Who's The Greatest Player To Date?

[Fiero425]

^Yup, don't really disagree with anything you say there Dude. The only comment I would add re: Agassi - and I'm certainly not trying to elevate him back into the group, but what would that H2H have been like if Pete was better on clay? Agassi seemed to have the edge over him on slower surfaces. This is the problem with even talking about H2H in my view, particularly the further back you go. If one player is not good enough to compete at the highest level their H2H looks good versus a more universal player. Which is why I tend to focus on a players tournament wins versus H2H. You don't become a professional tennis player to dominate specific rivals, you want to dominate the field

But what if some players played each other on every surface?

Take Fedal, whom most h2h discussions generally revolve around, they've actually played each other 15 times on clay and 15 times on hards. The same amount.

To me that head to head is more about which player was in his peak at a period of time (which highlights the age difference) than the surfaces they've played on, since they've played enough times on every surface (well, they've "only" played 3 times on grass but Wimbledon was the one tournament they could play at).

Yes I agree BS. And Haelfix also mentions that, in the specific case of Connors. We have to be nuanced when looking at that particular statistic

Got no sympathy for Connors and his plight concerning his status! He started just as "legends" were coming to the end of their reigns; Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Smith, etc! It was a case a "senior citizen" abuse in his '74 Wimbledon and USO finals against old "Muscles!" Hard to believe Rosewall hung around for a few more years, still owning Nastase though! :cover :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

See, I don't see Connors' longevity as working against his greatness, but an aspect of it. Some might complain about looking at non-wins, but to me Connors' SF appearance at the 1991 US Open just shy of his 39th birthday is a testament to his greatness and should be considered.

In a similar fashion that Lendl's 8-11 Slam final record shouldn't be seen as a negative thing. Another way to look at it is that Lendl made it to 19 finals - that's more than anyone other than Fedal. The fact that he lost most of them had more to do with the highly competitive era that he played in, than any lack on his part. Consider that Lendl bridged three generations of greats, playing Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Vilas in their primes, and then Wilander, Edberg, and Becker, and finally Agassi, Sampras, and Courier.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't disagree Dude. But people often talk about how Connors was "owned" by his younger golden era rivals, but some nuance to the H2H is required

 

[El Dude]

Got no sympathy for Connors and his plight concerning his status! He started just as "legends" were coming to the end of their reigns; Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Smith, etc! It was a case a "senior citizen" abuse in his Wimbledon and USO finals against old "Muscles!" Hard to believe Rosewall hung around for a few more years, still owning Nastase though! :cover :angel: :dodgy:

Sure, Rosewall was ancient when Connors beat him in two Slams in 1974, but you seem to forget the fact that Connors also beat Borg (twice), McEnroe, and Lendl (twice) in Slam finals.

 

[Fiero425]

^I don't disagree Dude. But people often talk about how Connors was "owned" by his younger golden era rivals, but some nuance to the H2H is required

Poor Connors had to deal with Borg and McEnroe in his prime, then Wilander, Becker, & Edberg, wrapping it up with Sampras, Agassi, and Courior as he faded! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

^I don't disagree Dude. But people often talk about how Connors was "owned" by his younger golden era rivals, but some nuance to the H2H is required

Yes. Also, he was quite a bit older than Borg (4 years) and especially McEnroe (7 years) and Lendl (8 years). He and Borg were a bit closer than Federer and Nadal, but not by much.

It is crazy to think that Connors outlasted all of them! Even if we don't count 1993-96, as he didn't play in any Slams only a few smaller tournaments, he still played in Slams in 1992, McEnroe's last year, and just two years before Lendl retired.

 

[Fiero425]

^I don't disagree Dude. But people often talk about how Connors was "owned" by his younger golden era rivals, but some nuance to the H2H is required

Yes. Also, he was quite a bit older than Borg (4 years) and especially McEnroe (7 years) and Lendl (8 years). He and Borg were a bit closer than Federer and Nadal, but not by much.

It is crazy to think that Connors outlasted all of them! Even if we don't count 1993-96, as he didn't play in any Slams only a few smaller tournaments, he still played in Slams in 1992, McEnroe's last year, and just two years before Lendl retired.

History repeats itself with Federer trying to do the same thing; outlast them all! :cover uzzled :angel: - I remember those days of Connors' ranking dropping precipitously, but kept at it! My mom says "he had no life;" sorta like John McEnroe now! I see him playing more than anyone with the senior tour! I haven't been watching it much, but Courier was "ruling" for a while until Roddick arrived with his serve! Will Roger hold on too long like past pros? :cover uzzled :angel:

 

[Federberg]

^I don't disagree Dude. But people often talk about how Connors was "owned" by his younger golden era rivals, but some nuance to the H2H is required

Yes. Also, he was quite a bit older than Borg (4 years) and especially McEnroe (7 years) and Lendl (8 years). He and Borg were a bit closer than Federer and Nadal, but not by much.

It is crazy to think that Connors outlasted all of them! Even if we don't count 1993-96, as he didn't play in any Slams only a few smaller tournaments, he still played in Slams in 1992, McEnroe's last year, and just two years before Lendl retired.

History repeats itself with Federer trying to do the same thing; outlast them all! :cover uzzled :angel: - I remember those days of Connors' ranking dropping precipitously, but kept at it! My mom says "he had no life;" sorta like John McEnroe now! I see him playing more than anyone with the senior tour! I haven't been watching it much, but Courier was "ruling" for a while until Roddick arrived with his serve! Will Roger hold on too long like past pros? :cover uzzled :angel:

Too long? What does that mean? Who quits a job when they're still earning $5 - 10m from on court earnings? We're not even talking endorsements. That has never made any sense to me

 

[Fiero425]

Money has little to do with it at this point I WOULD HOPE! McEnroe and Connors could make money if they didn't mind getting embarrassed out on the court everyday! All athletes think they can still compete at the end, but sometimes someone needs to tell them to step down! The perfect scenario would have been in 2012, but getting back to #1 at the same time, it would have been ridiculous for Roget to retire, but when is the time? It's been 3 years since his last major; only playing in 3 finals in the last 4-5 years IIRC! I just don't want to see it get ugly like it is now with Rafa! :cover :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

Money has little to do with it at this point I WOULD HOPE! McEnroe and Connors could make money if they didn't mind getting embarrassed out on the court everyday! All athletes think they can still compete at the end, but sometimes someone needs to tell them to step down! The perfect scenario would have been in 2012, but getting back to #1 at the same time, it would have been ridiculous for Roget to retire, but when is the time? It's been 3 years since his last major; only playing in 3 finals in the last 4-5 years IIRC! I just don't want to see it get ugly like it is now with Rafa! :cover :angel: :dodgy:

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. For goodness sakes the guy is ranked number 2 in the world!! If he was outside of the top 10 I might get it.

Are you saying that Rafa should pack it in then? That is NOT what champions do

 

[Fiero425]

Money has little to do with it at this point I WOULD HOPE! McEnroe and Connors could make money if they didn't mind getting embarrassed out on the court everyday! All athletes think they can still compete at the end, but sometimes someone needs to tell them to step down! The perfect scenario would have been in 2012, but getting back to #1 at the same time, it would have been ridiculous for Roget to retire, but when is the time? It's been 3 years since his last major; only playing in 3 finals in the last 4-5 years IIRC! I just don't want to see it get ugly like it is now with Rafa! :cover :angel: :dodgy:

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. For goodness sakes the guy is ranked number 2 in the world!! If he was outside of the top 10 I might get it.

Are you saying that Rafa should pack it in then? That is NOT what champions do

I guess you could say I was spoiled by players who most believed left "all too soon;" Borg, King ('75),Hingis twice! You didn't see them floundering in the least, all at the top of their games when deciding to leave the game! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

And what do we all say about Borg now? His place in history is not as high as it could have been. No one gives him bonus points for chucking it in early. Everyone applauds Connors for his longevity.. again.. I'm not understanding your point.

The way I see it tennis players, play for the love of the sport, they play because they know nothing they do afterwards is likely to compare. Why would you give up a sport early when less than handful of players on the planet are better than you. Not if you have a champions character and self belief

 

[Fiero425]

And what do we all say about Borg now? His place in history is not as high as it could have been. No one gives him bonus points for chucking it in early. Everyone applauds Connors for his longevity.. again.. I'm not understanding your point.

The way I see it tennis players, play for the love of the sport, they play because they know nothing they do afterwards is likely to compare. Why would you give up a sport early when less than handful of players on the planet are better than you. Not if you have a champions character and self belief

It's not something for you to understand! It's a feeling I have when it comes to professional in this sport and others! I felt the same about Michelle Kwan who hung on a bit too long in figure skating! She was still in the top rung of the sport, but at the same time she was a nuisance and specter over the development of her successors like Sasha Cohen! Connors didn't win much of anything after '83 USO; more like a thorn in the sides of upcoming US players! There something to say about being in awe of a forefather and that's the way I see Roger now! He'll have a good run here and there, but he can only be a pest when it comes to Nole and Murray! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

Ah! Ok. A feeling. That's fair enough. Might be best if you say that next time though

 

[Kirijax]

I may be in the minority, but the way Borg just left at the age of 26 with 11 Slams already to his name only elevates him in my eyes. There's a whole "what if?" about him that only makes him larger than life almost. The longer Connors stayed on, the more human he seemed. Those last few years only hurt his legacy I think.

 

[Fiero425]

I may be in the minority, but the way Borg just left at the age of 26 with 11 Slams already to his name only elevates him in my eyes. There's a whole "what if?" about him that only makes him larger than life almost. The longer Connors stayed on, the more human he seemed. Those last few years only hurt his legacy I think.

Of course you have to keep in mind "what if" with Borg! He wasn't just a #2 player; had just won his 6th FO and was a finalist in the other 2 majors of W & USO in '81! I put him on a pedestal as well; only makes sense! The ATP ran him away when he just asked to pull back a little on his schedule! Blame those idiots of the Council! :cover :nono - They've since fixed the rules dealing with seniority like his and now with Federer, Nole, Andy, & Rafa! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

I may be in the minority, but the way Borg just left at the age of 26 with 11 Slams already to his name only elevates him in my eyes. There's a whole "what if?" about him that only makes him larger than life almost. The longer Connors stayed on, the more human he seemed. Those last few years only hurt his legacy I think.

I know what you mean. There is a mystique about him, and his win percentages may never be beaten.

And I do agree he was pretty much forced out and it's probably because of him that they've wised up to keep the legends playing as long as possible

 

[Kirijax]

I may be in the minority, but the way Borg just left at the age of 26 with 11 Slams already to his name only elevates him in my eyes. There's a whole "what if?" about him that only makes him larger than life almost. The longer Connors stayed on, the more human he seemed. Those last few years only hurt his legacy I think.

I know what you mean. There is a mystique about him, and his win percentages may never be beaten.

And I do agree he was pretty much forced out and it's probably because of him that they've wised up to keep the legends playing as long as possible

In all fairness, Borg should have made more of an effort to abide by the rules then if he really wanted to play. But like you said, thanks in part to him, the tour has gotten wiser in protecting the health and stress of the pros.

 

[El Dude]

His win percentages are so good because he didn't play into his decline phase.

But yeah, the Borg "What If" scenario is a doozy. Even with McEnroe surging and surpassing him at that point--he had beaten him at both Wimbledon and the US Open, Borg's last two Slams. My guess is that he would have won 3-5 more Slams and ended with 14-16.

Oh yeah, Kirijax - Borg was 25 when he retired. Well, technically he didn't retire until early 1983 when he was 26. But he played his last Slam in 1981, at age 25.

 

[Moxie]

And what do we all say about Borg now? His place in history is not as high as it could have been. No one gives him bonus points for chucking it in early. Everyone applauds Connors for his longevity.. again.. I'm not understanding your point.

The way I see it tennis players, play for the love of the sport, they play because they know nothing they do afterwards is likely to compare. Why would you give up a sport early when less than handful of players on the planet are better than you. Not if you have a champions character and self belief

I agree with you on this, federberg. I don't see any benefit to "leaving on top," except that it leaves a good-looking corpse, as it were, and makes a good story. I don't seen anything that downgrades past accomplishments, even if the W-L percentage goes down a bit, which is an arcane statistic at best. As El Dude points out in discussing Connors, you can see the range of players across time that he played and beat. Obviously, Roger is still at the top of the game, so no need to get ahead of ourselves. And it's his records and amazing game that will be the top of the legacy, but longevity and consistency will be in there and count for something.