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

[El Dude]

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.

Kieran, again, you're emphasizing peak form over career performance. Hoad was, no doubt, truly amazing for a period of time. And I get that his contemporaries say that he was as good, if not greater, than anyone else. But in the end, he was plagued with back injuries, and his career paled in comparsion to his contemporaries Rosewall and Laver and predecessor Gonzales. And consider that even at his peak, he was 0-5 vs. Rosewall in Pro Slam finals and 1-2 against Gonzales.

So despite what people say, Hoad's career doesn't match up with other greats. He could be the all-time "what could have been" player, but in the end his career is what it was.

On the other hand, perhaps I should re-name this list "Top 30 Tennis Careers Ever" because that is closer to what it is. Greatest player implies how good a player was at his very best, and that's a much harder--and more subjective--thing to assess.

By the way, here are Rod Laver's top 10 players, past and present. I believe he did this a couple years ago.

PAST
1. Lew Hoad
2. Jack Kramer
3. Pancho Gonzales
4. Don Budge
5. Fred Perry
6. Ken Rosewall
7. Ellsworth Vines
8. Bobby Riggs
9. Jack Crawford
10. John Newcombe

Evidently no love for Bill Tilden, or maybe he was just too far before Laver's time. I assume Laver would rank himself ahead of Hoad!

PRESENT
1. Roger Federer
2. Bjorn Borg
3. Pete Sampras
4. John McEnroe
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Novak Djokovic
7. Andre Agassi
8. Jimmy Connors
9. Ivan Lendl
10. Stefan Edberg

I believe this list was compiled in 2012, because it mentions Novak having won 10 titles the year before, which was 2011.

 

[Fiero425]

I can't see myself arguing with much of this; either list really, besides Tilden being overlooked for obvious reasons dealing with his predilections! He was still the best of his era and it's ridiculous to totally dismiss his contributions to the sport of tennis! Aside from ignoring Tilden, I would think Rosewall would be higher on other people's list because of his impeccable record as an amateur and pro; excelling on both tours and being in the top 10 well into his 30's, taking titles in his 40's! I can imagine Rod having a little animus! Rosewall played "lights out" to keep Laver from winning the only title he failed to get; a WCT Title! They had 2 epic battles in the final in both '71 & '72 with Laver never getting any closer losing to Stan Smith (twice) and Borg alone along the way!

It's amazing how so many have massive reverence for Borg even with the glaring holes in his resume! I too feel he owned his era and should be quite high overall! He won 6 FO and 5 straight Wimbledons; it's hard to outdo that except Federer trumped him with 7 Wimbledons and 5 straight USO's! I like the lists and will save them to my blog! Thanks!

 

[El Dude]

I wonder if Laver would re-arrange the "present" list a bit after the last two years. Certainly Rafa deserves to be above at least McEnroe ,if not Borg and Sampras. I also think Novak belongs above McEnroe. His career accomplishments don't quite match Mac's yet, but he's still in his prime so he shouldn't have a problem surpassing him.

As for the "past" list, I think he under-values Rosewall by a good deal, perhaps due to their rivalry. In a way, though, the comparison between the two is similar to Connors (Rosewall) and Borg (Laver). Laver/Borg were better players at their peaks, but Rosewall/Connors had greater longevity.

Anyhow, here's a really fun article by Sidney Wood, who is perhaps the only man--or knowledgable man!--to see everyone from Bill Tilden to Federer and Nadal play. Definitely worth a read. His best ever? Don Budge.

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6007

 

[Federberg]

This is the problem with time bias. It's not clear to me that Novak has surpassed McEnroe yet. At his peak Mac was far more dominant than Novak has been so far in my opinion. I can understand how a focus primarily on slams might lead one to this sort of conclusion, but that's the point I've been trying to make. I will forever maintain that in terms of talent that I've seen, only Federer has exceeded Mac, and even then not by much. This is a guy who won 77 singles titles and about the same number in doubles but those of us who watched him are quite comfortable saying that he underachieved in his career. It's a sad day when what he's actually done can be dismissed so quickly. Btw not getting at you Dude.. I can see why you would say this, and it's my feeling that a lot of newer tennis watchers would reach the same conclusion. I just have a great deal of difficulty subscribing to it..

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Any list that does not include Paradorn Srichaphan is flawed *







*Always liked saying the name :snigger

 

[the AntiPusher]

... many want Rafa acknowledged as the GOAT!

Such as? Show me even one example of someone claiming he's the GOAT.

I don't have to show it; people make comment of his winning record against Federer! That should be enough to satisfy you! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

That alone should warrant that Rafa should be higher on the list, IMO.

 

[Fiero425]

Such as? Show me even one example of someone claiming he's the GOAT.

I don't have to show it; people make comment of his winning record against Federer! That should be enough to satisfy you! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

That alone should warrant that Rafa should be higher on the list, IMO.

Not with his coming and going like that; I don't think so! Rafa has absolutely too many glaring holes in his record! He's won all the majors giving him great seasons and career, but IMO a bit limited with no defense of a title off of clay; that's embarrassing! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

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.

in november 1983..AO had lendl-mcenroe-wilander all playing after the tourney moved from Christmas/new year slot to late nov/early dec slot.

so 1983 onwards the credibility of AO with the other majors was back.

 

[El Dude]

This is the problem with time bias. It's not clear to me that Novak has surpassed McEnroe yet. At his peak Mac was far more dominant than Novak has been so far in my opinion. I can understand how a focus primarily on slams might lead one to this sort of conclusion, but that's the point I've been trying to make. I will forever maintain that in terms of talent that I've seen, only Federer has exceeded Mac, and even then not by much. This is a guy who won 77 singles titles and about the same number in doubles but those of us who watched him are quite comfortable saying that he underachieved in his career. It's a sad day when what he's actually done can be dismissed so quickly. Btw not getting at you Dude.. I can see why you would say this, and it's my feeling that a lot of newer tennis watchers would reach the same conclusion. I just have a great deal of difficulty subscribing to it..

I hear you, federberg. At the least I think we can say that Novak is approaching McEnroe, if not surpassed him. If we think of it in terms of an Open Era "historical race" I think Novak has passed the group of Wilander-Edberg-Becker, and is closing in on the cluster of McEnroe-Agassi-Connors-Lendl. After that its Borg-Sampras-Nadal-Federer, and he was a ways to go before catching up with those guys.

Anyhow, I do think we need to be careful about focusing on "talent." Talent is not synonymous with greatness, but is a part of greatness, even the largest part. But if talent = greatness then, well, you end up in Cali thinking.

I think that's part of why Laver and some others rank Hoad so highly, too highly in my opinion - they equate talent with greatness. But I think greatness includes not only talent but mentality, health and longevity. Perhaps the biggest difference between greatness and talent alone is that greatness has to do with how well one's talent is actualized. Lew Hoad might have been as talented, even more talented as Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver - but he wasn't nearly as great a player because he didn't actualize his talent as well as the others.

We could look at it as a formula:

Talent + Actualization = Greatness

Hoad might have had a Talent of 10 but an Actualization of 6 and thus a Greatness of 16. Laver, on the other hand, had a Talent of 10 and an Actualization 10; Rosewall a Talent of 9 and an Actualization of 10, etc. Or something like that.

 

[El Dude]

Actually, Wilander is an interesting comparison for Djokovic. Both were the third wheel for much of their peak before breaking out as the best player in the game for a single year (Mats in 1988, Novak in 2011) - the year both turned 24. But that's where the comparison drops off, because where Wilander completely collapses, Novak is still going strong. But up through age 24 they are somewhat similar, with Wilander getting a slight edge early on and Novak a huge the edge after.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Talent+ Hard Work ====> Actualization, that can =========> Greatness.

 

[Federberg]

Such as? Show me even one example of someone claiming he's the GOAT.

I don't have to show it; people make comment of his winning record against Federer! That should be enough to satisfy you! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

That alone should warrant that Rafa should be higher on the list, IMO.

Perhaps when h2h becomes the deciding factor in tennis :blush: As far as I'm aware it's winning things!

 

[Federberg]

This is the problem with time bias. It's not clear to me that Novak has surpassed McEnroe yet. At his peak Mac was far more dominant than Novak has been so far in my opinion. I can understand how a focus primarily on slams might lead one to this sort of conclusion, but that's the point I've been trying to make. I will forever maintain that in terms of talent that I've seen, only Federer has exceeded Mac, and even then not by much. This is a guy who won 77 singles titles and about the same number in doubles but those of us who watched him are quite comfortable saying that he underachieved in his career. It's a sad day when what he's actually done can be dismissed so quickly. Btw not getting at you Dude.. I can see why you would say this, and it's my feeling that a lot of newer tennis watchers would reach the same conclusion. I just have a great deal of difficulty subscribing to it..

I hear you, federberg. At the least I think we can say that Novak is approaching McEnroe, if not surpassed him. If we think of it in terms of an Open Era "historical race" I think Novak has passed the group of Wilander-Edberg-Becker, and is closing in on the cluster of McEnroe-Agassi-Connors-Lendl. After that its Borg-Sampras-Nadal-Federer, and he was a ways to go before catching up with those guys.

Anyhow, I do think we need to be careful about focusing on "talent." Talent is not synonymous with greatness, but is a part of greatness, even the largest part. But if talent = greatness then, well, you end up in Cali thinking.

I think that's part of why Laver and some others rank Hoad so highly, too highly in my opinion - they equate talent with greatness. But I think greatness includes not only talent but mentality, health and longevity. Perhaps the biggest difference between greatness and talent alone is that greatness has to do with how well one's talent is actualized. Lew Hoad might have been as talented, even more talented as Gonzales, Rosewall, and Laver - but he wasn't nearly as great a player because he didn't actualize his talent as well as the others.

We could look at it as a formula:

Talent + Actualization = Greatness

Hoad might have had a Talent of 10 but an Actualization of 6 and thus a Greatness of 16. Laver, on the other hand, had a Talent of 10 and an Actualization 10; Rosewall a Talent of 9 and an Actualization of 10, etc. Or something like that.

That's reasonable. McEnroe's problem was laziness in my view. He had talent, was dominant, had a superb winning mentality. Only problem was he had too many distractions and led a fast life. Then Tatum came along and he never really recovered. I think your Wilander-Djokovic comparison was interesting btw

 

[El Dude]

Lazy or I'd say, self-indulgent. He was a party guy!

 

[Fiero425]

I don't have to show it; people make comment of his winning record against Federer! That should be enough to satisfy you! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy:

That alone should warrant that Rafa should be higher on the list, IMO.

Perhaps when h2h becomes the deciding factor in tennis :blush: As far as I'm aware it's winning things!

Agreed! Rafa got most of those, esp. the big titles on CLAY! There's a huge imbalance and I take that into consideration along with the difference in age with Roger and his record vs Nadal! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

mcenroe is a bit bitter about how he didn't make the most of his career, how he didn't win the French or even play it in his peak days, how he didn't play the ao every year, about the sabbatticals in 86, 87, and the screw ups in training post 85 when he was chasing his own arse...

after 26yrs old in 1985..no more major finals, no more masters, no world no1 rank, no wtf titles, 1 wct title in 1989 and a davis cup in 1992. plus a few plucky runs to the sf of majors.

 

[Fiero425]

mcenroe is a bit bitter about how he didn't make the most of his career, how he didn't win the French or even play it in his peak days, how he didn't play the ao every year, about the sabbatticals in 86, 87, and the screw ups in training post 85 when he was chasing his own arse...

after 26yrs old in 1985..no more major finals, no more masters, no world no1 rank, no wtf titles, 1 wct title in 1989 and a davis cup in 1992; plus a few plucky runs to the sf of majors.

Losing to Agassi in that '92 Wimbledon semi had to show "it was time to leave!" Agassi and Becker lost on grass to him; made no sense! Same for the finalist Goran Ivanisevic! Lucky he was able to come back and take a title as a wildcard years later!

 

[Kieran]

Really, McEnroe's bitterness, or frustration, can be summed up in the title of an Orwell book: 1984. The guy blew it big time in Paris, there's no two ways about it. Of all the greats we've seen, that was the biggest choke, crack, meltdown, fiasco, whatever word you want to use. For Lendl, it was a shot in the arm, but for Mac, he never really recovered. And he was strolling to victory playing S&V - on clay!

In nineteen eighty frickin' four!

He'd have altered the landscape of everything that came afterwards, and he may even have won a calendar year slam and joined Laver at the pinnacle of the sport. He went on to have a career year in 1984, one of the most beautiful years of tennis ever seen. There's never been so unorthodox and naturally gifted player. But that day against Lendl? It haunts him. Kinda like the US Open final of 1980 might still haunt Borg at some deeproot level, but this one blares loudly in McEnroe's face, like one of his own tempestuous tirades against stuffy grey-haired officialdom...

 

[Fiero425]

Really, McEnroe's bitterness, or frustration, can be summed up in the title of an Orwell book: 1984. The guy blew it big time in Paris, there's no two ways about it. Of all the greats we've seen, that was the biggest choke, crack, meltdown, fiasco, whatever word you want to use. For Lendl, it was a shot in the arm, but for Mac, he never really recovered. And he was strolling to victory playing S&V - on clay!

In nineteen eighty frickin' four!

He'd have altered the landscape of everything that came afterwards and he may even have won a calendar year slam and joined Laver at the pinnacle of the sport. He went on to have a career year in 1984, one of the most beautiful years of tennis ever seen. There's never been so unorthodox and naturally gifted a player. But that day against Lendl, it haunts him. Kinda like the US Open final of 1980 might still haunt Borg at some deep-rooted level, but this one blares loudly in McEnroe's face, like one of his own tempestuous tirades against stuffy grey-haired officialdom...

'76 more palpable for Borg! He was playing Connors on clay and allowed him to escape! That 3rd set TB was the pivotal decider for that match! His injury in '77 was not a lot that could be done! Borg actually defaulted to Stockton after 2 sets; all square! Federer has 4 of these; 3 Wimbledon finals and of course AO in 2010 to Nadal! Some might say his '09 Wimbledon victory against Roddick used up all his luck! That was a true gift; "thanks Andy!" :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

Well, if they'd have kept the clay, then who knows? Borg might have won 3 or 4 US Opens. Why did they get rid of it, by the way? They only used it for two championships...