who (was)is the best player [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

who (was)is the best player

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 09:32 AM
Roger Federer
Bjorn Borg
John Mcenroe
Guillermo Vilas
Pete Sampras
Rod Laver
Andre Agassi
Ivan Lendl
Jimmy Connors
another

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 09:40 AM
You want to restart a looooooooooong debate...
Connected questions are:
-changes in technologies, surfaces, professionalism, money, transportation, etc.
-Does it mean the best among his peers or in history ?
-Mix in surfaces
etc. etc.
For sure, the top tier is and remains:
Laver, Borg, Sampras

;)

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 09:44 AM
everything.............

Auscon
02-10-2005, 09:57 AM
I'd like to say Federer just for the fact that it'd be nice to be a big follower of the sport when the best of all time is going around, but in my opinion, the best can only be a player who has sustained such a high level over many years....Roger still has a long way to go

I dont believe any pick can be definite because of the nature of the game and the way it has changed, but my pick is Rod....who knows how many Grand Slams he would've won if he were allowed to play in them during what surely wouldve been his prime, from 63-67

Puschkin
02-10-2005, 10:00 AM
You want to restart a looooooooooong debate...
;)

and an endless one ;) . I think that comparisons between different periods and thus active and retired players can not be done seriously. Let us just give all these guys their due credit.

But one thing is guaranteed: I always like to watch those who play at present, meaning in the 90ies I preferred Pete over a "taped" Borg and now I prefer Roger over a "taped" Pete ;)

Ferrero Forever
02-10-2005, 10:01 AM
Ferrero without a doubt

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 10:11 AM
everything.............
What I meant was that it's almost impossible to actually compare players of different generations.
Just a few examples:
-Laver: first he played before OE and after OE. It's an historical fact that no other great has faced. He admits himself that he wanted to become professional because the guys were good. Pancho Gonzalez, who is not even mentioned here, beat him on a regular basis, and he has maybe 2 USO in singles only.
When Laver made his 2 slams 3 out of 4 were on grass. In the same configuration, Sampras would have won maybe 24 slams, who knows ?
-Agassi has done a career slam, which is quite a feat as he's the only one to have done it on hard, grass and clay. Would have Laver a GS with hard court slams ? Borg didn't win a Slam on hard after all...

Conclusion: Let's do a poll on great achievements, asessing their value as such, but let's stop comparing players of different eras in strerile and never-ending debates... ;)

Art&Soul
02-10-2005, 10:12 AM
Federer without a doubt :p

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 10:12 AM
Ferrero without a doubt
The joker is still around...

Ferrero Forever
02-10-2005, 10:14 AM
i'm not a joker, i'm speaking my mind.

Auscon
02-10-2005, 10:17 AM
i'm not a joker, i'm speaking my mind.

either that or you've lost it ;)

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 10:18 AM
i'm not a joker, i'm speaking my mind.
Ok, so give some arguments again Laver's 2 GS, Pete's 7 Wimby/5 USO/2 AO, Borg's 6 FO/5 W... JCF: 1 FO, but still counting, for sure !! ;)

Ferrero Forever
02-10-2005, 10:20 AM
well he's the best player in my mind

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 10:39 AM
please vote :)

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 11:07 AM
Jurgen Melzer ;)

rwn
02-10-2005, 11:07 AM
Pete Sampras is in my opinion the best player ever. He's won 14 Grand Slam tournaments when a lot of good players were around. I don't choose Laver because he won his first 6 Grand Slam tournaments when the best players were professionals and couldn't take part. Also the level has climbed a lot since the Rod Laver era. And in his time 3 GS were played on grass, making it easier to win them.
Roger Federer has the possibility to become the best player ever, but can he keep up his motivation for the next 5-7 years? That's still a big question.

Prizeidiot
02-10-2005, 11:09 AM
I reckon Rodney George Laver, without a doubt.

Yes, you can dismiss his first grand slam in 62, because the guys playing pros at the times were far better players. But from there on, he was gold. He became the best player out of the pros, and when Open Tennis came about, he wasted no time, reaching the final of the French, and winning Wimbledon in a very dominant fortnight.

And 1969.... need I say more? The last time a man ever won a grandslam, and all the best players were available. This was in an era with the likes of Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, etc. Gonzales and Hoad were also good players, but were past it at that point. Who knows how many slams he may have taken from the mid to late 60's, had he had the chance?

True, Laver only won on grass and clay, and Borg is evidence that winning on those surfaces does not mean you automatically can win on hardcourt. But I have a feeling Laver would have. Also, take into account Borg was runner up at the U.S a couple of times, and only played the Australian Open once, so he was a good hardcourt player.

I believe Laver is the better player out of those two, because he lasted longer, and competed against many greats, whereas Borg came along and won Wimbledon when there were no great grasscourters around. He just missed out on playing Laver or Newcombe, and McEnroe didn't come along till much later.

And the argument against Sampras is that simply, Sampras could not win on clay. As good as he was, he got often got owned on slow surfaces even during his peak years. Laver found a way to grind out matches on the dirt, despite being a grass court player.

Even in the early 70's, when Rod was in his thirties, he still showed his greatness on the WCT tour, despite being well past his peak. At that point, he was no longer fit enough or consistent enough to win day in day out, but he won when it mattered (barring the WCT chamionships) and won when all the others players hit the top of their games.

His peers were in awe of him. John Newcombe, an outstanding player in his own right, said that Rod had all the shots, and could find another gear. Jack Kramer said that Laver could reach the most brilliant of heights, and described the first two sets he played against Arthur Ashe in the semis of Wimbledon 69 as "the greatest two sets of tennis I ever saw in my life", noting that in that form, either Laver or Ashe would have whipped any other man who had ever lived.

Anyhoo, sorry this is a long post. I'd just like to finish by noting that Federer has the potential to surpass Laver, but at this point, he is a long way away

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 11:09 AM
Roger Federer has the possibility to become the best player ever, but can he keep up his motivation for the next 5-7 years? That's still a big question.[/QUOTE]

hope so :worship: :)

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 11:15 AM
I reckon Rodney George Laver, without a doubt.

Yes, you can dismiss his first grand slam in 62, because the guys playing pros at the times were far better players. But from there on, he was gold. He became the best player out of the pros, and when Open Tennis came about, he wasted no time, reaching the final of the French, and winning Wimbledon in a very dominant fortnight.

And 1969.... need I say more? The last time a man ever won a grandslam, and all the best players were available. This was in an era with the likes of Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Emerson, Smith, etc. Gonzales and Hoad were also good players, but were past it at that point. Who knows how many slams he may have taken from the mid to late 60's, had he had the chance?

True, Laver only won on grass and clay, and Borg is evidence that winning on those surfaces does not mean you automatically can win on hardcourt. But I have a feeling Laver would have. Also, take into account Borg was runner up at the U.S a couple of times, and only played the Australian Open once, so he was a good hardcourt player.

I believe Laver is the better player out of those two, because he lasted longer, and competed against many greats, whereas Borg came along and won Wimbledon when there were no great grasscourters around. He just missed out on playing Laver or Newcombe, and McEnroe didn't come along till much later.

And the argument against Sampras is that simply, Sampras could not win on clay. As good as he was, he got often got owned on slow surfaces even during his peak years. Laver found a way to grind out matches on the dirt, despite being a grass court player.

Even in the early 70's, when Rod was in his thirties, he still showed his greatness on the WCT tour, despite being well past his peak. At that point, he was no longer fit enough or consistent enough to win day in day out, but he won when it mattered (barring the WCT chamionships) and won when all the others players hit the top of their games.

His peers were in awe of him. John Newcombe, an outstanding player in his own right, said that Rod had all the shots, and could find another gear. Jack Kramer said that Laver could reach the most brilliant of heights, and described the first two sets he played against Arthur Ashe in the semis of Wimbledon 69 as "the greatest two sets of tennis I ever saw in my life", noting that in that form, either Laver or Ashe would have whipped any other man who had ever lived.

Anyhoo, sorry this is a long post. I'd just like to finish by noting that Federer has the potential to surpass Laver, but at this point, he is a long way away
great post, you can also be serious... :worship: :worship:

Mr.Eboni
02-10-2005, 11:23 AM
i prefer Andre!

wimbledonfan
02-10-2005, 01:49 PM
Pete Sampras at the top of his game would beat any of the current players and all the players of his past . If Pete were to be playing in 69 when 3 of the 4 majors were held on grass , i can't imagine how many majors he would have won . Definitely more than 14 thats for sure .

TheMightyFed
02-10-2005, 01:52 PM
If Pete were to be playing in 69 when 3 of the 4 majors were held on grass , i can't imagine how many majors he would have won . Definitely more than 14 thats for sure .
This is where I don't agree with these inter-era comparisons, because the "IF's" are usually pouring rapidly... then IF Laver had played GS in 63-67... ;)

HybridTheory
02-10-2005, 01:53 PM
Andre Agassi.

jtipson
02-10-2005, 02:00 PM
Pete Sampras at the top of his game would beat any of the current players and all the players of his past . If Pete were to be playing in 69 when 3 of the 4 majors were held on grass , i can't imagine how many majors he would have won . Definitely more than 14 thats for sure .

Pity he didn't play in the seventies when the US Open was on clay for a time.

Billy Moonshine
02-10-2005, 02:07 PM
Guga :)

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 04:07 PM
nice posts :)

Jenrios
02-10-2005, 09:34 PM
no-one has voted for Johnny Mac? ROTFL! I voted for Ivan:)

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-10-2005, 11:07 PM
only one voted for him till now

WyveN
02-10-2005, 11:20 PM
Pete Sampras at the top of his game would beat any of the current players and all the players of his past . If Pete were to be playing in 69 when 3 of the 4 majors were held on grass , i can't imagine how many majors he would have won .

Of course they used wood rackets back then so Pete's most effective weapon would be neutralised, sort of like on clay.

TennisLurker
02-11-2005, 12:20 AM
Pete Lendl and Roger are the best Ive seen.

jmgsdoubsprtnr
02-11-2005, 01:38 AM
The great Petey Sampras, of course!

wimbledonfan
02-11-2005, 04:39 AM
Wyven , he still would hold a clear advantage over the other players just because of his accuracy on his serve . To some extent his game would be neutralized by the wooden rackets , but his serve and volley game would still put him ahead of his competition. I suppose you can debate this forever , but I still believe he would have won more than 14 majors if three of the grand slams were on grass .

I hope you can at least agree with me on this .

WyveN
02-11-2005, 04:51 AM
To some extent his game would be neutralized by the wooden rackets , but his serve and volley game would still put him ahead of his competition.


Mcenroe was an amazing serve volleyer with a wood racket.

but I still believe he would have won more than 14 majors if three of the grand slams were on grass .

I hope you can at least agree with me on this .

Of course he would but Andre would win more then 8 if more then 1 slam was on rebound ace, there is no point in "if" discussions.

wimbledonfan
02-11-2005, 04:57 AM
Pete did once say that he could serve just over 120 mph with a wooden racket , something John Mcenroe wasn't able to accomplish .

Domino
02-11-2005, 05:02 AM
Serving speed isn't affected by the racquet. Poncho Gonzalez served at massive speeds in the hayday and used a wooden racquet. They even tried to create a "one-bounce" rule so he couldn't volley the pathetic returns back and would have to wait for them to bounce first.

WyveN
02-11-2005, 05:10 AM
Serving speed isn't affected by the racquet.

But accuracy is.

Domino
02-11-2005, 05:36 AM
yeah, I was just deferring a point.

TennisLurker
02-11-2005, 06:18 AM
he would have to serve different, probably with a wood racket Pete would hit a slower kick or slice fist serve instead of a flat bomb to get more first serves in, because no more second serve aces with a wood racket.

Aphex
02-11-2005, 06:26 AM
Laver, Sampras, Borg. In that order.

LiZpHaIr
02-11-2005, 07:15 AM
Either Tim or Pete, for sure.

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-11-2005, 03:25 PM
ok

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-12-2005, 05:11 PM
vote :worship:

ClaycourtaZzZz.
02-13-2005, 02:43 PM
.......