Tennis.com's "50 Greatest Players of Open Era" - who are your top 25?

[El Dude]

I see, and agree with most of your points. In the end it falls back to a matter of taste -- all those guys accomplished different things, what do you deem more important? Even with two guys with almost the same age (Djokovic and Nadal) there could be still argument (specially when it was 14x12).

But, jumping in @El Dude's defense, I do not think he uses the hypothetical slam count as an argument in favor of Laver, but rather as a mere illustrating point.

Just to clarify, I don't think I've ever even mentioned hypothetical Slam count. What i have mentioned is pro Slam count. I figure that if we include amateur Slams we should include pro as well. Amateur Slams were like seven round ATP 500s in terms of depth and quality of competition, whereas Pro Slams were more like 3-4 round World Tour Finals...shorter tournaments, but much harder competition.

 

[El Dude]

which is why a list like this really just comes down to personal preference. There is no definitive measure that captures everything. ...

What I'm trying to say is that agreeing or disagreeing with what others think is almost irrelevant (unless someone presumes to have a definitive list), it's all about personal taste

And by the way, a player who has actually managed to get to #1 is automatically elevated vs someone else who hasn't done that but won the same number of slams, in my view. They've done the ultimate thing in sports, be the best of the best

Absolutely. But there is a wide range of variance in terms of how personal taste is leavened by statistics and knowledge, so we have lists like Tignor's, who at least knows the history of the sport and draws on real data, and then we have Nadal Goat's list, which seems to be mostly about his personal preference.

 

[El Dude]

Lol! There's nothing new under the sun. I've brought up the money issue several times in the past, and I believe either @britbox, @fiero or @shawnbm have as well. I forget who. The point is... all this talk about should player A who's won 8 slams be rated more great than player B who's won the same number of slams but has won at least one of each, is a recent construct. It's ultimately meaningless in my view. Each slam is as valuable as the other. Personally I place a higher value on players who are able to win a ton of the same slam consecutively. That's DOMINANCE. So the idea that Laver can be put above Rafa is an utter joke to me. That's the difference between being hot in one season versus being great, truly great over a career

So you're utterly ignoring Laver's pro era? This doesn't make sense to me. Laver was definitely NOT "hot in one season." He was truly great for over a decade, and more consistently so than Rafa, who fluctuated a lot.

Laver shouldn't have his cake and eat it too, but he shouldn't get no cake at all. The fact is he was the best player on the amateur tour when he went pro, then after taking a year or so to adjust to the higher level of competition, became the best pro player, then was the best Open Era player for the first few years. What else could he possibly do?

And as far as the money argument goes, it partially explains why Laver didn't win any Slams past 1969...he barely played any, only eight I think, and that was both because of money and politics. Most statistical analysis still has him as #1 in 1970 and '71.

 

[El Dude]

11. Andre Agassi
12. Boris Becker
13. Stefan Edberg
14. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander

was Dude's order...

I think Agassi has a bit of separation...the rest is a bit of a wash... I think you can make a decent argument on placings for the next 4. I like Newcombe in there, to be honest. I think he gets overlooked a lot, he followed some great Aussies and can get lost in the conversation.

I basically agree, although think deeper analysis puts Becker/Edberg (in whatever order) clearly above Wilander.

I've gone back and forth on Becker and Edberg over the years and think they're basically interchangeable. In the end I gave a slight edge to Becker because I think he was a slightly better player at his best. Their career accomplishments are basically a wash, each with some edges over the other.

 

[El Dude]

One more...

1960 to 1972? You're primarily talking about the pro tour mate. Either this is about the Open Era or it's not. You can't pick and choose. Otherwise why not include all his titles, and so called pro slams. As I said you can't allow Laver to have his cake and eat it in my view.

You're ignoring the fact that both Tignor's list and mine include pre-Open Era accomplishments for players who won at least one major in the Open Era - that means Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, and Ashe - all of whom won majors on both sides of the Open Era line.

So yes, both Tignor and I are including all of their titles and accomplishments, not just Open Era ones. If it was Open Era only, I'd drop Laver significantly, maybe outside the top 10.

And again, this isn't having his cake and eating it too; it is allowing him to have cake. Ignoring pre-Open Era is not letting him have any cake.

 

[Federberg]

^either it’s Open era or it’s not

 

[El Dude]

^either it’s Open era or it’s not

So you don’t like the premise of both my and Tignor’s lists: Fair enough. What doesn’t make sense is judging those lists based upon a different premise.

 

[Federberg]

So you don’t like the premise of both my and Tignor’s lists: Fair enough. What doesn’t make sense is judging those lists based upon a different premise.

You’re not doing what you claim to be doing. If you want to assess the Open era then do so. I don’t think that’s unreasonable

 

[Moxie]

Just to clarify, I don't think I've ever even mentioned hypothetical Slam count. What i have mentioned is pro Slam count. I figure that if we include amateur Slams we should include pro as well. Amateur Slams were like seven round ATP 500s in terms of depth and quality of competition, whereas Pro Slams were more like 3-4 round World Tour Finals...shorter tournaments, but much harder competition.

You didn't mention hypothetical Slam count vis-a-vis Laver...that was Tignor. I was trying to be clear about that. I've also been trying to make it clear that Tignor made the list, and you offered us the opportunity to riff off of it.

So you don’t like the premise of both my and Tignor’s lists: Fair enough. What doesn’t make sense is judging those lists based upon a different premise.

Tignor made the rules. If we went Open Era only, it would be different, as some have mentioned. The caveat was to include pre-Open Era results for those that straddled eras. Imho, I think Laver is always going to be complicated for so many of the reasons cited above. He was a very great player, and got the Holy Grail of tennis 2 times, (though only 1 time in the Open era, and only on 2 surfaces.) I hew towards Federberg's notion that he gets an emeritus position.

 

[El Dude]

You’re not doing what you claim to be doing. If you want to assess the Open era then do so. I don’t think that’s unreasonable

This makes no sense to me. How am I not doing what I claim to be doing?

 

[El Dude]

Tignor made the rules. If we went Open Era only, it would be different, as some have mentioned. The caveat was to include pre-Open Era results for those that straddled eras. Imho, I think Laver is always going to be complicated for so many of the reasons cited above. He was a very great player, and got the Holy Grail of tennis 2 times, (though only 1 time in the Open era, and only on 2 surfaces.) I hew towards Federberg's notion that he gets an emeritus position.

Tignor is using the same approach that I've also used, and what I've used in the past when I've offered my take on Open Era lists. And yeah, I agree with you about Laver being complicated.

 

[britbox]

Just to clarify, I don't think I've ever even mentioned hypothetical Slam count. What i have mentioned is pro Slam count. I figure that if we include amateur Slams we should include pro as well. Amateur Slams were like seven round ATP 500s in terms of depth and quality of competition, whereas Pro Slams were more like 3-4 round World Tour Finals...shorter tournaments, but much harder competition.

In the pre-open era, slam counts are rendered a nonsense if we're drawing any sort of parallel in what constitutes a major in relation to the modern game. In effect it's counting 7 slams for the year (4 amateur + 3 pro)... 4 of which exclude the world's best players, and 3 of which are 8-12 man tournaments. I don't think there is any methodical way to really evaluate the value of them in comparison to the modern tour.

 

[El Dude]

In the pre-open era, slam counts are rendered a nonsense if we're drawing any sort of parallel in what constitutes a major in relation to the modern game. In effect it's counting 7 slams for the year (4 amateur + 3 pro)... 4 of which exclude the world's best players, and 3 of which are 8-12 man tournaments. I don't think there is any methodical way to really evaluate the value of them in comparison to the modern tour.

Yes, I get that and agree, but...we can’t ignore them, especially if we are considering amateur Slams. They don’t compare to modern Slams, but neither do Slams of the 70s - certainly moreso than the pre-Open Era one’s, but still not close to exact.

So when assessing players like Laver and Rosewall, and comparing them with contemporary players—or cross-era comparisons of any kind—we can’t do a one-to-one comparison, but we can compare how relatively dominant they were (In fact, I might define greatness in terms of these lists as “how good a player was in relation to the context he played in, both in terms of quality and quantity of accomplishments”).

In that sense pro and amateur Slams serve as indicators, but shouldn’t be taken as exact comps. But they shouldn’t be ignored, as some want to do.

I can’t speak for Tignor, but this has been my view and approach in assessing and comparing players. It is far from exact science, of course, but I don’t see any way around it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Federberg]

Try not doing it at all!

 

[El Dude]

Try not doing it at all!

Why do you insist upon going to a party and saying "this party sucks," and then sticking around? Why not let the people who enjoy the party, enjoy the party? We already know you don't like this sort of thing, yet you continue to throw in your two cents. But obviously there are others who enjoy it. Why do you find it necessary to rain on their (our) parade, again and again? There are plenty of other conversations on this forum to participate in.

 

[mrzz]

Well, here is a thought... not to take anything away from majors, but you do not actually need them to separate (or to group, as I prefer) the top players. I explain: You could use all the other measures (weeks as #1, total titles, winning %) and etc and basically arrive at the same conclusions that you do when you count majors.Again, I am not saying that majors are not important, I am saying that most metrics of "greatness" are redundant. So better than to look for majors substitutes while comparing players from very different eras, you could simply do the opposite and ignore majors all together (just for the sake of this comparison).

 

[Federberg]

Why do you insist upon going to a party and saying "this party sucks," and then sticking around? Why not let the people who enjoy the party, enjoy the party? We already know you don't like this sort of thing, yet you continue to throw in your two cents. But obviously there are others who enjoy it. Why do you find it necessary to rain on their (our) parade, again and again? There are plenty of other conversations on this forum to participate in.

because it's fun, and I know it pisses you off specifically

 

[El Dude]

because it's fun, and I know it pisses you off specifically

Yes, it is clear you have an issue with me, specifically.

But yeah, for whatever reason, you love conflict.

 

[El Dude]

Well, here is a thought... not to take anything away from majors, but you do not actually need them to separate (or to group, as I prefer) the top players. I explain: You could use all the other measures (weeks as #1, total titles, winning %) and etc and basically arrive at the same conclusions that you do when you count majors.Again, I am not saying that majors are not important, I am saying that most metrics of "greatness" are redundant. So better than to look for majors substitutes while comparing players from very different eras, you could simply do the opposite and ignore majors all together (just for the sake of this comparison).

Yeah, I hear you. I like to look via different lenses or metrics, while favoring none in particular. I do think that majors and weeks at #1 are the two best overall indicators of greatness, but both have problems.

Different websites have different ways of trying to encapsulate everything. For instance, Ultimate Tennis Statistics has their GOAT score (Open Era) which you can adjust with different emphases. I don't like the raw GOAT score because it overly privileges longevity and quantity (of titles, etc), so players like Connors and Lendl rank higher than Sampras.

In the end, ranking players is a judgement call. There is no perfect, objective way to do it - at least no way that both takes into account all factors (which the GOAT score does a decent job doing), but weighing them properly. In the end, the subjective factor is in weighing those factors. I see no problem with it - it is what makes the conversation interesting.

On a side note, Tennis Base had weeks at #1 for pre-Open Era players, based upon their own ranking system. I can't remember the exactly number, but Bill Tilden had something like 800 weeks as #1, hundreds more than the next guy on the list - who was Laver, who also had hundreds more than Roger. Of course being #1 in the 20s and 30s was quite a bit easier than it is today, but still....just another metric to look at and add to the mix.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, it is clear you have an issue with me, specifically.

But yeah, for whatever reason, you love conflict.

Don't act all innocent mate, it's entirely mutual. You're so passive aggressive and have this need to be viewed as reasonable, but you're the most defensive character on this forum. Own it! I love a good robust debate, nothing wrong with that. I have good debates with many folks on this forum and get on with them just fine. Primarily because they're honest, and don't misrepresent themselves. They are worthy of my respect