Top 20 Greatest Players of All Time (Yet another take)

[El Dude]

As an aside, I was looking up titles per year and some of Rod Laver's seasons were just ridiculous. He won 22 tournaments in 1962 and 15+ in seven different years. For context, only three players have won 15+ titles in a season in the Open Era--Connors in 1974, Vilas in 1977 (when he won 16), and Lendl in 1982. From 1983 to the present, no one has won more than 13 in a year.

Titles per year has dwindled further over the last 25 years or so. Sampras' career high is 10 which he did only once (1994). Roger won 11 twice (2004-05) and 12 once (2006), Rafa 11 once (2005) and 10 once (2013), and Novak's best was 10 (2011).

Given the ATP point structure, most elite players these days play in 15-20 tournaments each year. From 2004 through 2014, for instance, Roger Federer played in 15-19 tournaments each year. Novak's played in 15-17 since 2011. Aside from 2012 when he was injured and only played in 11, Rafa's played in 15-17 since 2009.

I suppose it is also simply that the earlier you go out in tournaments, the more tournaments you can play. David Ferrer, for instance, has played in 20-25 tournaments a year since 2005, and played in 28 in 2004 and 31 in 2003!

 

[Obsi]

Don't forget that before the 1990's, slams were not the most important factor in GOAT discussion.

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The year-end No. 1.

 

[El Dude]

OK, here's a list of some criteria that I'm considering for a more complete study, with possible point values:

"Category A" (All Eras)
Majors - wins (2-3)
Majors - runner up (1)
Titles - all (1 pt per 10 titles)
Rankings - year-end #1 (3, 2 for shared)
Rankings - runner up (1)

"Category B" (Open Era/ATP only)
Majors - other results (QF, SF) (.25, .5)
Titles - Masters (or equivalent) (1)
Titles - World Tour Finals (or equivalent) (2)
Winning percentage (?)
Rankings - weeks at #1 (1 pt per 10 weeks?)
Rankings - other (top 5/10) (.33 per year #3-5, .25 per year #6-10?)
Miscellaneous Accomplishments - Calendar Slam (+10), non-calendar Slam (+5), Three Slams in a year (+3), streaks (?), etc

Or something like that it. It gets rather arbitrary and difficult to weigh things against each other.

The most recent list I compiled uses a system three of the five Category A criteria, except for Majors - runner up and Titles - all. I think I can find that information for every player, or at least the Majors - runner up, but I'd have to figure out how to weigh it all.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting... in category A, why only 1 point per 10 titles? Personally I would go for 2. It just seems odd to me that you can get to number 2 in the ranking by making a load of finals, yet someone who wins 10 titles in the same year is virtually discarded.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Don't forget that before the 1990's, slams were not the most important factor in GOAT discussion.

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The year-end No. 1.

I highly doubt that was ever a more important factor than winning majors. Ask Mac in the 80's if he would have preferred finishing every year as world number 1 without ever winning Wimbledon and see what he'll tell you.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting... in category A, why only 1 point per 10 titles? Personally I would go for 2. It just seems odd to me that you can get to number 2 in the ranking by making a load of finals, yet someone who wins 10 titles in the same year is virtually discarded.

That works for me. I was just putting the list up and whatever came to mind. Again, it is artificial and subjective to assign a number system to such things, but I think the point here is to try to so intelligently. I like 1 point/five titles.

 

[Fiero425]

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The year-end No. 1.

I highly doubt that was ever a more important factor than winning majors. Ask Mac in the 80's if he would have preferred finishing every year as world number 1 without ever winning Wimbledon and see what he'll tell you.

Agreed! Being #1 at the end of the year in consecutive seasons wasn't made a big deal until Sampras! He was actually looking to surpass Connors I guess! I have a recollection of Sampras asking Boris to drop out of Paris Masters so he could play it in that 6th seasons of him being #1! Believe it or not Becker dropped out, but Sampras lost early anyway! Still held onto #1 for record! :nono :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

I might have missed the name "Hoad, Lewis" while scanning this thread... :nono

 

[Federberg]

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The year-end No. 1.

I highly doubt that was ever a more important factor than winning majors. Ask Mac in the 80's if he would have preferred finishing every year as world number 1 without ever winning Wimbledon and see what he'll tell you.

I generally agree with this. Certainly where the US Open and Wimbledon are concerned. But if you'd asked Mac if he would rather finish the year as number 1 or win the Australian Open, I wouldn't be shocked if he said number 1. This might be controversial but it might be necessary to overweight Wimbledon and the US Open for historic comparability. But that would be completely unfair to Rafa and guys from the mid 80s onward

 

[Obsi]

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The year-end No. 1.

I highly doubt that was ever a more important factor than winning majors. Ask Mac in the 80's if he would have preferred finishing every year as world number 1 without ever winning Wimbledon and see what he'll tell you.

McEnroe on ending the year as world number one:

"For me, it meant more than the Slams."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/29842246

 

[El Dude]

I might have missed the name "Hoad, Lewis" while scanning this thread... :nono

Lew didn't do too well by this system. According to the Wikipedia page for number ones, he finished the runner-up three times (3 points) and won 5 pre-Open Slams (10 points) for a total of 13 - which would probably place him somewhere in the #40-50 range.

I know, Jack Kramer wouldn't approve.

 

[El Dude]

I generally agree with this. Certainly where the US Open and Wimbledon are concerned. But if you'd asked Mac if he would rather finish the year as number 1 or win the Australian Open, I wouldn't be shocked if he said number 1. This might be controversial but it might be necessary to overweight Wimbledon and the US Open for historic comparability. But that would be completely unfair to Rafa and guys from the mid 80s onward

Well we could theoretically count the AO and FO as Pro/Amateur Slams (2 points) until later on, but what would the cut-off be? When did the two become close to equivalent as the USO and Wimbledon?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the FO was close enough by the early to mid-70s and the AO by the mid-80s.

 

[Kieran]

Nor would Laver, Pancho, Muscles Rosewall, or a lot of peeps who knew tennis back then. But I understand, the list is according to "the system" and not to be taken beyond this.

Lew Hoad is certainly one of the 20 greatest ever tennis players...

 

[Kieran]

Don't forget that before the 1990's, slams were not the most important factor in GOAT discussion.

They were. There may not have been the defining factor the way they are now, but they certainly were the most important factor. Otherwise, what was?

The Calendar Year Grand Slam was. It wasn't until Pete started to chase Emerson that the GS totals became the default setting. The whole idea would have been alien to Borg, Mac. Connors etc, who wouldn't have skipped Oz if the whole thing could be sorted by winning more majors...

 

[El Dude]

Kieran, from what I can tell Hoad was really great for a few years in the late 50s and early 60s but had a relatively short prime. If we're going on peak three years or so he'd probably rate in the top 20, but looking at total career I don't see it.

 

[El Dude]

p.s. Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, and Jack Crawford are all players I need to better assess. I'll try to add runner's up to The System and then re-post a new list, version 3.0

 

[Fiero425]

Kieran, from what I can tell Hoad was really great for a few years in the late 50s and early 60s but had a relatively short prime. If we're going on peak three years or so he'd probably rate in the top 20, but looking at total career I don't see it.

Limited resume only by choice, national service, and a chronic back problem! He actually won 3 of the 4 majors in '56 (13 in totality w/PRO events at majors) and was in the final of the last; The '56 USO! IIRC, he had a record of 7 or 8 victories over Laver with NO LOSSES at one time back then!

 

[El Dude]

Fiero425, an all-time greatest player list has to balance peak and career. If we did two top 20 lists, one for peak and one for career, Hoad would almost certainly be on the former but not on the latter.

In a similar sense that, say, Guillermo Coria was probably one of the five best players of the 2003-05 period, but probably not in the top 10 for the 00s decade, maybe on the edge of the top 20.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, there isn't a list of greats exists even in the Roy Emerson household that has Roy on it ahead of Lew. Lew Hoad is prolly top ten, if these things can be measured. People who watched tennis at the time saw him as greater than Laver and Gonzales. He had injury problems, etc, but the guy is definitely top notch. I realise his activities were more beyond the scope of the system you're using, but we have to bear in mind that players priorities were different then. The pro game wasn't a huge money spinner like it is now. The best judge of how great Hoad was is to listen to those who played against and with him.

Even scoping his wiki page I see an article written by the esteemed Frew McMillan as late as 2001:

The finest player of all time? Possibly. At his best certainly the greatest of the greats that I have seen. Light on his feet yet with the punching power of a fierce fighter. I could marvel at Rod Laver and McEnroe, their flair and artistic strength, but Hoad's ruthless efficiency would take my breath away.

I understand, however, that you're trying to collate data in order to create a consensus. To me, I watch it differently. Not better or worse, just different... :hug

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero425, an all-time greatest player list has to balance peak and career. If we did two top 20 lists, one for peak and one for career, Hoad would almost certainly be on the former but not on the latter.

In a similar sense that, say, Guillermo Coria was probably one of the five best players of the 2003-05 period, but probably not in the top 10 for the 00s decade, maybe on the edge of the top 20.

Oh, I've done many lists over the years; stored posts kept on BlogSpot as some know already! I don't see a need for a new one at this time! There's no question who's universally thought as the GOAT at this time; Fed! For my early years back in the 70's, Laver without a question was lauded by most commentators as being THE Best Of All Time; esp. McEnroe and Sampras who had great reverence for him, bowing to his 2 Grand Slams! We moved on to Sampras for a while, even without a FO final on his resume for a while! His dominance was fairly complete for the time and his 14 major count ruled! Now that Roger has supplanted that number and closed the circle with a FO title in '09, I think by acclamation, Roger will continue to top "most" lists concerning the Greats of TENNIS! You may have a faction that believe since Nadal's H2H vs Roger is a little unbalanced; there's still time in their opinion for him to catch up! Even if Nadal were to actually pass Roger, it would still be a stretch IMO with so many limitations and gaps in his resume! You'll never hear of a GOAT that never defended a title off the surface of clay! Too strange! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: