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

[shawnbm]

^ I actually agree with both Moxie and mrzz on this topic (mostly) about Sampras when compared to Novak. Yes, Chang and Courier had broken through on the red clay of Roland Garros and more North Americans were making the trip there and to the other clay court events leading up to Paris more and more. Pete won the Italian Open when it was the second most valued clay event in the world, so you have to see he could play on it, but clay never was going to be the best surface for a pur serve and volley player--would always be an uphill battle. I wish Sampras had made that more of a goal than he (at least publicly) stated during those days. That being said, perhaps this is the one chink in his historic armour; he won everything else many times and dominated his generation throughout the key parts of most years but failed on the red clay of Europe for the most part. You really can't say that about Novak. At his best, he was quite dominant, even more so than Sampras throughout the entire year, although his winning percentage in major finals (a little over 50%) pales to Pistol Pete's 14-4 finals record (77%). It is a close call--too close for me, but perhaps they got it right when you factor in weeks and year end number ones, as well as total tournaments won and win percentage in teh biggest matches. Very close though!

 

[Federberg]

^ I actually agree with both Moxie and mrzz on this topic (mostly) about Sampras when compared to Novak. Yes, Chang and Courier had broken through on the red clay of Roland Garros and more North Americans were making the trip there and to the other clay court events leading up to Paris more and more. Pete won the Italian Open when it was the second most valued clay event in the world, so you have to see he could play on it, but clay never was going to be the best surface for a pur serve and volley player--would always be an uphill battle. I wish Sampras had made that more of a goal than he (at least publicly) stated during those days. That being said, perhaps this is the one chink in his historic armour; he won everything else many times and dominated his generation throughout the key parts of most years but failed on the red clay of Europe for the most part. You really can't say that about Novak. At his best, he was quite dominant, even more so than Sampras throughout the entire year, although his winning percentage in major finals (a little over 50%) pales to Pistol Pete's 14-4 finals record (77%). It is a close call--too close for me, but perhaps they got it right when you factor in weeks and year end number ones, as well as total tournaments won and win percentage in teh biggest matches. Very close though!

can't resist adding my two pennies worth here. It's not clear to me that clay was a particular focus for Pistol. This is my main problem with these cross era comparisons. Judging historic players by the ambitions of the current era is utterly unfair. The further back you go the more money becomes more of a priority than slams. And now on top of the slam thing we add having success at all the slams? We actually downgrade total slams won for the holy grail of having won all of them. It seems absurd to me. And meanwhile one of the most consistent and strongest aspirations of players in any era is to be the top ranked player yet this seems to get short shrift. It seems to me people are trying to fit a narrative for greatness not just across eras but to satisfy personal perspectives. This is why this whole thing has no credibility for me. Far more sensible to focus on clear metrics in a range of fields, while at the same time accepting that there is no unifying theory that can pull it all together. It's apples and oranges

 

[El Dude]

I think you guys give too little value to weeks as #1 and also for year end #1. Total weeks as #1, IMO, is a pretty important stat, only less important than major count. On that regard Sampras is still firmly ahead of Djokovic.

I agree with you, and see rankings as second to Slam titles in terms of assessing overall greatness. In fact, I think there's an argument that rankings are MORE important in that they take everything into account, and have more cross-era value.

In other words, Slams are the "sexiest" stat, with the most notoriety, but rankings probably give us a better sense of how great a player was (or is). Not perfect, of course, but more accurate than just Slams alone (or titles, etc).

 

[El Dude]

can't resist adding my two pennies worth here. It's not clear to me that clay was a particular focus for Pistol. This is my main problem with these cross era comparisons. Judging historic players by the ambitions of the current era is utterly unfair. The further back you go the more money becomes more of a priority than slams. And now on top of the slam thing we add having success at all the slams? We actually downgrade total slams won for the holy grail of having won all of them. It seems absurd to me. And meanwhile one of the most consistent and strongest aspirations of players in any era is to be the top ranked player yet this seems to get short shrift. It seems to me people are trying to fit a narrative for greatness not just across eras but to satisfy personal perspectives. This is why this whole thing has no credibility for me. Far more sensible to focus on clear metrics in a range of fields, while at the same time accepting that there is no unifying theory that can pull it all together. It's apples and oranges

I agree with you on some of this, Federberg, and when putting together such lists, try to take into account as many factors as I can. This is also why I don't simply judge historical players by current era ambitions, but focus on how dominant a player was at the time they played, and compare that level of dominance.

This relates to what I just said about rankings. They aren't perfect, but they are more accurate in terms of contextual dominance than just Slam results on their own. On the other hand, rankings aren't perfect and can lead to some funny results - like Connors winning two Slams in 1982 but finishing #2 behind McEnroe, who was #1 but didn't win any Slams, but did better overall, tournament by tournament, and in Grand Prix events.

There is no unifying theory, but in essence you are saying that because this cannot be done perfectly or objectively, it shouldn't be done at all. On that I disagree; if nothing else, it is enjoyable for those who like doing it. What's the problem with that? It is all just a bit of fun.

 

[Federberg]

^fun I understand, but 8 pages of this thread tell me that it's being taken a bit more seriously than that. And frankly this list isn't being put together as a "fun" exercise, but as if there's a definitive and correct truth to be found. Anyway it's your game, I'll just give my opinion if and when I choose to. As I always do...

 

[Horsa]

^fun I understand, but 8 pages of this thread tell me that it's being taken a bit more seriously than that. And frankly this list isn't being put together as a "fun" exercise, but as if there's a definitive and correct truth to be found. Anyway it's your game, I'll just give my opinion if and when I choose to. As I always do...

Having fun can be a long process. There's no complete truth in this though. It's just a matter of opinion at the end of the day therefore differences of opinion shouldn't be so heated.

 

[El Dude]

^fun I understand, but 8 pages of this thread tell me that it's being taken a bit more seriously than that. And frankly this list isn't being put together as a "fun" exercise, but as if there's a definitive and correct truth to be found. Anyway it's your game, I'll just give my opinion if and when I choose to. As I always do...

You could apply the same thing to every single thread in this forum: tennis fans taking things overly seriously. For whatever reason, you find this topic particularly offensive, but have your own topics that you take seriously.

And I don't see anyone saying that there is "a definitive and correct truth to be found." I certainly don't (nor do I claim to be a historical or statistical expert, contrary to what you might believe), and I'm guessing even Mr Tignor doesn't see his list as Absolute Truth.

Anyhow, I have no problem with you contributing - please do; everyone is invited to this party. But if you come to the party merely to say, "This party sucks," then what's the point of that?

 

[shawnbm]

^ so very true. There are people twenty and thirty years older than I who swear by Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad as every bit as good as anyone and Pancho played into his forties and beat Connors and a young Borg late in his career if memory serves. That would would be like Federer or Nadal dropping off and still beating the future number one players of ten years from now!

 

[El Dude]

^ so very true. There are people twenty and thirty years older than I who swear by Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad as every bit as good as anyone and Pancho played into his forties and beat Connors and a young Borg late in his career if memory serves. That would would be like Federer or Nadal dropping off and still beating the future number one players of ten years from now!

I think Pancho Gonzales is possible the most historically underrated player, and the player whose Slam count (2) least represents his dominance. He is reason numero uno that I include Pro Slams when considering majors counts from pre-Open Era players. We've talked about this endlessly before, but in short, while Pro Slams were much abbreviated compared to Amateur Slams - usually 3-4 rounds - they were always packed with the best of he best, not unlike today's WTF, whereas the Amateur Slams were often lacking the best players in the game, which is why Emerson won so many - all of the best players were pro. Pancho won 2 Amateur Slams and 12 Pro Slams, so 14 majors in all--same as Sampras--which I think is a better indicator of his greatness.

Here's a list of overall tennis majors.

Hoad has quite a mystique about him. He was considered as good as anyone on a good day, but had various issues, mainly injuries, if I remember correctly.

 

[shawnbm]

You are correct about Hoad—his best was scary good to Laver, RoseWall and Pancho. Haelfix probably can shed more light in these greats from before the Open Era.

 

[Federberg]

Having fun can be a long process. There's no complete truth in this though. It's just a matter of opinion at the end of the day therefore differences of opinion shouldn't be so heated.

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to get to with this response. I have a special loathing for people trying to act as a mediator with me, on behalf of someone else. Feel free to state your opinion about the thread, but please please don’t presume where my posts are concerned. There’s no need for it. Go back and read through the thread if you need context, but please don’t feel the need to share your findings with me

 

[Moxie]

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to get to with this response. I have a special loathing for people trying to act as a mediator with me, on behalf of someone else. Feel free to state your opinion about the thread, but please please don’t presume where my posts are concerned. There’s no need for it. Go back and read through the thread if you need context, but please don’t feel the need to share your findings with me

Well, then perhaps you'll loathe me for taking up on Ann's behalf here, but she really didn't say anything that required such a harsh response from you. Maybe you should read back for some context.

 

[Federberg]

Well, then perhaps you'll loathe me for taking up on Ann's behalf here, but she really didn't say anything that required such a harsh response from you. Maybe you should read back for some context.

Lol! I’m going to assume this is twisted humour. It has to be..

 

[Moxie]

No, but good luck.

 

[Federberg]

As long as you don’t do that with others you have zero credibility with me. But go ahead waste your time

 

[Horsa]

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to get to with this response. I have a special loathing for people trying to act as a mediator with me, on behalf of someone else. Feel free to state your opinion about the thread, but please please don’t presume where my posts are concerned. There’s no need for it. Go back and read through the thread if you need context, but please don’t feel the need to share your findings with me

I was trying to say that having fun could be a long drawn out process but I agree with you in that there is no complete truth in this thread & it's a matter of opinion so there was no need to have heated discussions. I'm not trying to act as mediator with you on behalf of anyone. In fact I speak only for myself. In the past I have played spokesperson so had to know where people stood so I could speak for them but I'm not now & I'm not making any presumptions or sharing any findings at all with you. I'm not needing any context. I'm just stating my opinion like everyone else does. I did make an assumption about why you supported who you did the other day so deserved this talk then but not on this talk right now. I'm not playing all innocent because I'm not totally innocent but in this case I think it's a case of 6 of 1 & 1/2 a dozen of the other.

 

[Horsa]

Lol! I’m going to assume this is twisted humour. It has to be..

No, you just misinterpreted what I had to say but I didn't make myself perfectly clear so I'm partially to blame. Still you've set your boundaries & said what you thought so I'll remember what you said & respect your boundaries & say what I think in a civilised way like everyone should. You weren't too harsh though you weren't too smarmy either. I respect that. I deserved that comment but not at this moment in time but earlier.

 

[mrzz]

Having fun can be a long process.

Actually this is a very nice punch line (and very true). Congrats, EA.

 

[Horsa]

Actually this is a very nice punch line (and very true). Congrats, EA.

I know it sounds funny but you know the saying "many a true word spoken in jest" & like you stated it is true. I've known people to have fun with each other & it to last a long time. Thank you very much, Mrzz.

 

[Federberg]

I was trying to say that having fun could be a long drawn out process but I agree with you in that there is no complete truth in this thread & it's a matter of opinion so there was no need to have heated discussions. I'm not trying to act as mediator with you on behalf of anyone. In fact I speak only for myself. In the past I have played spokesperson so had to know where people stood so I could speak for them but I'm not now & I'm not making any presumptions or sharing any findings at all with you. I'm not needing any context. I'm just stating my opinion like everyone else does. I did make an assumption about why you supported who you did the other day so deserved this talk then but not on this talk right now. I'm not playing all innocent because I'm not totally innocent but in this case I think it's a case of 6 of 1 & 1/2 a dozen of the other.

I'm a bit confused as to why you don't need context when you specifically responded to/made an observation about a post of mine. But it's not a big deal. Let's move on