Johnny Groove's Top 69 Players Ever (Djokovic #11 of all time, Wawrinka #56) - Page 69 - 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 #1021 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 07:38 PM
Registered User
 
TennisOnWood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,020
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
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.
Please tell us about weak 80's.. Golden tennis age can be brought up to weak on MTF, just want to know how

HIC IACET ARTHURUS REX QUONDAM REXQUE FUTURUS — "Here lies Arthur, the once and future king."
TennisOnWood is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1022 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 08:06 PM
Registered User
 
TigerTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London (sadly)
Posts: 14,463
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

I reckon You can look and see how strong a era is by who DIDN'T win slams. Not by who DID.

On Murray
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamvol View Post
He probably just hangs about in 2nd place protecting himself with 3 bananas whilst waiting for the person in the lead to get blue shelled.
1. Murray wins Wimbledon 2016 after Djokovic is blue shelled by Querrey. Thanks Querrey!

2. Murray wins Olympic Gold for the second time after Djokovic is blue shelled by Del Potro. Thanks Del Potro!

3. Murray wins US Open 2016 after Djokovic is blue shelled by [pending]. Thanks [pending]!

TigerTim is offline  
post #1023 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 08:09 PM
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,577
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTim View Post
I reckon You can look and see how strong a era is by who DIDN'T win slams. Not by who DID.
The only ones who failed to win are the headcases, clowns, and chokers.
SerialKillerToBe is offline  
post #1024 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 08:32 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 TennisOnWood View Post
Please tell us about weak 80's.. Golden tennis age can be brought up to weak on MTF, just want to know how
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.

Gasquet is next №1
Sanya is offline  
post #1025 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 08:52 PM
Registered User
 
stebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 11,530
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.
Fantastic. I wouldn't play yourself down saying you aren't good at sarcasm. You quite perfectly captured the tone of contempt that selective and biased fans use to criticise their chosen target.

Champions deserve whatever they win playing within the laws of the game
stebs is offline  
post #1026 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 10:58 PM
Registered User
 
Arakasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 803
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.
Arakasi is offline  
post #1027 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:26 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 Sanya View Post
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.
Another
saviopr is offline  
post #1028 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:40 PM
Registered User
 
Yolita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mexico
Posts: 3,093
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Very interesting list, it's the first time I read it in detail.

Just one little comment, no big deal: Novak was #1 for 53 weeks, not 51. From July 4th 2011 to July 2nd 2012 inclusive. Also, he has 31 titles, not 30.

Very nice read. Some names I didn't know, from the 1880s and 1930s.

NOVAK DJOKOVIC
Yolita is offline  
post #1029 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:47 PM
Registered User
 
Arakasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 803
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

There is one thing about this whole "weak-era" debate that I've never understood. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

Even if '03-'07 (or any other era) were a weak era, what difference does it make? People seem to presuppose that a weak era implies devalued achievements but I don't see how that makes sense.

I assume thrust thinks Laver is the GOAT so let me ask this: if Laver played in '03-'07 and won most/all the slams would that mean his achievements would be worth less because it was a weak era? Alternatively, suppose I appeared in Laver's era and shot every credible player on tour (Rosewall etc.) does that mean Laver is no longer the GOAT? Has his ability at tennis suddenly changed? To me the answer is self-evidently no.

The implication of this logic of course is that competition is largely irrelevant in the GOAT debate and I believe this. I DO think that some eras are stronger than others (although I think it is a pointless discussion) BUT I don't think it makes any difference. Unless you know for a certainty how someone would have performed in another era, which is obviously impossible, you cannot detract from their achievements by using a "weak era" argument.

Now the obvious criticism to my logic would be to say that following it means we'd have to do things such as rate Del Potro's slam win (beating Fedal back-to-back) equal to other less impressive slam wins e.g. Johansson. In my mind this is where "level of play" comes into it. I can legitimately say that Del Potro > Johansson because he played at a far higher level to win his grand slam. That is a credible argument. I CANNOT say that Del Potro > Johansson because Johansson played in a weak era. This is meaningless. I do not know how Johansson would perform in Del Potro's place or indeed vice versa.

Therefore, if "weak-era" believers say for example that Laver is the GOAT not Federer because, despite similar achievements, Laver played better tennis than him then I say fair enough. I can respect that argument. But if you say Laver is the GOAT because Federer's achievements are devalued by a weak era you simply make no sense to me. Unfortunately, all this does is move the debate away from one subjective area "weak-eras" to another even more subjective area "level of play", but where would the fun be if we agreed on everything?
Arakasi is offline  
post #1030 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-25-2012, 11:59 PM
Registered User
 
Han Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 2,349
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
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.
This plus a thousand. It's such a flawed argument to use to discredit certain players or build up others.

You can only measure greatness using tangibles such as achievements, longevity, style/level of play (ok, this one is slightly less tangible...).
Han Solo is online now  
post #1031 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-26-2012, 12:00 AM
country flag Tag
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Age: 27
Posts: 3,262
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

whether this is a weak era or not is a never ending, circular argument

however, it can't be denied that this is a homogenized, technology determined, slow court era
Tag is offline  
post #1032 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-26-2012, 12:06 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,942
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.
I'd want to give you 1000 reps.
atennisfan is offline  
post #1033 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-26-2012, 12:53 AM
country flag Tag
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Age: 27
Posts: 3,262
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

1880s was the real strong era

renshaw would triple bagel murray in 20 minutes, resulting in murray's subsequent descent into alcoholism

(nadal would fold his poker hand and moan about renshaw playing fake tennis, federer would hide under the umpire's chair and cry, and djokovic would sarcastically applaud then film himself losing to make a youtube video)
Tag is offline  
post #1034 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-26-2012, 01:03 AM
Registered User
 
uxyzapenje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: At home.
Posts: 5,313
                     
Re: Professor Johnny Groove's Top 55 players ever (Murray one slam away from making l

Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTim View Post
I reckon You can look and see how strong a era is by who DIDN'T win slams. Not by who DID.
I would say it's a mix of the 2, but the truth being closer to this than to this clowns post below you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hipolymer View Post
The only ones who failed to win are the headcases, clowns, and chokers.
Stop watching tennis. Oh, that's right, you don't even watch it, just bash on tennis players on internet forums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanya View Post
It always is done from someone`s position I guess, but we can go with all possible variants.

Mcenroe - whom the hell did this guy beat to win his titles? Past his prime Borg who was going to retire at 26 and despite being burnt-out remained his biggest threat? Or maybe Gerulaitis who was bye for top players back then, was one-slam-wonder with fluke victory at AO-77 where best players even didn`t take part. Yep, this John was really scary man - he had to beat Chris Lewis to win the most prestigious tournament in tennis in the final. Give me a break, this guy was just playing in weak era. When new competition appeard since 1985 his results were joke.

Lendl - how can this vulture be considered as one of the greatest in history? Murray of his time who was owned by any decent player and would never touch GS trophy if only he didn`t play in weak era as his 4 final losses in a row show. He was Mecir`s master - Miroslav eated from his hands on court, won 12 games in two GS final against him. What an era, imagine Troicki against Djokovic here and you get it. He sucked on real spartan surface (grass) with kid from Germany, was gifted his last Slam with retirement. Lendl peaked for autumn, period after Slams when all players are resting after great season for new pinnacle at Slams this guy vultured at now-called WTF joke. He was the only fresh player there and no surprise Ivan was in the final there for 8 times in a row only to be owned at Slams later.

Wilander - you must be kidding. Guy had one strong season and we should consider him to be one of all-time greats. He was lucky not to play in time with really great clay court player (Borg) around, in stead of him he was "fighting" with MM king Vilas and home lucky pal Lecont for his whole career was lesser thread than kitty for real tops at Slams. Or victory over Curren at Slam final made him a legend, guy had 5 ATP titles in his career - yep, what a rival If he was that good, why he disapeared from top fight when great wave of players (Agassi, Sampras, Courier) appeared? Luckder, Lendl`s and Becker`s pigeon, never knew how to play on quick surfaces (see - grass, Wimbledon) and still won so many titles. It only shows what a mug era that was, Murray would be a king back then.

Becker, another legend, who for all his career never succeeded to win at least something on not-for-serve-bots court - on clay where real heroes got their glory. This all serve guy was Wimbledon legend? Where he was when Sampras appeared, wasn`t even good enough to beat that fluke Stich there. Then what we have in fact - nothing on clay, nothing against decent players on grass (could beat there only past his prime old Lendl and great Curren remembered higher). It remains only indoor, servebots territory where he really was the best for years - though can we really consider this to be tennis, for real? Due to this guy and others like him surfaces where changed for a chance for spectators finally to watch some true art. Something like AO-12 final.

And so on. I know I`m not very good in sarcasm in english, I`m not native speaker though. But you can get my point. It`s easy to write rubbish about any player, any time. And if you think that my one was bigger than others - well, I wouldn`t think so. Simply plenty of people got used to consider 80-th and 90-th like strong era because it was before Federer and his time like weak one. Both things are wrong and stupid.

Great work. What a clown era the '80s were

Djokovic | Tipsarevic | Querrey
uxyzapenje is offline  
post #1035 of 1787 (permalink) Old 09-26-2012, 01:36 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 Arakasi View Post
There is one thing about this whole "weak-era" debate that I've never understood. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

Even if '03-'07 (or any other era) were a weak era, what difference does it make? People seem to presuppose that a weak era implies devalued achievements but I don't see how that makes sense.

I assume thrust thinks Laver is the GOAT so let me ask this: if Laver played in '03-'07 and won most/all the slams would that mean his achievements would be worth less because it was a weak era? Alternatively, suppose I appeared in Laver's era and shot every credible player on tour (Rosewall etc.) does that mean Laver is no longer the GOAT? Has his ability at tennis suddenly changed? To me the answer is self-evidently no.

The implication of this logic of course is that competition is largely irrelevant in the GOAT debate and I believe this. I DO think that some eras are stronger than others (although I think it is a pointless discussion) BUT I don't think it makes any difference. Unless you know for a certainty how someone would have performed in another era, which is obviously impossible, you cannot detract from their achievements by using a "weak era" argument.

Now the obvious criticism to my logic would be to say that following it means we'd have to do things such as rate Del Potro's slam win (beating Fedal back-to-back) equal to other less impressive slam wins e.g. Johansson. In my mind this is where "level of play" comes into it. I can legitimately say that Del Potro > Johansson because he played at a far higher level to win his grand slam. That is a credible argument. I CANNOT say that Del Potro > Johansson because Johansson played in a weak era. This is meaningless. I do not know how Johansson would perform in Del Potro's place or indeed vice versa.

Therefore, if "weak-era" believers say for example that Laver is the GOAT not Federer because, despite similar achievements, Laver played better tennis than him then I say fair enough. I can respect that argument. But if you say Laver is the GOAT because Federer's achievements are devalued by a weak era you simply make no sense to me. Unfortunately, all this does is move the debate away from one subjective area "weak-eras" to another even more subjective area "level of play", but where would the fun be if we agreed on everything?
Competition does matter. I am not saying that Laver or Rosewall were better players than Federer, just that they had to compete against several all-time great players in order to win their slams, whereas Roger, especially from 03-07 had no in prime great players to defeat in order to win those slams. As of now the only all-time great player Roger had to beat, in his prime, is Nadal. Roger's slam final H-H against Nadal is 2-6. These are Facts, not a personal opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that Roger would have been the equal of any great player in any era. I do believe, however, that if Roger played in the era of prime Sampras- Agassi, Laver-Rosewall-Gonzalez, or McEnroe-Borg-Connors-Lendl, Roger would not have won 17 Slams. The other guys slam count would be lower too, because of Roger. Just as Roger was lucky not to have to compete agaist those great players, they were lucky not to have had to compete against Roger. That is why I believe there is NO ONE GOAT
thrust 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