Johnny Groove's Top 69 Players Ever (Djokovic #11 of all time, Wawrinka #56) - Page 68 - MensTennisForums.com

View Poll Results: How accurate was I?
5/5- Almost 100% spot on, Mr. Groove. I may switch a few around here or there, but good work 68 18.43%
4/5- More or less. I disagree with a few, but not bad at all 154 41.73%
3/5- Hmmmm, I dunno. Some look a bit dicey, mate 53 14.36%
2/5- Are you nuts? Why is X player in Y position? You are completely dissing Z player! 19 5.15%
1/5- Are you high and or drunk? WTF?!?!?! 75 20.33%
Voters: 369. You may not vote on this poll

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1006 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-24-2012, 04:24 PM
King of Queens
 
Sapeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 21
Posts: 41,595
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Borg 9th? What are you smoking, Groove?? Only 5 players have the same amount or more slams than him and he's 9th?? Get that sorted out

ANDY MURRAY

SLAMS: 3 WINS, 8 finals, 9 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals...
WORLD TOUR FINALS: 3 semi-finals...
MASTERS: 12 WINS, 6 finals, 13 semi-finals, 18 quarter-finals...
OLYMPICS: 2 gold medals, 1 silver...
DAVIS CUP: 2016 champion...
MATCH WIN/LOSS: 602-172...
TITLES: 39 and counting...
Sapeod is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1007 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-24-2012, 11:18 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

To place Tilden, Gonzalez and Budge above Rosewall is absurd! Tilden and Gonzalez never won a slam on clay. Rosewall never won Wimbledon but reached 2 finals in his early 20's and 2 more in his mid to late 30's. For 11 of his best years, Ken could not compete at Wimbledon. Unlike Tilden and Gonzalez, who never won a clay slam, Ken won 8 grass slams along with his 6 clay slams and 9 indoor slams. Yes Budge did win a Grand Slam, but in the amateur game. It is unfortunate that the war interrupted Budge's career, but that is not a fair reason to place him above a player with superior accomplishments. IMO, only Laver, and perhaps, Federer should be placed above Rosewall when it comes to accomplishments. IMO, there is a valid arguement to rank Ken above Roger, as of today. One is that Roger has only 1 clay slam, and was a bit lucky to have that. Another is that from 03-07 Roger played against weak competition. Also, Roger has a 2-6 record against Nadal in slam finals while Ken is 7-5 against Laver in slam finals. Rosewall should be ranked no lower than #3 in all-time tennis accomplishments. IMHO, he should be #2.

Last edited by thrust; 09-24-2012 at 11:33 PM.
thrust is offline  
post #1008 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 07:35 AM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 56,887
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
To place Tilden, Gonzalez and Budge above Rosewall is absurd! Tilden and Gonzalez never won a slam on clay. Rosewall never won Wimbledon but reached 2 finals in his early 20's and 2 more in his mid to late 30's. For 11 of his best years, Ken could not compete at Wimbledon. Unlike Tilden and Gonzalez, who never won a clay slam, Ken won 8 grass slams along with his 6 clay slams and 9 indoor slams. Yes Budge did win a Grand Slam, but in the amateur game. It is unfortunate that the war interrupted Budge's career, but that is not a fair reason to place him above a player with superior accomplishments. IMO, only Laver, and perhaps, Federer should be placed above Rosewall when it comes to accomplishments. IMO, there is a valid arguement to rank Ken above Roger, as of today. One is that Roger has only 1 clay slam, and was a bit lucky to have that. Another is that from 03-07 Roger played against weak competition. Also, Roger has a 2-6 record against Nadal in slam finals while Ken is 7-5 against Laver in slam finals. Rosewall should be ranked no lower than #3 in all-time tennis accomplishments. IMHO, he should be #2.
Not this again. Federer 2003-07 obviously played against stronger competition than Rosewall did 1950-68 as the players back then were divided between amateur and pro competition. No such division for Federer.

And I will remind you there is no evidence whatsoever that 2003-07 were weaker than 2008-12, or any other five year period. Absolutely none. So it makes no sense to take height for something that may or may not be true.
Litotes is offline  
post #1009 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:47 AM
Registered User
 
saviopr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 270
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
To place Tilden, Gonzalez and Budge above Rosewall is absurd! Tilden and Gonzalez never won a slam on clay. Rosewall never won Wimbledon but reached 2 finals in his early 20's and 2 more in his mid to late 30's. For 11 of his best years, Ken could not compete at Wimbledon. Unlike Tilden and Gonzalez, who never won a clay slam, Ken won 8 grass slams along with his 6 clay slams and 9 indoor slams. Yes Budge did win a Grand Slam, but in the amateur game. It is unfortunate that the war interrupted Budge's career, but that is not a fair reason to place him above a player with superior accomplishments. IMO, only Laver, and perhaps, Federer should be placed above Rosewall when it comes to accomplishments. IMO, there is a valid arguement to rank Ken above Roger, as of today. One is that Roger has only 1 clay slam, and was a bit lucky to have that. Another is that from 03-07 Roger played against weak competition. Also, Roger has a 2-6 record against Nadal in slam finals while Ken is 7-5 against Laver in slam finals. Rosewall should be ranked no lower than #3 in all-time tennis accomplishments. IMHO, he should be #2.
H2H is not achievement.
saviopr is offline  
post #1010 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:52 AM
Registered User
 
Federer in 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 7,771
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

If Nadal ever reaches 13 Slams, he should be #7 above Sampras.


ROGER FEDERER

'Roger Federer is the best ever' - Everyone else other than John McEnroe*

*Not anymore...

4 AO - 1 RG - 7 W - 5 USO

Quote:
Originally Posted by nadalfan2013 View Post
Standing ovation for Nadal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nadalfan2013 View Post
Standing ovation for Federer. Disgusting.
Federer in 2 is offline  
post #1011 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 01:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by saviopr View Post
H2H is not achievement.
Achievement wise, Rosewall has 23 slams overall. Take away his amateur slams he still has 19, 15 Pro an 4 Open Era slams. It is a fact that his 15 pro slams were against superior players than were playing the amateur slams. When Laver first came onto the pro tour, he was dominated by Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales for 2-3 years. Like it or not, 03-07 was a weak period in tennis. Roger is an all-time great in any era, but IMO his slam total is infalted due to the weak competition he had in those 5 years. Tilden was dominate as long as Cochet, Borotra or Lacoste were not competing in the same slams. The French players dominated Wimbledon and the French for most of the 20's and also the US when they competed there. IMO, the ultimate H-H is in slams, especially in the finals. Bud Collins said that even though Laver was dominating Rosewall in the lesser tournaments in the late 60's Rosewall more than held is own in the big events. Ken was in his 34th year in 1968, therefore at the beginning of his decline. Still, between 68-72 he won 4 slams and 2 WTC finals chamionships, beating Laver in 3 of those finals. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. Ken also reached the USO and Wimbledon finals in his 40th year. Sure, he did lose badly in those finals, but at least he got there. Achievement wise, very few players equal, or come close to what Rosewall achieved betwee the ages of 18-40. Only Laver and Federer are in his league.
thrust is offline  
post #1012 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 01:27 PM
Registered User
 
zdravkelja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 739
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Achievement wise, Rosewall has 23 slams overall. Take away his amateur slams he still has 19, 15 Pro an 4 Open Era slams. It is a fact that his 15 pro slams were against superior players than were playing the amateur slams. When Laver first came onto the pro tour, he was dominated by Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales for 2-3 years. Like it or not, 03-07 was a weak period in tennis. Roger is an all-time great in any era, but IMO his slam total is infalted due to the weak competition he had in those 5 years. Tilden was dominate as long as Cochet, Borotra or Lacoste were not competing in the same slams. The French players dominated Wimbledon and the French for most of the 20's and also the US when they competed there. IMO, the ultimate H-H is in slams, especially in the finals. Bud Collins said that even though Laver was dominating Rosewall in the lesser tournaments in the late 60's Rosewall more than held is own in the big events. Ken was in his 34th year in 1968, therefore at the beginning of his decline. Still, between 68-72 he won 4 slams and 2 WTC finals chamionships, beating Laver in 3 of those finals. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. Ken also reached the USO and Wimbledon finals in his 40th year. Sure, he did lose badly in those finals, but at least he got there. Achievement wise, very few players equal, or come close to what Rosewall achieved betwee the ages of 18-40. Only Laver and Federer are in his league.
zdravkelja is offline  
post #1013 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 01:56 PM
Registered User
 
saviopr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 270
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Achievement wise, Rosewall has 23 slams overall. Take away his amateur slams he still has 19, 15 Pro an 4 Open Era slams. It is a fact that his 15 pro slams were against superior players than were playing the amateur slams.
Rosewall has more slams, but in a divided field. Ok, the professional players were superior, but all of them were amateur one day. They just improved their game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
When Laver first came onto the pro tour, he was dominated by Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales for 2-3 years. Like it or not, 03-07 was a weak period in tennis. Roger is an all-time great in any era, but IMO his slam total is infalted due to the weak competition he had in those 5 years.
Its not a fact, its just your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Achievement wise, very few players equal, or come close to what Rosewall achieved betwee the ages of 18-40. Only Laver and Federer are in his league.
Maybe Budge too. Rosewall deserves the number 4 IMO.
saviopr is offline  
post #1014 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 04:05 PM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 56,887
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Achievement wise, Rosewall has 23 slams overall. Take away his amateur slams he still has 19, 15 Pro an 4 Open Era slams. It is a fact that his 15 pro slams were against superior players than were playing the amateur slams. When Laver first came onto the pro tour, he was dominated by Hoad, Rosewall and Gonzales for 2-3 years. Like it or not, 03-07 was a weak period in tennis. Roger is an all-time great in any era, but IMO his slam total is infalted due to the weak competition he had in those 5 years. Tilden was dominate as long as Cochet, Borotra or Lacoste were not competing in the same slams. The French players dominated Wimbledon and the French for most of the 20's and also the US when they competed there. IMO, the ultimate H-H is in slams, especially in the finals. Bud Collins said that even though Laver was dominating Rosewall in the lesser tournaments in the late 60's Rosewall more than held is own in the big events. Ken was in his 34th year in 1968, therefore at the beginning of his decline. Still, between 68-72 he won 4 slams and 2 WTC finals chamionships, beating Laver in 3 of those finals. Laver was 4 years younger than Rosewall. Ken also reached the USO and Wimbledon finals in his 40th year. Sure, he did lose badly in those finals, but at least he got there. Achievement wise, very few players equal, or come close to what Rosewall achieved betwee the ages of 18-40. Only Laver and Federer are in his league.
You have brought forward no arguments, only personal opinion. Making conclusions from personal opinion is not a very intelligent way to debate. Because of this you'll have a hard time finding anyone willing to take the rest of your opinions seriously. But if you like being background static, so be it. You're not the only one.

Last edited by Litotes; 09-25-2012 at 04:11 PM.
Litotes is offline  
post #1015 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 04:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by saviopr View Post
Rosewall has more slams, but in a divided field. Ok, the professional players were superior, but all of them were amateur one day. They just improved their game.



Its not a fact, its just your opinion.



Maybe Budge too. Rosewall deserves the number 4 IMO.
Yes, the amateurs did improve their games, but Laver was the only one who was Rosewall's equal or superior after they turned pro. Rosewall improved his game and was able to compete against Gonzalez after his first year on the tour. What great player did Federer beat winning slams 03-07? An old and injured Agassi was the ONLY one. The others, including Roddick, were not great players. Nadal did not reach his peak, off clay, till 08 yet he was still able to beat Roger on and off clay before 08. The starter of this thread included pro tour slams as criteria, therefore, Rosewall's 15 pro slams are relevet to this discussion. According to Mr Groove, Rosewall has won 23 slams, which is more than any other great player. Again, If on takes away Ken's 4 amateur slams, he still has 19 which is still more than anyone else. Laver has 5 amateur slams, which if deducted, would give him only 14 or 15 slams.
thrust is offline  
post #1016 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 05:07 PM
Registered User
 
saviopr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 270
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Yes, the amateurs did improve their games, but Laver was the only one who was Rosewall's equal or superior after they turned pro. Rosewall improved his game and was able to compete against Gonzalez after his first year on the tour. What great player did Federer beat winning slams 03-07? An old and injured Agassi was the ONLY one. The others, including Roddick, were not great players. Nadal did not reach his peak, off clay, till 08 yet he was still able to beat Roger on and off clay before 08. The starter of this thread included pro tour slams as criteria, therefore, Rosewall's 15 pro slams are relevet to this discussion. According to Mr Groove, Rosewall has won 23 slams, which is more than any other great player. Again, If on takes away Ken's 4 amateur slams, he still has 19 which is still more than anyone else. Laver has 5 amateur slams, which if deducted, would give him only 14 or 15 slams.
Federer played against Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic in 03-07 grand slam finals, all of them are former number 1 and grand slam chapions. Its not enough? Or for you to consider a field strong its needed 5 or 6 all time top 10 players? Its just impossible. Also, you cannot consider a pro slam as hard as an open era slam. This was exhaustevily debated here. See the older posts.
saviopr is offline  
post #1017 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 05:59 PM
Registered User
 
zdravkelja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 739
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

They were all good players but Federer raised the bar too much so they just looked bad.
zdravkelja is offline  
post #1018 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 06:47 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by saviopr View Post
Federer played against Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic in 03-07 grand slam finals, all of them are former number 1 and grand slam chapions. Its not enough? Or for you to consider a field strong its needed 5 or 6 all time top 10 players? Its just impossible. Also, you cannot consider a pro slam as hard as an open era slam. This was exhaustevily debated here. See the older posts.
Agassi was old, injured and past his prime. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick are all outstanding players but hardly all-time great players. Nadal and Novak had not reached their peak before 08. Rosewall was beating: Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad, Ashe, and Newcombe winning his slams. Roger Federer is definitely one of the very greatest players ever but so are Rosewall and Laver.
thrust is offline  
post #1019 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 06:57 PM
Registered User
 
Sanya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 25
Posts: 2,588
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Agassi was old, injured and past his prime. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick are all outstanding players but hardly all-time great players. Nadal and Novak had not reached their peak before 08. Rosewall was beating: Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad, Ashe, and Newcombe winning his slams. Roger Federer is definitely one of the very greatest players ever but so are Rosewall and Laver.
I bet you this BS about weak era can be said about any times. Understand, any! I can write dozens of arguments why we should count 90th as very weak period in tennis. The same about 80th, so on.

I can`t believe people continue writing nonsense about weak era not in a joke way, but seriously.

Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline  
post #1020 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 07:34 PM
Registered User
 
saviopr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 270
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Agassi was old, injured and past his prime. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick are all outstanding players but hardly all-time great players. Nadal and Novak had not reached their peak before 08. Rosewall was beating: Gonzalez, Laver, Hoad, Ashe, and Newcombe winning his slams. Roger Federer is definitely one of the very greatest players ever but so are Rosewall and Laver.
I dont think all these players quoted by you reached their peak at the same time. Gonzales is not from the same generation of Laver and hardly from the same generation of Rosewall. Ashe and Newcombe are even a third generation, after Laver and Rosewall, so its not a fair comparation IMO.
saviopr is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome