Tennis Mag's best 40 players in the last 40 years - #8-5 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tennis Mag's best 40 players in the last 40 years - #8-5

nobama
09-22-2005, 12:31 AM
8. Laver

7. Connors

6. Court

5. Borg

That leaves Sampras, Graf, Evert and Navratilova. I have to :scratch: my head at placing Sampras over Laver since he never won the French. Here's how I think the top 4 will shake out:

4. Evert
3. Graff
2. Sampras
1. Navratilova

megadeth
09-22-2005, 01:00 AM
i think graf deserves to be higher than sampras (ducks to avoid any thrown debris)

22 slams winning all four at least 5 times i think
and oh, the only one to acieve the golden slam by winning the olypics along with the 4 in 1 year.

sampras can't conquer the slow courts, graf can conquer anywhere.

MisterQ
09-22-2005, 01:01 AM
Do you have the rest of the list handy? :)

thanks

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 01:01 AM
4. Evert
3. Sampras
2. Graf
1. Navy

disturb3d
09-22-2005, 01:06 AM
Ehh... You couldn't possibly rank the men and women together.
That takes all the credit out of men's tennis.

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 01:07 AM
Do you have the rest of the list handy? :)

thanks
:hug:
40. Sabatini
39. Rafter
38. Wade
37. Kuerten
36. Capriati
35. Stan Smith
34. Hewitt
33. Hana Mandikova
32. Tracy Austin
31. Henin-Hardenne
30. Ashe
29. Davenport
28. Nastase
27. Sancehz-Vicario
26. Courier
25. Venus Williams
24. Vilas
23. Evonne Goolagong
22. Hingis
21. Roy Emerson
20. Ken Rosewall
19. JesusFed
18. Boris Becker
17. Serena Williams
16. John Newcombe
15. Wilander
14. Edberg
13. Seles
12. Agassi
11. McEnroe
10. Lendl
9. Billie Jean King

PamV
09-22-2005, 01:15 AM
8. Laver

7. Connors

6. Court

5. Borg

That leaves Sampras, Graf, Evert and Navratilova. I have to :scratch: my head at placing Sampras over Laver since he never won the French. Here's how I think the top 4 will shake out:

4. Evert
3. Graff
2. Sampras
1. Navratilova

I never saw Laver play, but in his day I don't think there was the depth of field that there would have been in Sampras day. Just because Laver won on all surfaces doesn't make him better than Sampras. Maybe Sampras would have won a French Open in that time too against that shallow field. The field gets deeper as the prize money grows and also the racket technology allows a greater number of people to be able to hit better.

I think in Laver's day with the wooden rackets there were far less number of guys able to compete against the top level. Also in Lavers time there were only two surfaces: Clay and Grass. So Laver didn't have to switch to as many varieties of surface that Sampras did.

PamV
09-22-2005, 01:22 AM
:hug:


Actually JesusFed should be much higher ranked than 19. How can they say Serena Williams is better with her one demensional style? What would make Wilander or Edberg better than JesusFed?

I am not sure what their criteria was. Statistical ratings puts JesusFed as the #2 all time best player considering win/loss record against top opponents in peak years. If you look at the rest of the list is seems pretty mixed up. What makes Sanchez-Vicario better than Hewitt talent wise?

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 01:23 AM
Interesting Sabatini over Marat, Yevgeny and Bruguera, even Conchita. All the guys have two slams, and Yevgeny has great doubles results :(

nobama
09-22-2005, 01:24 AM
There's only three active players in the top 20 on this list

Roger :worship:

Andre :worship:

Serena :tape:

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 01:27 AM
Actually JesusFed should be much higher ranked than 19. How can they say Serena Williams is better with her one demensional style? What would make Wilander or Edberg better than JesusFed?

I am not sure what their criteria was. Statistical ratings puts JesusFed as the #2 all time best player considering win/loss record against top opponents in peak years. If you look at the rest of the list is seems pretty mixed up. What makes Sanchez-Vicario better than Hewitt talent wise?
I think number of GS, weeks at no. 1 and doubles performance

nobama
09-22-2005, 01:28 AM
Actually JesusFed should be much higher ranked than 19. How can they say Serena Williams is better with her one demensional style? What would make Wilander or Edberg better than JesusFed?

I am not sure what their criteria was. Statistical ratings puts JesusFed as the #2 all time best player considering win/loss record against top opponents in peak years. If you look at the rest of the list is seems pretty mixed up. What makes Sanchez-Vicario better than Hewitt talent wise?In the magazine they said Roger was ranked only 19 because he's in the prime of his career and not finished yet. Of course this list may have been completed prior to his Wimbledon/USO wins this year. I'm not sure when it was finalized.

Poor Andy and Marat. Lleyton makes the list but neither of them do. :sad: Although Lleyton was #1 for two years in a row so....

disturb3d
09-22-2005, 01:29 AM
This list is a joke, purely done on grand slam success.
Hingis and Seles were much better players than Navratilova or Graf.

Sampras over McEnroe?

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 01:32 AM
What's wrong with Serena :shrug: ? She's a big babe and hits hard, but she's good.

sigmagirl91
09-22-2005, 01:33 AM
This list is a joke, purely done on grand slam success.
Hingis and Seles were much better players than Navratilova or Graf.

Sampras over McEnroe?

Excuse me? Graf and Navratilova won all four majors, and in Graf's case she won the Olympic gold medal in singles the same year she completed the Grand Slam (1988, for those of you too young to remember). By contrast, Hingis never won the French, and Seles never won Wimbledon. So...yes, Graf and Navratilova deserve to be ranked ahead of those two just by those results alone.

nobama
09-22-2005, 01:34 AM
I am not sure what their criteria was. Statistical ratings puts JesusFed as the #2 all time best player considering win/loss record against top opponents in peak years. If you look at the rest of the list is seems pretty mixed up. What makes Sanchez-Vicario better than Hewitt talent wise?How are you coming up with top opponents? I know Andy and Lleyton are top 5, but Roger owns both of them right now, there is no rivalry there. Even Andre, Roger's beaten him 8 times in a row now. I mean at what point does beating Andy and/or Lleyton become not a big deal because he's done it so many times? They may be top opponents compared to everyone else on the tour, but as far as Roger's concerned they're just his little bitches right now...

nobama
09-22-2005, 01:37 AM
Excuse me? Graf and Navratilova won all four majors, and in Graf's case she won the Olympic gold medal in singles the same year she completed the Grand Slam (1988, for those of you too young to remember). By contrast, Hingis never won the French, and Seles never won Wimbledon. So...yes, Graf and Navratilova deserve to be ranked ahead of those two just by those results alone.How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?

disturb3d
09-22-2005, 01:38 AM
Excuse me? Graf and Navratilova won all four majors, and in Graf's case she won the Olympic gold medal in singles the same year she completed the Grand Slam (1988, for those of you too young to remember). By contrast, Hingis never won the French, and Seles never won Wimbledon. So...yes, Graf and Navratilova deserve to be ranked ahead of those two just by those results alone.B-B-But, Andre is 10 places behind Pete.
Yet Pete has never won a gold medal or the french or made 4 GS finals in a row :confused:

Havok
09-22-2005, 01:44 AM
Seles at #13 :o, thought she would have been higher.

Chloe le Bopper
09-22-2005, 01:46 AM
Rafter on the list and Kafelnikov not. Need I bother to examine and discuss it any further? I think not.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 01:49 AM
The top four SHOULD be:

4. Sampras
3. Evert
2. Navratilova
1. Graf

but it will probably be:

4. Evert
3. Graf
2. Sampras
1. Navratilova

Havok
09-22-2005, 01:50 AM
Interesting Sabatini over Marat, Yevgeny and Bruguera, even Conchita. All the guys have two slams, and Yevgeny has great doubles results :(
You can also throw in Mary Pierce into that mix ;). It's virtually impossible to make a list that's 100% accurate because it comes down to your own judgment. Though this list looks decent to me.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 01:51 AM
And Sampras over Laver makes more sense than Connors over Lendl :rolleyes:

Scotso
09-22-2005, 01:53 AM
You can also throw in Mary Pierce into that mix ;). It's virtually impossible to make a list that's 100% accurate because it comes down to your own judgment. Though this list looks decent to me.

Capriati and Wade shouldn't be on anyone's list.

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:00 AM
Rule #1: Don't put retired and active players in the same list :retard:

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:01 AM
Rule #1: Don't put retired and active players in the same list :retard:

Why?

You can judge active players according to what they have accomplished thus far. They're not saying that Federer is going to stay at #19.

fenomeno2111
09-22-2005, 02:02 AM
There's no way to compare men and women...there should be different rankings. Just the fact that Serena is over Federer makes me sick and im not a big Fed fan..but c'mon if we are talking about talent Federer is at least top 15 and top 10 even...but well this is worthless anyway im surprised the duck is not on the list

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:03 AM
They're not talking about talent.

Federerhingis
09-22-2005, 02:06 AM
i think graf deserves to be higher than sampras (ducks to avoid any thrown debris)

22 slams winning all four at least 5 times i think
and oh, the only one to acieve the golden slam by winning the olypics along with the 4 in 1 year.

sampras can't conquer the slow courts, graf can conquer anywhere.

It was only 4 on all she only won aussie 4 times. But still thats crazy!

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:08 AM
Before you start getting angry about Sampras being ahead of Graf, maybe you should wait and see if he actually is.

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:08 AM
This list is a joke, purely done on grand slam success.
Hingis and Seles were much better players than Navratilova or Graf.

Sampras over McEnroe?
I agree
:worship:

Federerhingis
09-22-2005, 02:09 AM
When did it come out? This past tuesday right? Thats usually when I receive my issue, the first tuesday of every moth except in January since they do a Jan/Dec combo.

It kind of disturbs me to see Laver behind Connors, certainly I see the American bias. Agassi also Should have not been ahead of Lendl, ok he won on all 4 surfaces but Lendl only missed wimby. However, he made like 3 finals there.

SwissMister1
09-22-2005, 02:09 AM
In the magazine they said Roger was ranked only 19 because he's in the prime of his career and not finished yet. Of course this list may have been completed prior to his Wimbledon/USO wins this year. I'm not sure when it was finalized.

The list was done up before Roger's two slams this year.

Newk should be higher :)

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:13 AM
It was only 4 on all she only won aussie 4 times. But still thats crazy!

11 legit before the Seles stabbing :mad:

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:14 AM
11 legit before the Seles stabbing :mad:

That's such a weak argument and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:15 AM
Why?

You can judge active players according to what they have accomplished thus far. They're not saying that Federer is going to stay at #19.

Because the list is far more confusing than it needs to be.

wcr
09-22-2005, 02:16 AM
Graf #1. GTPE. No way Sampras would cut in before her. He doesn't hold a candle to her records. Not a single one of them.

nobama
09-22-2005, 02:18 AM
Rule #1: Don't put retired and active players in the same list :retard:No what's :retard: is when they compare active and retired players results and don't put it into context. For instance when the media compares Roger's 6 slams to Pete's 14, but don't mention the fact Roger has the same # of slams Pete did at age 24. Who knows how many he'll have before he retires, but he's almost identical to where Pete was at 24... I think Pete had 1 or 2 more titles overall, but they have the same # of slams.

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:21 AM
That's such a weak argument and I'm getting sick of hearing it.

Weak argument? :retard:
Graf went on to win 4 straight slams unchallenged after the stabbing where she managed only 2 in past 3 years. I guess I'll always be in service to remind arseholes of these subtle facts :wavey:

nobama
09-22-2005, 02:23 AM
Why?

You can judge active players according to what they have accomplished thus far. They're not saying that Federer is going to stay at #19.There's only three active players in the top 20 of this list...so I'd say Roger is not being slighted at all by being placed at #19. I'm not a huge Serena fan, but she has won all four slams and has eight slams compared to Roger's six. Obviously slams are heavily weighted on this list. Plus she's American. ;)

Flibbertigibbet
09-22-2005, 02:27 AM
Yeah, uh, the biggest flaw in this is that men's and women's should be on separate lists (top 20 women, top 20 men). It doesn't really make much sense comparing women's achievements to men's, because if that was the case, then Evert, Navratilova, Court, etc. would all be quite a bit ahead of Sampras, Laver, Borg, etc. Seles, Serena, etc. would be surpassing or at least staying around the same place as Becker, Wilander, Agassi, and so on. (This is based on Grand Slam count, but I'm sure a similar case can be made that women 'achieve more' - because of the difference between the two games - than men in other areas as well.)

(P.S. Mirkaland, here - http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html - is a detailed comparison between Sampras and Federer at the same age. According to that, Federer is one Slam behind, three titles behind, and about four months behind on the number one ranking. So Sampras is still ahead, but they're pretty damn close in just about everything.)

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:31 AM
Weak argument? :retard:
Graf went on to win 4 straight slams unchallenged after the stabbing where she managed only 2 in past 3 years. I guess I'll always be in service to remind arseholes of these subtle facts :wavey:

What happened to Seles is terrible, but using it to take away from what Graf was able to accomplish would be terrible as well.

nobama
09-22-2005, 02:37 AM
(P.S. Mirkaland, here - http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html - is a detailed comparison between Sampras and Federer at the same age. According to that, Federer is one Slam behind, three titles behind, and about four months behind on the number one ranking. So Sampras is still ahead, but they're pretty damn close in just about everything.)Oops, my bad. Thanks for the link. It's amazing how close they are, especially considering Roger was a bit of a late bloomer. How old was Pete when he won his first slam - 19? And Roger was what 21 or 22 when he won his first?

Scotso
09-22-2005, 02:39 AM
The fact that Roger Federer weighs more than Sampras at the same age surprises me more than anything.

wcr
09-22-2005, 02:47 AM
11 legit before the Seles stabbing :mad:

And here we have it folks. The most confused perception of the Graf/Seles rivalry. The one based on the assumption that Monica Seles was Graf's main rival and had she not been stabbed would have gone on to dominate Graf, the slams and tennis history!

Let's examine the truth. The h2h between Graf/Seles pre stabbing was 6-3 Graf. Seles had a 3-2 win over Graf before the stabbing in the SLAMS. Typically it's the pre-stabbing GS stats folks like to use to talk up Seles dominance while overlooking the fact that Seles never dominated Graf on fast surfaces during the same period of the alleged Seles domination. How Seles can be considered as dominating Graf because of wins on clay is a superficial examination of the facts.

After Seles' initial surprise wins over Graf on clay in the 1990-1991 season, she did not continue to improve as a player. In fact in 1992-1993 it took Seles 3 difficult sets to beat Graf unlike the straight sets wins she had between 1990-1991. And Seles was dominating Graf?

Quite the contrary, Graf regained her more complete dominance over Seles on fast surfaces and, in 1992, won half of their matches on clay.

Need I go on?

PamV
09-22-2005, 02:50 AM
There's only three active players in the top 20 of this list...so I'd say Roger is not being slighted at all by being placed at #19. I'm not a huge Serena fan, but she has won all four slams and has eight slams compared to Roger's six. Obviously slams are heavily weighted on this list. Plus she's American. ;)

It doesn't matter that Serena won all 4 slams. The WTA is very shallow without a contingency of clay court specialists.

I really don't think the mens' and women's records can be compared.

wcr
09-22-2005, 02:52 AM
Roger has the "potential" to overtake Sampras' records. This doesn't mean he will and it doesn't mean he won't. He just hasn't. Sampras' records in the mens field stands the highest.

I'm more concerned about whether Roger has a crack at toppling Graf as the GTPE. I doubt anyone ever will but what the heck, as a Federer fan I don't mind watching him try.

ezekiel
09-22-2005, 02:52 AM
What happened to Seles is terrible, but using it to take away from what Graf was able to accomplish would be terrible as well.

it would be terrible injustice to justify and/or ignore the crime and its consequences . Like everything else in life, it needs to be put into perspective and to occasionally inform the ignorant. I mean, aren't decent people offended that the perv was absolved by the flawed german legal system but some want to pretend it never happened ? :eek:

Flibbertigibbet
09-22-2005, 02:53 AM
Oops, my bad. Thanks for the link. It's amazing how close they are, especially considering Roger was a bit of a late bloomer. How old was Pete when he won his first slam - 19? And Roger was what 21 or 22 when he won his first?

Yeah, Federer is slightly above average in terms of winning his first slam (I believe the average age was around 20ish, he was 21, almost 22). Sampras won the 1990 US Open at 19, but then didn't win a slam till the 1993 Wimbledon, where he was... 21, almost 22. Basically, the '90 US Open is the Slam that separates the two.

PamV
09-22-2005, 02:55 AM
How are you coming up with top opponents? I know Andy and Lleyton are top 5, but Roger owns both of them right now, there is no rivalry there. Even Andre, Roger's beaten him 8 times in a row now. I mean at what point does beating Andy and/or Lleyton become not a big deal because he's done it so many times? They may be top opponents compared to everyone else on the tour, but as far as Roger's concerned they're just his little bitches right now...

Look at http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=2

They compare all players at their peak time and they are the one's saying Roger's record puts him as the #2 of all time just below McEnroe. This is all mathematically done by looking at the W/L record calculating in the ranking of the opponent and the point value of the match/tournament.

PamV
09-22-2005, 02:58 AM
Roger has the "potential" to overtake Sampras' records. This doesn't mean he will and it doesn't mean he won't. He just hasn't. Sampras' records in the mens field stands the highest.

I'm more concerned about whether Roger has a crack at toppling Graf as the GTPE. I doubt anyone ever will but what the heck, as a Federer fan I don't mind watching him try.

I am not concerned with comparing Roger to Steffi. The women's field has always been less deep if you look at the top 50 players. There is not huge group of clay court specialists. In women's tennis the surface doesn't matter as much.

wcr
09-22-2005, 02:59 AM
it would be terrible injustice to justify and/or ignore the crime and its consequences . Like everything else in life, it needs to be put into perspective and to occasionally inform the ignorant. I mean, aren't decent people offended that the perv was absolved by the flawed german legal system but some want to pretend it never happened ? :eek:

No one has justified or ignored the crime against Monica Seles. It was a deeply tragic event. I have trouble with folks who feel sentimental about Monica's tragedy and confuse that sentiment with factual truths about the Graf/Seles rivalry in such a way to discredit Graf's dominance of the game. It's phony and most disrespectful to Monica not to mention Graf.

PamV
09-22-2005, 02:59 AM
How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?

That's why I think this ranking is more a matter of the writers own personal prefrences. It's far easier to win a major in women's tennis because there isn't much danger in the early rounds.

Flibbertigibbet
09-22-2005, 03:01 AM
Look at http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=2

They compare all players at their peak time and they are the one's saying Roger's record puts him as the #2 of all time just below McEnroe. This is all mathematically done by looking at the W/L record calculating in the ranking of the opponent and the point value of the match/tournament.

I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.

PamV
09-22-2005, 03:03 AM
I think number of GS, weeks at no. 1 and doubles performance

So it does not take in to consideration who the opponents were and give weight to the opponents' ranking? It does not give weight to the over all number of tournaments won....it only counts GS ???? Not a very logical analysis.

wcr
09-22-2005, 03:06 AM
How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?

It's not just the GS title count (not to mention the Golden Slam) that puts Graf above Sampras. She set the record for the longest hold on the #1 spot in history amongst many other things. You might want to compare their careers. Graf's is mind boggling and, most likely, a result of her intense love of playing the game.

BlackSilver
09-22-2005, 03:17 AM
Women and men together? Bah, should be the twenty better of each

PamV
09-22-2005, 03:36 AM
I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.

I think the set ratings site is pretty accurate. I believe their examination of "peak" performance is looking at the players' one best year. It's always going to be subjective to judge the opponents of the era if you rely only on hear say and personal recollections. The mathmatical approach looks at what the opponent has won and who he has beaten etc, it calculates the W/L record along with the weight of the match.

I don't think when some here say that if Roger beats a certain opponent like Hewitt so many times that means Roger doesn't have competition. How has Hewitt stacked up against other opponents? Maybe Hewitt is one of the best players ever but Roger is just that good. Hewitt was #1 for a couple of years. Also as for variety the current ATP is quite varied. We have everything from Santoro to Karlovic to the clay court specialists.

When some people say the field was stronger back in a certain other time. They are probably remembering the top 5 of that time but not realizing that the #1 didn't always meet those guys or that sometimes those guys were injured or starting to fail. That is what happens today too. A given set of players from an era is not static always competing all at there best level.

PamV
09-22-2005, 03:44 AM
I think the argument would be that Federer's rivals right now are not as strong and varied as, say, the assortment of top players in the '90s or '80s. In any matter, it's tough to calculate tennis results mathematically - for example, that formula doesn't even put Sampras in top 5 grass results wise, yet he had 7 Wimbledons and won two Queen's Club titles; consequently, most fans/tennis analysts/etc. would put Sampras as the top grass court player or #2 behind Borg. It's tough to gauge Federer's peak performance as a basis of comparison against, say, Laver's, or Connor's, or Wilander's, who all had three or more Slams each in their peak years, since it's different eras, technology, and player depth.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see that site.

The field today is far stronger than it was in McEnroe's day.....even he says that. I think the 90's and today are equal for depth and athleticism.

I didn't see on the Set Ratings site where the rank by surface? Where is that? I see where they rank the top players overall. Sampras must be lower than Borg because in his best year he didn't win as many tournaments as Borg did in his best year. Maybe Borg beat higher ranked opponents and had a better W/L match record.

PamV
09-22-2005, 03:55 AM
It's not just the GS title count (not to mention the Golden Slam) that puts Graf above Sampras. She set the record for the longest hold on the #1 spot in history amongst many other things. You might want to compare their careers. Graf's is mind boggling and, most likely, a result of her intense love of playing the game.

But isn't the level of difficulty in holding the #1 spot much higher in men's tennis? Everything is much more difficult in men's tennis where physically the top 100 can be just as fit and able to serve as the top 5. In men's tennis there are more surface specialists where as there really aren't in women's tennis. In Men's tennis a #100 ranked player (Almagro) might beat a #3 ranked player if they are playing on clay. That wouldn't happen in women's tennis unless the higher ranked player was injured.

wcr
09-22-2005, 04:18 AM
But isn't the level of difficulty in holding the #1 spot much higher in men's tennis? Everything is much more difficult in men's tennis where physically the top 100 can be just as fit and able to serve as the top 5. In men's tennis there are more surface specialists where as there really aren't in women's tennis. In Men's tennis a #100 ranked player (Almagro) might beat a #3 ranked player if they are playing on clay. That wouldn't happen in women's tennis unless the higher ranked player was injured.


All things being relative. Looks like the level of difficulty for any woman to hold onto the #1 spot right now is tricky indeed.

An example of a high ranked player getting knocked out in the first round would be 1994 when Lori MacNeil took out the defending champ - Steffi Graf - in the first round of Wimbledon. In womens tennis you can find anyone in the top 50 likely to take out someone in the top 10 on any given day. That's what's maddening about it. Check out what happened to Serena today in China.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 04:23 AM
The field today is far stronger than it was in McEnroe's day.....even he says that.

How can it be stronger now when Federer and Nadal win everything?

NYCtennisfan
09-22-2005, 05:17 AM
How can it be stronger now when Federer and Nadal win everything?

It's much, much, much stronger. Believe me. You have players like PHM, Acasuso, Verdasco, X-man way down in the rankings primarily because of their brains. If they had come along earlier with their games, their lack of brain power would not have mattered as much because there would be very few people who could hit with them.

Take JMAC for example. In his prime, there were very few people who could physically stay with him. They would get steamrolled if JMAC was average or abov. They would lose in straights or maybe win a TB if JMAC was below average. Today, if you play a first round match at at TMS event, it doesn't matter who you are. You have to come to play or you are going to lose. There are dozens and dozens of players who can hit the top players and this just wasn't the case before.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 05:25 AM
It's much, much, much stronger. Believe me. You have players like PHM, Acasuso, Verdasco, X-man way down in the rankings primarily because of their brains. If they had come along earlier with their games, their lack of brain power would not have mattered as much because there would be very few people who could hit with them.

Take JMAC for example. In his prime, there were very few people who could physically stay with him. They would get steamrolled if JMAC was average or abov. They would lose in straights or maybe win a TB if JMAC was below average. Today, if you play a first round match at at TMS event, it doesn't matter who you are. You have to come to play or you are going to lose. There are dozens and dozens of players who can hit the top players and this just wasn't the case before.

I see what you're saying, but still, power isn't everything.

J. Corwin
09-22-2005, 07:10 AM
Why are some Fed fans "angry" (or maybe truly angry?;)) that Fed isn't higher on the list? This list is based on accomplishments, not talent. I think it is better this way. Some naturally talented players are underachievers (not saying that Fed is, just making a point) and some untalented will win/achieve more.

It is good that Fed is relatively low on the list so far...it will be fun to see him climb up higher and higher on the list with each win he gets. :)

Action Jackson
09-22-2005, 07:14 AM
Women and men together? Bah, should be the twenty better of each

I agree with this comment for sure and they should be seperated for this purpose.

Clara Bow
09-22-2005, 07:15 AM
I really think that Borg should be in the top 4. Frankly, if he had not retired so early I really think that he would have the record for the number of major titles. To lift from the magazine, He has the highest GS winning percentage of any man (.898) and from 1978-1981 he entered 12 majors and reached the finals of 11 (winning 7). His record at Wimbledon and the French Open was 100-6. Wow!!! I really doubt we will ever see that again. The two things that I really wish for Borg is that 1) he had won the US Open and 2) he had not retired so gosh darn early.

(Forgive my pimping for Borg- he was my first tennis crush at age three so there is a deep seeded affection there for his accomplishments.)

It's funny- the picture of Borg has him wearing this gawdawful outfit of baby blue Fila short-shorts, a navy blue and white checkered collared polo, yellow and a different colored blue wristbands (for Sweden I guess), a blue and red head band, and a thick gold chain. Nothing matches. Suddenly Agassi's flo and/or acid washed denim shorts of the 1980s/1990s and Rafa's pirates don't looks so bad. Hrbaty's shirt still looks just as bad though. :)

The picture of Jimmy Connors reminds me that he and Pete Rose are both competing for the "Who Sports the Better Moe (of the Three Stooges) Hair" Award in sport. I could never understand why a man in his 30s insisted on wearing the bowl-cut hairdo that was so popular amoungst 1970s kindergartners.

TheMightyFed
09-22-2005, 07:28 AM
The two things that I really wish for Borg is that 1) he had won the US Open and 2) he had not retired so gosh darn early.
.)
It's part of tennis drama and history, and that's why we like this sport, there is always a "but" (alfonsojose, no joke on this one ;) ) :
-but Sampras and Connors never won the French
-but Lendl never won Wimby
-but Laver played only on 2 surfaces in GS
-but Edberg and McEnroe screwed up these 2 RG finals
-but Agassi did not repeat success in Wimby and RG
-but Borg didn't win the USO and retired early
In men's tennis there is always a "but", maybe Fed will change that... a RG crown would be something, two crowns would seal the deal IMO for the best ever.
I women's tennis it's different, surface is not as much a factor, but Graff multiple slams on all surfaces are incredible...

tennisvideos
09-22-2005, 09:27 AM
I never saw Laver play, but in his day I don't think there was the depth of field that there would have been in Sampras day. Just because Laver won on all surfaces doesn't make him better than Sampras. Maybe Sampras would have won a French Open in that time too against that shallow field. The field gets deeper as the prize money grows and also the racket technology allows a greater number of people to be able to hit better.

I think in Laver's day with the wooden rackets there were far less number of guys able to compete against the top level. Also in Lavers time there were only two surfaces: Clay and Grass. So Laver didn't have to switch to as many varieties of surface that Sampras did.

Excuse me? Shallow fields in 1969? Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Gonzales (getting on admittedly), Ralston, Emerson and the list goes on. Some of the greats of the game in there.

But at least Laver could win the French Open ... and he won on hardcourts when he was in his 30s to prove he could mix it on ALL surfaces with the very best of them.

sigmagirl91
09-22-2005, 10:50 AM
11 legit before the Seles stabbing :mad:

What happened is tragic, indeed, but using that to justify your position is totally wrong.

sigmagirl91
09-22-2005, 10:51 AM
Weak argument? :retard:
Graf went on to win 4 straight slams unchallenged after the stabbing where she managed only 2 in past 3 years. I guess I'll always be in service to remind arseholes of these subtle facts :wavey:

So what? It's not Graf's fault that other players couldn't or wouldn't pick up their games to challenge her. That's what competitive sport is all about. I'm sure Graf took no pleasure in what happened; in fact, I know she didn't. But to use that as basis for argument is poor form, buddy.

nobama
09-22-2005, 11:20 AM
Why are some Fed fans "angry" (or maybe truly angry?;)) that Fed isn't higher on the list? This list is based on accomplishments, not talent. I think it is better this way. Some naturally talented players are underachievers (not saying that Fed is, just making a point) and some untalented will win/achieve more.

It is good that Fed is relatively low on the list so far...it will be fun to see him climb up higher and higher on the list with each win he gets. :)I'm certainly not angry that he's not higher on the list. He's in the prime of his career, not finished yet. Let's wait and see what his stats are when he retires.

nobama
09-22-2005, 11:25 AM
So it does not take in to consideration who the opponents were and give weight to the opponents' ranking? It does not give weight to the over all number of tournaments won....it only counts GS ???? Not a very logical analysis.I don't know what the exact formula was, but GS performance is what you'll be remembered for. Sampras is going to be remembered more for his 14 GS than Conners will for his 109 (or whatever the number is) titles.

MisterQ
09-22-2005, 12:05 PM
When did it come out? This past tuesday right? Thats usually when I receive my issue, the first tuesday of every moth except in January since they do a Jan/Dec combo.

It kind of disturbs me to see Laver behind Connors, certainly I see the American bias. Agassi also Should have not been ahead of Lendl, ok he won on all 4 surfaces but Lendl only missed wimby. However, he made like 3 finals there.

They did put Lendl ahead of Agassi (10 and 12, respectively). :)

I was surprised that they moved Connors ahead of Laver, having heard Rod mentioned so often in debates vs. Sampras and Borg.

A difficult issue in making these lists is how to weigh total dominance for shorter periods of time against consistently high results for long periods of time.

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 12:50 PM
It's part of tennis drama and history, and that's why we like this sport, there is always a "but" (alfonsojose, no joke on this one ;) ) :
-but Sampras and Connors never won the French
-but Lendl never won Wimby
-but Laver played only on 2 surfaces in GS
-but Edberg and McEnroe screwed up these 2 RG finals
-but Agassi did not repeat success in Wimby and RG
-but Borg didn't win the USO and retired early
In men's tennis there is always a "but", maybe Fed will change that... a RG crown would be something, two crowns would seal the deal IMO for the best ever.
I women's tennis it's different, surface is not as much a factor, but Graff multiple slams on all surfaces are incredible...
See. There's always a butt. That's why i love tennis too :drool:

tennisvideos
09-22-2005, 01:09 PM
This argument about players winning on all surfaces being superior to players in the pre mid 70s who only were given the opportunity for 2 surfaces is superflous. You can only play on the surfaces which are available ... and if you win all 4 Slams than you win all 4 Slams. Full Stop.

Jimnik
09-22-2005, 02:08 PM
8. Laver

7. Connors

6. Court

5. Borg

That leaves Sampras, Graf, Evert and Navratilova. I have to :scratch: my head at placing Sampras over Laver since he never won the French. Here's how I think the top 4 will shake out:

4. Evert
3. Graff
2. Sampras
1. Navratilova
Of the top 4, why put the 2 players that never won Roland Garros at the top?
I think people put too much emphasis on winning Wimbledon many times rather than winning a variety of tournaments.
I hope Graff wins - she was the best.

TheMightyFed
09-22-2005, 02:19 PM
See. There's always a butt. That's why i love tennis too :drool:
Thanks alfonsojose, I was expecting this technical valuable remark ;)

TheMightyFed
09-22-2005, 02:21 PM
Of the top 4, why put the 2 players that never won Roland Garros at the top?
I think people put too much emphasis on winning Wimbledon many times rather than winning a variety of tournaments.
I hope Graff wins - she was the best.
I'm happy that a Brit says that. Pete would be much greater with only 4 titles on grass and 3 on clay (and now I have to prepare the helmet...)

wcr
09-22-2005, 02:58 PM
Of the top 4, why put the 2 players that never won Roland Garros at the top?
I think people put too much emphasis on winning Wimbledon many times rather than winning a variety of tournaments.
I hope Graff wins - she was the best.


Good thinking Jimnik. It's foolish to overlook the value of Roland Garros. It's about the player who can dominate the field on fast and slow surfaces. I'm with you on Graf as #1. Cheerio!

alfonsojose
09-22-2005, 03:03 PM
Thanks alfonsojose, I was expecting this technical valuable remark ;)
:o

MisterQ
09-22-2005, 03:14 PM
Of the top 4, why put the 2 players that never won Roland Garros at the top?
I think people put too much emphasis on winning Wimbledon many times rather than winning a variety of tournaments.
I hope Graff wins - she was the best.

Navratilova won Roland Garros twice: in 1982 and 1984. And she was a finalist there four other times. :)

TheMightyFed
09-22-2005, 03:20 PM
Navratilova won Roland Garros twice: in 1982 and 1984. And she was a finalist there four other times. :)
She has so many titles that someone we lose some on the run. However looking at Graff standard and her minimum of 4 titles at each slam, even Martina was less versatile...

MisterQ
09-22-2005, 03:29 PM
She has so many titles that someone we lose some on the run. However looking at Graff standard and her minimum of 4 titles at each slam, even Martina was less versatile...

No question that Graf's slam results are the most well-rounded. But I think Martina proved her ability to play on all surfaces as well... and those RG finals that she lost, 3 were to Evert, arguably the greatest women's clay courter of all time (the last was to Graf).

I actually don't have a really strong feeling on the superiority of Graf or Navratilova -- both of their cases are very strong, in my book. Just depends what you choose to value. And Evert is quite a close third -- another amazing career. :worship:

Julio1974
09-22-2005, 04:12 PM
This list is a joke, purely done on grand slam success.
Hingis and Seles were much better players than Navratilova or Graf.

Sampras over McEnroe?

Whaaaat? Navaratilova and Graf are 10 times better players than Hingins and Seles.

J. Corwin
09-22-2005, 08:01 PM
I was surprised that they moved Connors ahead of Laver, having heard Rod mentioned so often in debates vs. Sampras and Borg

Me too. But I think they didn't count the Slam in '62 as it was not in the Open Era. Which of course begs the question, why would Lendl (and perhaps Agassi) still be behind Laver? I guess they see Connors' career as being 'significantly' better than Lendl's and Agassi's. :)

As for the remaining top 4, I think it should be:

4) Sampras
3) Evert
2) Graf
1) Navratilova (2 and 1 being extremely close)

There's the inherent problem of mixing men and women.;) Sampras' 14 slams may be the female equivalent (or something like that) of 20+ slams...but they didn't really factor that in for the rest of the list, so why do it now? :)

ezekiel
09-24-2005, 01:18 AM
What happened is tragic, indeed, but using that to justify your position is totally wrong.

No , I think you are on the darkside and justifying the crime and its consequences or just simply ignorant . Monica was attacked for a specific reason to destroy her life and carreer and that someone else can take her place.

Santorofan
09-24-2005, 07:11 AM
How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?

Evert ranks above Borg in all ways except his total number of Wimby titles. Borg's dismal record at the US Open also cannot be overlooked, nor his penchent for quitting the game when a younger, fiestier challenger took his #1 ranking away. He simply walked away with his tail btwn his legs and said goodbye. Evert didn't do this when Martina was on a roll against her; she went back to work and re-established herself as a legitimate threat for the year end #1 ranking in 1985 (was one actually match shy in losing a relatively close Wimby final). Evert was many things but she certainly wasn't a quitter. She also showed tremendous leadership for her sport (president of the WTA for umteen yrs), something Borg nor Graf never did. Like BJK and others, Chris Evert CARES about tenni, not just herself.

Peyton
09-25-2005, 07:43 AM
I vote:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. Sampras