadal was back playing very well on clay at the time. That's 4 slams right there already and I'm not in the mood for typing any more. All the above contributed to Djokovic holding all 4 slams at once btw and there's zero chance anyone would have managed this in the era Sampras played in when they had proper fast grass, slow clay, medium/slow AO and fast USO the way everything should have been kept for the sake of diversity.
Would Djokovic have won 12 slams if they weren't all nearly the same speed these days? We all know the answer to that.
The top 20 players at the time Sampras was playing were way better than right now btw.

 

[atttomole]

Federer would have done well on all surfaces in the 90's. He maybe the only player who could have done well in both the 90's and now.

 

[Federberg]

This kind of rubbish post always annoys me as it makes no sense. Here's another for you, except this one is likely true.

Would Djokovic have won Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015 and the USO 2015 if Federer wasn't over the hill?
Would Djokovic have won the 2016 French Open if Nadal didn't withdraw with a wrist injury in the 3rd round? Nadal was back playing very well on clay at the time. That's 4 slams right there already and I'm not in the mood for typing any more. All the above contributed to Djokovic holding all 4 slams at once btw and there's zero chance anyone would have managed this in the era Sampras played in when they had proper fast grass, slow clay, medium/slow AO and fast USO the way everything should have been kept for the sake of diversity.
Would Djokovic have won 12 slams if they weren't all nearly the same speed these days? We all know the answer to that.
The top 20 players at the time Sampras was playing were way better than right now btw.

I assume you were talking about the top20 on average? Would be interesting to compare the players

 

[Moxie]

I assume you were talking about the top20 on average? Would be interesting to compare the players

I agree with this question. "Top 20" across a player's entire career changes. I'm not conversant with the men's game in the 90s, but, up until recently, when some folks have started declaring the current men's tour rubbish, there was a lot of talk about the depth in the men's game, for some time now. I'm not sure how you go about comparing.

 

[Front242]

I assume you were talking about the top20 on average? Would be interesting to compare the players

On average, yeah. It wasn't a given like it is now that number 1 would beat number 20 most of the time, for example because the faster grass, faster AO and USO meant there were more upsets and more surface specialists. These days everything is pretty much the same and because everything has been slowed down so much, it often comes down to fitness be that artificial or genuine that wins matches. To me, that's bs 'cos I want to watch tennis, not running.

 

[Moxie]

Federer would have done well on all surfaces in the 90's. He maybe the only player who could have done well in both the 90's and now.

I get why you say this, and I agree that Roger would have done well in both eras. But it doesn't account for how Nadal and Djokovic, as 2 all-time greats, would have developed their games in a different era. Remember only Roger, of the 3, really straddled a more S&V era.

 

[Front242]

Tbh, a lot of the current old school s&v players like Mahut, Misha Zverev, the retired Llodra who I was a fan of would probably also have done well back in the 90s given their proficiency at s&v and net play in general. Tommy Haas too as he used to play a fair bit of s&v and is one of the few remaining all court players on tour and also Stepanek.

 

[Moxie]

On average, yeah. It wasn't a given like it is now that number 1 would beat number 20 most of the time, for example because the faster grass, faster AO and USO meant there were more upsets and more surface specialists. These days everything is pretty much the same and because everything has been slowed down so much, it often comes down to fitness be that artificial or genuine that wins matches. To me, that's bs 'cos I want to watch tennis, not running.

But, if there were more surface specialists, then wouldn't that have made the top 20 more erratic, more likely to change depending on the part of the calendar? Sure, Pete kept on top of them all, but, as you say, the courts in many instances were faster, and he had a game that was suited to fast courts. Which is why he never even made the finals at RG. But this does expose your preference for faster surfaces. However, it's not everyone's preference, and it's not the state of the game today.

 

[Front242]

But, if there were more surface specialists, then wouldn't that have made the top 20 more erratic, more likely to change depending on the part of the calendar? Sure, Pete kept on top of them all, but, as you say, the courts in many instances were faster, and he had a game that was suited to fast courts. Which is why he never even made the finals at RG. But this does expose your preference for faster surfaces. However, it's not everyone's preference, and it's not the state of the game today.

No need to expose any preference. I'm not hiding it. I much preferred the faster USO and while I didn't like the really fast grass that resulted in just boring ace fests, they sure as hell slowed it down way too much and could easily make it a good deal faster without it being like that again. The surfaces need to be fast enough to reward attacking tennis but not so fast that serves can't be returned, 'cos that's just boring.

 

[Moxie]

No need to expose any preference. I'm not hiding it. I much preferred the faster USO and while I didn't like the really fast grass that resulted in just boring ace fests, they sure as hell slowed it down way too much and could easily make it a good deal faster without it being like that again. The surfaces need to be fast enough to reward attacking tennis but not so fast that serves can't be returned, 'cos that's just boring.

That's fair. And it's why I hated carpet.