Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Fiero425]

Come on, that's competitiveness! It's not like he bit off any blokes ear. He takes his time adjusting his underwear, or when he serves, he needs to run through his fabulous array of tics. Even the umps are hypnotised. Federer should complain but he's too nervous. Djoker will say nowt because he dreams of the day he's so "independent" on court.

Nadal's a battler. I recall John Newcombe was Aussie DC captain some time in the nineties and Pete beat Phillippoussis. After the match, Newc remarked that it was only down court side that he fully experienced the hold Sampras had on the court, the personnel, the umpire, his opponent. He said you don't appreciate how physically he dominates the court until you get close enough, and Rafa has that same alpha presence. Would take a Sampras to knock it out of him, not an umpire with a puny rulebook...

:clap Well at least you acknowledge it unlike some of the sycophants around here! It just offends me so much that he pulls this stuff against Federer and Nole who are too nice to say anything! Nole has resorted to copying those tactics it seems!

 

[Kieran]

:clap Well at least you acknowledge it unlike some of the sycophants around here! It just offends me so much that he pulls this stuff against Federer and Nole who are too nice to say anything! Nole has resorted to copying those tactics it seems!

Big mistake to be "too nice" against Nadal...

 

[Fiero425]

:clap Well at least you acknowledge it unlike some of the sycophants around here! It just offends me so much that he pulls this stuff against Federer and Nole who are too nice to say anything! Nole has resorted to copying those tactics it seems!

Big mistake to be "too nice" against Nadal...

To me it just shows a lack of respect for your opponent! In my day you had McEnroe who would go off for any reason, but against Borg he sucked it up and stayed in control! He obviously only had true respect for him knowing he needed to channel all his energy to beat that one man!

 

[Kieran]

To me it just shows a lack of respect for your opponent! In my day you had McEnroe who would go off for any reason, but against Borg he sucked it up and stayed in control! He obviously only had true respect for him knowing he needed to channel all his energy to beat that one man!

That's true, and even Connors toned it down against Borg. Also, I believe, these boys behaved when they faced Arthur Ashe. It was only Nastase who couldn't fully control himself in the presence of class. But in fairness, Federer isn't like Borg. Fed makes narcissistic comments and wears Village People outfits trumpeting how many slams he won in the gold-thread filigree. He's a bit smarmy and licks his lips as if he tastes like chocolate.

And Rafa faces everyone like he's the underdog. I don't think Federer likes tennis when it virtually becomes a contact sport. I think he prefers players who love watching him shot-making and enjoy his handsome man-cuddles at the net after. Rafa is made for war, not that stuff. He treats everyone the same, whether it's Federer or #37 in the world. He makes the court into his own work space and the other guy is there as a part of that...

 

[shawnbm]

Only Kieran could have written that post above! And I like Roger as much as Rafa, but they are a different breed. It is kind of like how I loved Connors but also loved Borg, notwithstanding how different they were.

 

[Fiero425]

Only Kieran could have written that post above! And I like Roger as much as Rafa, but they are a different breed. It is kind of like how I loved Connors but also loved Borg, notwithstanding how different they were.

Interesting dynamic going on there! That would be like be adoring both Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert at the same time; impossible IMO! Interesting though! :angel:

 

[El Dude]

I'm glad britbox mentioned Rosewall - he's definitely top 10, if not top 5. In fact, his statistical record is pretty much unsurpassed, depending upon how much you value Pro Slams.

The further back you go the harder it gets, so its hard to know where to rank players like Hoad, Tilden, even Pancho, who I think Jimmy Connors said was the best player he ever played (could be mis-remembering, though).

So I prefer splitting it at the Open Era, but if I had to do a all-time top 10 list, I'd go:

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Rosewall
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Borg
7. Gonzales
8. Lendl
9. Connors
10. Agassi
11. McEnroe

I couldn't leave Johhny Mac out, but also couldn't put him ahead of anyone else.

In a few years Nadal might pass Sampras and even Laver, and Djokovic should rise into the latter half somewhere.

 

[shawnbm]

Only Kieran could have written that post above! And I like Roger as much as Rafa, but they are a different breed. It is kind of like how I loved Connors but also loved Borg, notwithstanding how different they were.

Interesting dynamic going on there! That would be like be adoring both Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert at the same time; impossible IMO! Interesting though! :angel:

It is liking for different reasons and maybe even great admiration. I prefer to watch Roger when playing at a high level because his ease of playing with such brilliance is at times almost other-worldly. His talent for years was the most I had seen since the heyday of McEnroe. Nadal is like Connors--and I love the grit, the will to win, the never die attitude; I greatly admire it. In addition, he probably hits the best passing shots, on a consistent basis, since the great Bjorn Borg, and that is saying something.

 

[Riotbeard]

Come on, that's competitiveness! It's not like he bit off any blokes ear. He takes his time adjusting his underwear, or when he serves, he needs to run through his fabulous array of tics. Even the umps are hypnotised. Federer should complain but he's too nervous. Djoker will say nowt because he dreams of the day he's so "independent" on court.

Nadal's a battler. I recall John Newcombe was Aussie DC captain some time in the nineties and Pete beat Phillippoussis. After the match, Newc remarked that it was only down court side that he fully experienced the hold Sampras had on the court, the personnel, the umpire, his opponent. He said you don't appreciate how physically he dominates the court until you get close enough, and Rafa has that same alpha presence. Would take a Sampras to knock it out of him, not an umpire with a puny rulebook...

I have to say I really enjoy seeing rafa get time violations. I just wish they were harder on the receivers.

I do agree with Rafa fans. He is top 5 all time greatness. Can't stand the guy, dislike even more than Federer, but he has accomplished some unreal thing. He also seems like he might be a decent human being off the court, etc., but as an athlete... ugh. So annoying. Sorry, I was trying to compliment him.

Pete has to be number 2 in my opinion if Fed is number 1, because if we don't base this on records and statistical achievement, than the whole system falls apart. Lists like this are fundamentally, at their core, problematic, so you have to have a simple cut and dry rule! Pete is #2.

Side note, I would love to see Mac or connors react to all of Rafa's crap. Oh the joy!

 

[britbox]

I had Rafa #5, but thinking again, he probably should be #4 above Borg on my list. He's done the career slam and won a ton of Masters shields. Borg didn't have the luxury of playing for masters shields, but if you pick comparable big tournaments below the majors, I'm guessing Rafa would be ahead.

 

[Emma]

What are the main criterias for this all time list? For me, it should be a) number of Slams; b) number of years at No. 1; c) career slam d) Head to Head vs main rivals; e) level of competition (for example, Nadal had more main rivals than Federer); f) total number of titles; g) total number of Masters etc. and in that order.

 

[shawnbm]

Oh Riotbeard, Connors and Mac would have abused Rafa like he can't imagine! It would have been constant fodder for ESPN. Frankly, Roger would likely snap back at them before Nadal would if they started in on him; he's a bit more reactive personality-wise to on court matters. Either way, both Fed and Rafa would beat the other two, even on some of their best days. Actually, McEnroe playing at peak form would be a very tough out for anyone, including Roger and Rafa.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh Riotbeard, Connors and Mac would have abused Rafa like he can't imagine! It would have been constant fodder for ESPN. Frankly, Roger would likely snap back at them before Nadal would if they started in on him; he's a bit more reactive personality-wise to on court matters. Either way, both Fed and Rafa would beat the other two, even on some of their best days. Actually, McEnroe playing at peak form would be a very tough out for anyone, including Roger and Rafa.

No one today attacks the net as relentlessly as McEnroe! It's almost embarrassing to see some of these people up there; floudering, hoping, making easy plays when possible! The point usually has to be almost won even when someone like Rafa goes up to net! Roger is being stubborn in his old age, not realizing he has to come in more or he'll start losing to more players outside of the top rung!

 

[britbox]

What are the main criterias for this all time list? For me, it should be a) number of Slams; b) number of years at No. 1; c) career slam d) Head to Head vs main rivals; e) level of competition (for example, Nadal had more main rivals than Federer); f) total number of titles; g) total number of Masters etc. and in that order.

The usual policy tends to be

a) Decide who you like best
b) Pick the criteria to make a) come out on top.

 

[Didi]

Actually, McEnroe playing at peak form would be a very tough out for anyone, including Roger and Rafa.

Agreed and to be honest I even consider McEnroe and Lendl as better tennis players than Nadal based strictly on ability. At one point McEnroe was the best player in the world in singles and in doubles at the same time. You could pair him with pretty much anybody and you would win. Besides Federer I have never seen such a complete package of a player. His touch and feel for the game was simply genius. Lendl on the other hand at some point dominated on any surface imaginable, was one of, if not the best on clay, carpet, slow and fast hard courts, may it be indoors or outdoors, just everywhere at the same time. Frightening.

I look back at the 80s as being the most competitive decade of men's tennis with the most diverse courts and by far the toughest and deepest competition. Lendl and McEnroe (at least rankings-wise) were the top dogs for most of the time. That speaks volumes to me which is the reason I would put them above Nadal any day of the week. Rafa might be above them legacy-wise and I can easily understand and see why folks put him above them and among the top 5 on their all time lists in general and while he certainly deserves to be considered as one of the top ten elite all time greats of this sport, I can't help myself here, to me he's more a product of modern tennis of the 2000s in that I very much doubt he would have enjoyed the same status had he played in the 70s, 80s or even 90s.

 

[Emma]

What are the main criterias for this all time list? For me, it should be a) number of Slams; b) number of years at No. 1; c) career slam d) Head to Head vs main rivals; e) level of competition (for example, Nadal had more main rivals than Federer); f) total number of titles; g) total number of Masters etc. and in that order.

The usual policy tends to be

a) Decide who you like best
b) Pick the criteria to make a) come out on top.

Joking aside, it does feel that those two are the ones most people tend to go with the all-time list. Because as I see it, it's virtually impossible to line up a list like that - mostly because of all the variables and elements they involve. You are basically comparing one era to another and that's pretty much like comparing apples to oranges because everything changes when they move on to the next year – level of competition as in different sets of players, racquet technology, surface, conditions basically everything . And it doesn't even matter if one is excellent at the net or at the baseline because at the end of the day, it will virtually come down to that player who has executed his game-plan accurately. Reason why we see a player like Nadal beat a player like Federer given any surface. So having an excellent game doesn't necessarily always guarantee a win - there are all other variables that need to be taken into account.

These players had been great in their respective eras no doubt, but that doesn’t really mean they would have done just as great or greater if the eras/players had been switched etc.

So whatever your line-up is it doesn’t necessarily tell the truth – far from it in fact. It’s self-satisfying and that’s all there is to it. And of course it’s also fun to speculate things but as long as we realize that these are only hypothesizes and can’t be proven ever therefore, they are never the ultimate truth or even close to truth.

 

[shawnbm]

It seems to me the key criteria are grand slam events and winning or going deep (to finals) in the ones you played in--across all surfaces, and total weeks at number one as that necessarily includes major victories and plenty of lower tier titles that make a player the best of a given year or epoch. Under those criteria, guys like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe,and Nadal have to be up there (talking Open Era only). Yes, there are others, but those guys had many weeks at number one, no less than 7 majors, a slew of other titles and won or went to finals on all surfaces (except Sampras and Connors, technically--although Connors won slams on all surfaces like Fed and Rafa).

 

[tented]

What are the main criterias for this all time list? For me, it should be a) number of Slams; b) number of years at No. 1; c) career slam d) Head to Head vs main rivals; e) level of competition (for example, Nadal had more main rivals than Federer); f) total number of titles; g) total number of Masters etc. and in that order.

The usual policy tends to be

a) Decide who you like best
b) Pick the criteria to make a) come out on top.

Best summation of GOAT discussions ever. :clap :laydownlaughing

 

[Emma]

It seems to me the key criteria are grand slam events and winning or going deep (to finals) in the ones you played in--across all surfaces, and total weeks at number one as that necessarily includes major victories and plenty of lower tier titles that make a player the best of a given year or epoch. Under those criteria, guys like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe,and Nadal have to be up there (talking Open Era only). Yes, there are others, but those guys had many weeks at number one, no less than 7 majors, a slew of other titles and won or went to finals on all surfaces (except Sampras and Connors, technically--although Connors won slams on all surfaces like Fed and Rafa).

The problem with this list is that, you or anyone is basically concluding that Federer is better than Sampras or Laver or Nadal etc. and vice versa based on results mostly or perhaps entirely. For all I know, there's absolutely no way of knowing how Sampras would have fared in Laver's era or Federer's era given the same competition level, let's say. And there's that obvious notion, how would they have fared against each other? What if both Sampras and Federer were from the same era and while Sampras had 3 less Slams than Federer, however, he led the H2H without a doubt (let's while Federer led him on clay but Sampras led him on both grass and clay? This is just one sample scenario among so many others.

 

[Fiero425]

It seems to me the key criteria are grand slam events and winning or going deep (to finals) in the ones you played in--across all surfaces, and total weeks at number one as that necessarily includes major victories and plenty of lower tier titles that make a player the best of a given year or epoch. Under those criteria, guys like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe,and Nadal have to be up there (talking Open Era only). Yes, there are others, but those guys had many weeks at number one, no less than 7 majors, a slew of other titles and won or went to finals on all surfaces (except Sampras and Connors, technically--although Connors won slams on all surfaces like Fed and Rafa).

The problem with this list is that, you or anyone is basically concluding that Federer is better than Sampras or Laver or Nadal etc. and vice versa based on results mostly or perhaps entirely. For all I know, there's absolutely no way of knowing how Sampras would have fared in Laver's era or Federer's era given the same competition level, let's say. And there's that obvious notion, how would they have fared against each other? What if both Sampras and Federer were from the same era and while Sampras had 3 less Slams than Federer, however, he led the H2H without a doubt (let's while Federer led him on clay but Sampras led him on both grass and clay? This is just one sample scenario among so many others.

Just a footnote to your comments, it's hard for other reasons as well; elite rivals, etc.! Supposedly Lew Hoad was undefeated against Laver, but no one's going to say he was better overall! He's never even mentioned even though he won 3 of 4 majors in '56; losing USO final only!