Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend
Good list and read despite the fact that Gooch has been overlooked for no.1...
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
Gooch and King Oscar transcend the tennis world, they will always be over with the people.
The Gooch and the King transcend tennis, to put them on the list with mugs like Federer and Laver would be insults to them
Are you really 21? That list is real savvy, grats.
@johnny grove, shouldn't you be training?
What, a a guy can't train and research the history of the game?
I didn't doubt you knew about it. Just thought it was good to mention that there was an 'external' reason for the poor Davis Cup record (by the way, Czech DC win was in 1980 and not 1985
) that you mention in his description while for Connors, for example, it's simply because he was not interested.
I agree with the rest of post 20.
Connors was a baseliner, wasn't he?
Lendl was a far better player from the baseline than these (and I was a fan of 'em). He had more weapons, they never ran around their backhand for example (huh Becker did, I think but he was younger) and he had one of the greatest running forehand of all time. As you said, he revolutionized the game at that level.
Lendl also won 94 ATP sanctioned tournaments + a shitload of invitational tournaments, some of which being true competition like Antwerp ECC. He won it 5 times, including 3 in 5 years, for which he was awarded a diamond racquet trophy http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3770645_n.jpg
, 1M$ worth at that time. He almost got it a second time but was beaten in the SF by Becker in 1991.
I have him as number one (of the OE) in my point ranking. Arguable, of course. Open Era Ranking (April 22 1968-November 2010): an attempt
Wow, you have him as #1 in your open era list? Impressive. I was really underrating Lendl when I originally put him as 11th.
No, Lendl would not win Wimbledon multiple times on slow grass. He couldnt beat Wilander twice on the slow Australian grass and Wilander is hardly a great grasscourter. No way Lendl would beat Federer 2003-2009, neither would he beat Djokovic 2011. Lendl could maybe win Wimbledon 2010 with some luck.
If you are to make an objective list about what players actually achieved arguments such as what a player would have done in another era is just not to take part of such an discussion. Lendl might have won one Wimbledon in this era but maybe he would never win Roland Garros because Nadal would stop him every time and maybe Federer would dominate him on hardcourts and not allow him to win 5 hardcourt grand slams and then the discussion goes on into something overly speculative.
We should only compare what different players have achieved, the discussion should be what is the most important achievments and how we are to value different variables, like years as nr1, pro slams/amateur slams, grand slam finals and semifinals, longevity and so on.
Lendl still got a great case against Nadal without entering the discussion of comparing eras, Lendl got 5 master cups, he got 270 weeks as nr1, 94 titles, 19 slam finals....
Good points here about Lendl at the AO grass vs. Wilander and whether Lendl would have made all those USO finals with Federer around. Yes, I have officially placed Lendl ahead of Nadal, I've been convinced by the discussion so far here. Nadal is not done though and still has time to pass Lendl, and possibly even Borg.
Great great work
Exactly, otherwise you'll never make any such lists Johnny boy.
All such lists are subjective anyway. Haahaa my personal list would be quite different.
Surely Safin would be higher on yours, and Moya would make an appearance as well I am sure
As for me, if I can scratch the top 55 of all time in my career with a Kafelnikov/Rafter type career, I will be very satisfied with it.
I really don't care how you have them ranked because no one could rank players that everyone will agree with with..
BUT, this is a very, very nice piece of work!!! I applaud your efforts, standing ovation in fact. Nicely done!!
Okay, the first thing that strikes me is Nastase should be higher. He has an argument for being year-end Number 1 in 1972 as well as 1973, has 1 slam on clay & 1 on grass, won the Masters 4 times, won 59 tournaments (along with several others not counted by the ATP) on a range of surfaces, outdoors & indoors, including 15 in 1973 alone, played in one of the great Wimbledon finals in 1972, & displayed astonishing touch & variety. He's surely ahead of Smith & Kuerten & I would argue Sears, who dominated a very small pool, & for that matter Hewitt, who seems rather high. 59 titles in a strong era - come on. He was beating Connors, Borg, Ashe, Kodes, Tanner, Vilas, Okker, Orantes, Emerson, Smith, Laver, Emerson, & Panatta for those.
I've moved Nastase up from 50 to 31.
I think Hewitt at 37 is pretty accurate.
Very nice effort.
I am of course inclined to compare this to my own rankings (as of end-2010):
... updated for the top 20 here:
... which covers only the open era. We seem to think mostly along related lines (Laver - Federer - Rosewall - Sampras - Borg is exactly how I have it), but of course there are also quibbles - how could it be differen. Notably:
-- Nadal, I would think, has done more by now than Lendl, and
-- Vilas seems too low.
Vilas from 45 to 30.
As for the Nadal/Lendl debate, I am still a bit on the fence here. I've got Nadal at 10 to Lendl's 9, Vines at 11 and Perry at 12. I think another slam for Nadal would seal the deal for him.