TENNIS-X TOP 10 OPEN ERA No. 1s. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

TENNIS-X TOP 10 OPEN ERA No. 1s.

J. Corwin
03-10-2004, 07:26 AM
TENNIS-X TOP 10 OPEN ERA No. 1s.

This is from http://www.tennis-x.com

Compiled by the Tennis-X staff, here is the definitive Top 10 all-time list of No. 1 ranked players, finally putting to rest who's the best. The list was compiled from criteria including number of slams won, weeks at No. 1, year-end No. 1 rankings, overall titles won, winning percentage in finals, records vs. other No. 1s in their era, ability to break things, and other "intangibles." Discuss:

1. PETE SAMPRAS -- Six consecutive year-end No. 1 finishes will never be touched
2. BJORN BORG -- 6 French, 5-straight Wimbledon, won roughly 2/3 of finals
3. JOHN MCENROE -- Singles and doubles virtuoso, won 75% of singles finals
4. IVAN LENDL -- 8 straight US Open finals, 94 career titles, the Lendl-nator
5. ANDRE AGASSI -- Did all four slams against best-era competition
6. JIMMY CONNORS -- Dominated by other No. 1s, 109 titles padded by "Connors Tour" wins
7. STEFAN EDBERG -- Year-end No. 1 in 1990-91, 72 weeks at the top,
8. MATS WILANDER -- 1988 year-end No. 1, 20 weeks at No. 1, won three slams in '88
9. BORIS BECKER -- No year-end No. 1, only 12 weeks at the top, 7 Wimbledon finals
10. JOHN NEWCOMBE -- Two-time year-end No. 2, 5 Open Era and 2 pre-Open Era slams

rassklovn
03-10-2004, 07:32 AM
That list seems fair enough though I would swap Lendl for McEnroe.

Chloe le Bopper
03-10-2004, 07:36 AM
The list was compiled from criteria including number of slams won, weeks at No. 1, year-end No. 1 rankings, overall titles won, winning percentage in finals, records vs. other No. 1s in their era, ability to break things, and other "intangibles." Discuss:

3. JOHN MCENROE -- Singles and doubles virtuoso, won 75% of singles finals
4. IVAN LENDL -- 8 straight US Open finals, 94 career titles, the Lendl-nator


I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'm not sure which of these two had more year end number one spots.

But Lendl won more slams, more overall titles, and was number 1 longer.

I'm sorry, but "doubles" is not enough to put John over Ivan, imo. Ivan has it by the main stats.

I'm only somewhat surprised they didn't throw the usual crap "Wimbledon" arguement out there :)

Chloe le Bopper
03-10-2004, 07:36 AM
That list seems fair enough though I would swap Lendl for McEnroe.
Oh... so it's not just me then. heh.

J. Corwin
03-10-2004, 07:54 AM
You two aren't the only ones. In fact, I'm tempted to put Agassi over McEnroe as well.

Btw, Becca, both John and Ivan had 4 year-end #1's.

Chloe le Bopper
03-10-2004, 08:05 AM
I could deal with Agassi over Mac, I can see that one going either way. But I would think overall slam count and the career slam should weight heavily in Agassi's favour...

Whatever. Mac gets too many bonus points for being a brat.

tangerine_dream
03-10-2004, 03:20 PM
I'm actually surprised they listed Agassi before Edberg and Connors.

J. Corwin
03-10-2004, 07:32 PM
I'm actually surprised they listed Agassi before Edberg and Connors.

Why wouldn't Agassi be listed before Edberg?

Slams
Agassi 8
Edberg 6

Agassi has the career Grand Slam, Edberg doesn't

#of weeks at #1
Agassi 101
Edberg 72



I can see the argument for Connors over Agassi.

MisterQ
03-10-2004, 07:41 PM
I agree, jackson, there is a decent argument for Connors over Agassi (although I disagree ;) ), but not much of an argument for Edberg over Agassi. imo

MisterQ
03-10-2004, 07:51 PM
regarding Lendl/McEnroe,

You know John still kicks himself over the RG1984 final, the most painful loss of his career, in which he led against Lendl two sets to none and then lost the match. Not only would that win have given him more "all-surface" credentials, it would have given John 8 slams and Lendl 7, and there would be less debate about their placement, I think. I don't mean to dwell on "what-ifs,", but this just underscores the importance of that one match for their legacies.

McEnroe's 82-3 win-loss record in 1984 will probably never be matched. Also his history of Davis Cup play works in his favor.

But I think it is an intangible that has probably put McEnroe third on that list. He displayed brilliant natural talent, and people saw him much the way that they see Federer today: creative, with great touch, and capable of flashy and unpredictable shots. He seemed like one of the greatest players, even more than his record probably indicates, and that probably influenced the makers of these lists.

TennisLurker
03-10-2004, 11:43 PM
We all have to remember that Connors finished twice ranked number 1 in the world without winning a slam (1975 and 1977), and in 1978 Borg Had RG Wimbledon, and Connors only the us open, but Connors finished ranked number 1 anyway.

He was not a dominant number 1 player, and in some of the years he finished ranked number 1 he was not considered the "real" number 1.

I rate Agassi above Connors

Action Jackson
03-10-2004, 11:52 PM
Well Q, it was Mac's fault that he lost that match and I have to say I actually enjoyed watching him lose that final.

Lendl had more longevity than Mac, and had more success over a longer period of time he made 8 Masters finals in a row as well, so that gives him a jump over Mac.

I would have Wilander over Edberg, though Edberg had more weeks at number 1. Wilander had won more Slams than Edberg, he won them on three different surfaces whereas Edberg only on two.

I would have rated Agassi over Connors for sure.

Leo
03-11-2004, 12:19 AM
How many Slams did Wilander win? I thought his total count was 6, same as Edberg? Although you do have a point that Wilander was a better all-surface player than Edberg. On the other hand, Edberg had more longevity and obviously was at #1 for a longer period.

Lendl clearly had a better career than McEnroe; some would argue (me, included) that Agassi could also be placed over McEnroe in that list. No one else in history has won Slams on 4 entirely different surfaces.

TennisLurker
03-11-2004, 12:24 AM
Wilander won 7 slams, 3 times Roland Ggarros, 3 times Australia, once the us open.

Leo
03-11-2004, 12:26 AM
Ah, okay. I guess that's a real toss-up between the two, then.

Action Jackson
03-11-2004, 12:27 AM
Thank you Lurker for saving me doing that, and yes Leo there are just as many reasons for Edberg being above Wilander.

The Slams, better all surface player and personal bias (for once) is why I rated Wilander higher. He was also mentally tougher than Edberg.

Agassi at best would be at #4 no higher.

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 01:06 AM
Who would you put above Agassi for sure? Sampras, Laver, and Borg?

MisterQ
03-11-2004, 01:09 AM
Those are the three I would put above him, jackson. (but of course laver isn't being considered here because he came before the current ranking system was in place).

Action Jackson
03-11-2004, 01:11 AM
I said at best Agassi would be at #4, doesn't mean I would rate him there, but as Q said those three definitely would be ahead of him.

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 01:12 AM
I would too, but I asked because I don't know if GWH included Laver or not. And if not, who he would surely put above Agassi other than Sampras or Borg.

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 01:14 AM
I was referring to Mister Q in my previous post. ^

tangerine_dream
03-11-2004, 03:45 AM
Why wouldn't Agassi be listed before Edberg?
I can see the argument for Connors over Agassi.

Well, ever since Pete retired, the argument over the "best player ever" has been resurrected and suddenly there are all these top ten open era players lists all over the place! Everybody's a tennis expert. ;) In most of the lists I've seen, Agassi is almost always listed near the bottom half and Connors is almost always listed in the top half (Edberg is usually sandwiched safely in the middle). I never understood why Agassi never got much respect. I thought the lists might vaguely have something to do with generational snobbism (for example, take a tennis writer, a baby boomer who grew up admiring Edberg and Connors---he cannot deny Sampras his greatness, but he can and will deny Gen-X punk Agassi his ).

WyveN
03-11-2004, 12:41 PM
Lendl over Mac? oh boy.

Leo
03-11-2004, 10:06 PM
Lendl over Mac? oh boy.

And why wouldn't he be?

Tennis Fool
03-11-2004, 11:01 PM
Question: Why do you think Mac fell off so suddenly after winning 3/4 Slams in '84?

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 11:05 PM
Mac didn't win 3/4 slams that year. He won 'only' 2.

He fell off probably due to that horrible loss at the French.

Tennis Fool
03-11-2004, 11:08 PM
No, he won the US Open later that year. I think he only lost twice that year (FO being one of them).

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 11:12 PM
No. He only won 2. He did win the US Open. He also won Wimby. He didn't win the AO.

I had double checked my Tennis Guide, just in case, before posting.

And he lost 3 times that year actually.

Tennis Fool
03-11-2004, 11:14 PM
I wasn't arguing that he won 3 after your correction, only that he fell off after FO.

Tennis Fool
03-11-2004, 11:15 PM
And still, dominating with only 3 losses, and couldn't win another slam :confused:

J. Corwin
03-11-2004, 11:35 PM
Yea, Wilander had a quick fall after his outstanding '88 as well. He won 3/4 slams that year. Couldn't win another one after that. I think his heart left him.

Action Jackson
03-11-2004, 11:42 PM
Jackson, he achieved what he wanted and unlike Lendl, Edberg, Sampras. Wilander actually had a life outside of tennis and wasn't prepared to do all the hard work necessary to stay at #1.

Action Jackson
03-11-2004, 11:44 PM
Mac lost three times in 84 to Lendl at FO, Amitraj in some US tournament, and to Henrik Sundström in the 1st singles of the DC final against the Swedes. When the US got a hiding after talking big that with McEnroe and Connors they were going to win the thing.

TennisLurker
03-11-2004, 11:45 PM
Lendl won more slams, was more weeks ranked number1, and has a winnign record against McEnroe.

Action Jackson
03-11-2004, 11:50 PM
Lurker, those are good enough reasons why Lendl should be ranked higher than McEnroe.

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 01:03 AM
Jackson, he achieved what he wanted and unlike Lendl, Edberg, Sampras. Wilander actually had a life outside of tennis and wasn't prepared to do all the hard work necessary to stay at #1.

Yes, that is what I meant by having lost his heart (aka desire). His focus was elsewhere.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 05:15 AM
Mac has more US opens & Wimbledons. Enough said. I know that does not mean much in this nut house but it does in reality so I am not really interested in discussing it.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 05:16 AM
Yes, that is what I meant by having lost his heart (aka desire). His focus was elsewhere.

Mac lost his focus as well due to marriage, lack of borg etc

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 07:13 AM
I can maybe see Wimbledon being held higher than the rest...but the US Open too? I think you're stretching it.

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 07:17 AM
I am not sure I don't think he is a Lendl fan.

Personally I would go for all the time he spent at #1, 8 US Open finals, 8 Masters finals in a row, plus making the finals of every Slam, winning 3 of them and the fact it was he who set the standard and the style of game that is played today.

Obviously McEnroe was more aesthetically pleasing, talented and more spontaneous but I think Lendl's overall record was better, so that's why I would rate Lendl higher.

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 07:50 AM
I would rate Lendl higher as well. I think the comparison should be strictly made in regard to singles, not including doubles.

That's why many pick Navratilova to be the best women's player ever, cuz of her doubles results. Otherwise Graf and Evert legitimately come into the equation.

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 07:57 AM
None of that WTA stuff in here jackson, then again your point is valid.

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 07:58 AM
I was just using it to draw an analogy.

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 08:12 AM
I forgive you this time jackson.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 08:20 AM
I can maybe see Wimbledon being held higher than the rest...but the US Open too? I think you're stretching it.

Yes, particularly the time period we are primarily discussing. The 1980s. The other slams have caught up since then and the US Open dropped a bit.

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 08:37 AM
You that much against the WTA, GWH?

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 08:40 AM
You that much against the WTA, GWH?

Lets say that I am more on the Marcelo Rios side of things when it comes to womens tennis. When I am at tourneys and they are mixed, if there isn't a mens match I will go and get some food or watch the guys practice that is regard I hold for it.

Dirk
03-12-2004, 08:47 AM
Did Lendl have any weakness in his game besides his volley? If he never won that RG in 84 from Mac do you think he would have blown up or fizzle out?

TennisLurker
03-12-2004, 08:53 AM
the first serve, second serve, forehand, backhand, stamina and footwork were excellent.

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 08:58 AM
The volley was technically sound after years of work, but the problem it wasn't natural and that cost him at Wimbledon against the top guys.

Cash did steal his Wimbledon title in 87 from Lendl.

Dirk
03-12-2004, 09:12 AM
Oh How so? He beat him in 3 easy sets. Lendl had a one hander so that is really cool. He almost got borg on clay in what Rg 81?

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 09:19 AM
It was meant figuratively, not literally as that was Lendl's chance for him to conquer his Holy Grail and that mullet boy took it away from him.

He didn't have the stamina to outlast the great man ( Borg).

Dirk
03-12-2004, 09:40 AM
I heard and read Lendl took a lot of shit from the media. Why was he so unpopular?

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 09:50 AM
It wasn't the time to be an Eastern European player who was #1 at the time. Good old-fashioned ethnocentrism, plus he didn't reveal that much of himself to the public.

A fact about Lendl he was at the time fluent in Czech, Slovak, Polish, Russian, German and English.

CmonAussie
03-12-2004, 11:05 AM
Lendly was a nasty piece of work that's why he was unpopular.
* Ask any of the top players who they disliked the most in the 80's and I'm sure Lendl will be top of the list.
Apparently he used to mock the new players coming onto the tour, so as to gain some kind of psychological advantage but all it did was make them lose respect for him.
Lendl was a phenomenal player but an absolute wanker!!

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Being reading Pat Cash's book again Aussie?

Lendl didn't care about being popular, but Connors was more a prick than Lendl.

CmonAussie
03-12-2004, 11:22 AM
You've got me there George(:>

*Connors was apparently quite unsporting in the 70's but by the late 80's it seems that everyone loved him.
>> I'm hoping Hewitt will finally be appreciated someday by his critics, it's ironic that the shit Connors & McEnroe pulled in the early days was far worse than anything Lleyton has done~ yet he still has this "bad boy" reputation... I guess the current generation of players is quite boring in comparison so they pick on Hewitt as he's an easy target with the "Cmon's.." & passionate fist-pumps.!

CmonAussie
03-12-2004, 11:29 AM
BTW George^ you may be right about Cash stealing Lendl's Wimbledon chance but what about that pair of damn good Sweed's who conspired to rob Cash of his chance to win Down Under!?!
* 87 & 88 Aus Open finals were both heart-wrenching; I was in the stadium to watch Pat go down in 5-sets to Edberg(on grass at Kooyong) & then 5-sets to Wilander(8-6 in the 5th) at the then newly built Rod Laver.
>>>> It's been 29years since a local boy won in Aus & I'm starting to think that it will never be claimed again~ considering the failures of Rafter, Philippoussis & Hewitt up till now!!

Chloe le Bopper
03-12-2004, 11:58 AM
I would rate Lendl higher as well. I think the comparison should be strictly made in regard to singles, not including doubles.

That's why many pick Navratilova to be the best women's player ever, cuz of her doubles results. Otherwise Graf and Evert legitimately come into the equation.
I pick Nav based on her singles :p

Action Jackson
03-12-2004, 11:58 AM
Connors was always a prick, he just became an older prick that's all no more, no less.

Those Swedes were too good hence they are on that list and Cash isn't.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 12:09 PM
Connors may have been a prick but he was a great thing for tennis, the list has him to low - should be around #4 above Agassi certainly.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 12:10 PM
I pick Nav based on her singles :p

only thing Nav has going for her is more Wimbledons then Graf but Steffi is to dominant in other categories

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 07:32 PM
I pick Nav based on her singles :p

Your choice. ;)

I'd pick between her and Graf.

Chloe le Bopper
03-12-2004, 07:39 PM
only thing Nav has going for her is more Wimbledons then Graf but Steffi is to dominant in other categories
She also has more overall titles than Graf, more career wins... both of which are a result of a longer career. Furthermore, there isn't a little "*" after any of her records, because her main rival ... well, we all know where this is going :)

Anyways... somebody said something about the ATP? ;)

J. Corwin
03-12-2004, 07:40 PM
Nav had the strongest five year peak period than any other player.

WyveN
03-12-2004, 11:44 PM
She also has more overall titles than Graf, more career wins... both of which are a result of a longer career. Furthermore, there isn't a little "*" after any of her records, because her main rival ... well, we all know where this is going :)


Just to relate this to the ATP, Jimmy Connors had the most career wins and most titles ever yet few even put him into top 5

The seles issue is far to controversial and probably not the place to discuss it

J. Corwin
03-13-2004, 04:54 AM
Nav had better head to head records than Jimmy did agaisnt his peers. That combined with Nav having the most slams ever behind Court and Graf.

Action Jackson
03-13-2004, 05:02 AM
Just to relate this to the ATP, Jimmy Connors had the most career wins and most titles ever yet few even put him into top 5

The seles issue is far to controversial and probably not the place to discuss it

We need to get back on the ATP and not the WTA haha. Seriously in my eyes why Connors won't be rated higher is that apart from 1974 he wasn't really the dominant player. Very consistent and thereabouts for a long time, but the reasons below I wouldn't rate him higher.

He never made the French final, Borg had owned him, McEnroe had the better and once Lendl got over his nerves and fears he proceded to own from 1984-92 he never lost to him and that included 17 straight victories to turn around the H2H 22-13 in his favour.

See there is hope for Federer against Hewitt or Henman.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 05:06 AM
Nav had better head to head records than Jimmy did agaisnt his peers.


Can't really compare ATP/WTA tours in this aspect.
The problem is with this reasoning is that these other players (I'm
assuming Mac, Borg, Lendl) were all beaten at one point in GS finals by
Jimbo. He beat Borg in 1976 and 1978 USO, years in which Borg had already won Wimbledon, he beat Mac in 1982 W, after Mac was clearly #1 player, and he beat Lendl in back to back USO in 1982, 1983. In the case of Mac and Lendl, Connors was much older, so the argument can be made that they didn't even play him during his best years (1974-1978), but then again he beat them both in 1982.


That combined with Nav having the most slams ever behind Court and Graf.

Behind. Graf had a golden slam. Won 3 slams a year 4 times. At least 4 of each slam etc

WyveN
03-13-2004, 05:08 AM
He never made the French final, Borg had owned him, McEnroe had the better and once Lendl got over his nerves and fears he proceded to own from 1984-92 he never lost to him and that included 17 straight victories to turn around the H2H 22-13 in his favour.
.

Connors past his peak by 84. He almost certainly would have won the French if he didn't speak it during his peak years but that was not his fault but rather the lack of prestige of the French during those years.

Action Jackson
03-13-2004, 05:22 AM
Connors past his peak by 84. He almost certainly would have won the French if he didn't speak it during his peak years but that was not his fault but rather the lack of prestige of the French during those years.

I doubt he could have won the French Borg, Vilas, Nastase, Orantes, Panatta were all better players than Connors on clay and that was the main reason he wasn't good enough to win it and they were around in his peak.

He mightn't have treated it with respect, but he was the exception to the rule, speaking of lacking prestige that was the Australian Open in those days.

Action Jackson
03-13-2004, 05:24 AM
Yes, Connors in 84 and 74 were very different, but it's a testimony that he was competitve for so long, but I still wouldn't rate him higher than #5.

J. Corwin
03-13-2004, 05:25 AM
Can't really compare ATP/WTA tours in this aspect.
The problem is with this reasoning is that these other players (I'm
assuming Mac, Borg, Lendl) were all beaten at one point in GS finals by
Jimbo. He beat Borg in 1976 and 1978 USO, years in which Borg had already won Wimbledon, he beat Mac in 1982 W, after Mac was clearly #1 player, and he beat Lendl in back to back USO in 1982, 1983. In the case of Mac and Lendl, Connors was much older, so the argument can be made that they didn't even play him during his best years (1974-1978), but then again he beat them both in 1982.



Behind. Graf had a golden slam. Won 3 slams a year 4 times. At least 4 of each slam etc

And Nav also won 5 (or was it 6?) slams in a row at one point.

MisterQ
03-13-2004, 05:31 AM
yeah, she won 6 in a row.

J. Corwin
03-13-2004, 05:32 AM
I know she won 6 in a row, but somehow my player's guide tells me otherwise? :confused:

Scotty5
03-13-2004, 05:34 AM
since I'm not a Sampras fan, I note that everyone refers simply to the stat's when naming him the greatest. I can't deny him his achievements, but I wonder if anyone will remember him longingly in future years ... or if they'll just see his name listed 14 times on GSs. Perhaps his greatest strength was also the reason so many people say he was boring: he could treat a lot of finals like 1st round matches, just holding his serve and occasionally getting enough balls in play to break.

MisterQ
03-13-2004, 05:48 AM
I know she won 6 in a row, but somehow my player's guide tells me otherwise? :confused:

OK jackson, don't know if this helps regarding your guide, but the Australian Open was held in DECEMBER during those years, so the sequence went:

Wimb 83
USO 83
AO 83
RG 84
Wimb 84
USO 84

J. Corwin
03-13-2004, 08:37 AM
That would make sense then. Thanks :)

WyveN
03-13-2004, 09:31 AM
It can all be countered
e.g Graf won 6 consecutive that she played, or Graf made 13 consecutive finals

WyveN
03-13-2004, 09:48 AM
I doubt he could have won the French Borg, Vilas, Nastase, Orantes, Panatta were all better players than Connors on clay and that was the main reason he wasn't good enough to win it and they were around in his peak.


Big call considering Connors leads Vilas 3-1 on clay
leads Borg 3-0 on clay (although obviously Borg was better)
leads Orantes 4-2 on clay including a convincing win at the French Open
beat Panatta in only clay meeting at French Open

I realise most of those were on US Open clay and things may well have been different in Eutopr but it was still clay and Connors showed that he was a rather good player on it and I can't see evidence as to why he wouldn't win there at least once between 74-78

Action Jackson
03-13-2004, 09:57 AM
Big call considering Connors leads Vilas 3-1 on clay
leads Borg 3-0 on clay (although obviously Borg was better)
leads Orantes 4-2 on clay including a convincing win at the French Open
beat Panatta in only clay meeting at French Open

I realise most of those were on US Open clay and things may well have been different in Eutopr but it was still clay and Connors showed that he was a rather good player on it and I can't see evidence as to why he wouldn't win there at least once between 74-78

Yes, it might have been a big call but back then the clay in the US was much faster than it was in Europe and that still holds true today, which was more of an advantage to Connors. From what I remember it was green clay what they used to have at Forest Hills where the US Open was played, which was made from different stuff than what is used in Europe.

The Borg stat while true is misleading as they never played on clay in Europe the victories came in Indianopolis and twice in the US Open. He never met him at the French Open, Monte Carlo, Rome or Hamburg these tourneys have been around for a while. Borg then beat him 7x in a row without playing on his best surface.

Same with Vilas they never played on the clay in Europe either.

WyveN
03-13-2004, 10:04 AM
Well Borg was from a different planet. Bjorn humiliated Vilas at FO a few times and Vilas was a clay legend himself.

Action Jackson
03-13-2004, 10:15 AM
Vilas was Borg's bitch when it came to clay and Vilas was a clay legend who knew how to hit a hard single hand backhand.

Borg might have owned him on the court, it didn't stop them going out and I don't see anyone having a Borg like record at the French Open.

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 12:32 PM
Just to relate this to the ATP, Jimmy Connors had the most career wins and most titles ever yet few even put him into top 5

The seles issue is far to controversial and probably not the place to discuss it
It isn't the place to discuss it, no, but it is relevant to the "Graf vs Nav" debate. The only people who never want to talk about that are usually Graf fans.

Mind you, I don't want to talk about it in here either ;)

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 12:34 PM
Can't really compare ATP/WTA tours in this aspect.
The problem is with this reasoning is that these other players (I'm
assuming Mac, Borg, Lendl) were all beaten at one point in GS finals by
Jimbo. He beat Borg in 1976 and 1978 USO, years in which Borg had already won Wimbledon, he beat Mac in 1982 W, after Mac was clearly #1 player, and he beat Lendl in back to back USO in 1982, 1983. In the case of Mac and Lendl, Connors was much older, so the argument can be made that they didn't even play him during his best years (1974-1978), but then again he beat them both in 1982.



Behind. Graf had a golden slam. Won 3 slams a year 4 times. At least 4 of each slam etc
I'm sure Nav could have won more slams had Chris just dissapeared for a few years (at the point when Chris wasn't just rolling over and drying for Nav, that is ;)). Nav didnt' have that uh, "luxery".

Blah blah blah.

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 12:37 PM
It can all be countered
e.g Graf won 6 consecutive that she played, or Graf made 13 consecutive finals
Again... ************************

WyveN
03-13-2004, 12:42 PM
Since you can't let the Seles issue go let me just say that in my opinion Graf was a far superior player to Seles and had Seles remained healthy it would cost Graf 2 slams at most.

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 02:06 PM
Since you can't let the Seles issue go let me just say that in my opinion Graf was a far superior player to Seles and had Seles remained healthy it would cost Graf 2 slams at most.
Heh heh heh. Just 2? I find that pretty unbelievable considering how Seles had ripped through the last couple years before 1993. I think that Graf would have had an impressive tally either way, and was obviously a great player. But to think that Seles would have just one two of her slams.... eh. I'll disagree with that.

For what it's worth, I liked Graf and never followed Nav because I was too young, not born, or not into tennis. I just look at the numbers and circumstances and can't come up with any other conclusion that Nav>Graf.

The end ;)

WyveN
03-13-2004, 04:31 PM
Heh heh heh. Just 2? I find that pretty unbelievable considering how Seles had ripped through the last couple years before 1993. I think that Graf would have had an impressive tally either way, and was obviously a great player. But to think that Seles would have just one two of her slams.... eh. I'll disagree with that.


Graf was slumping during the time Seles dominated due to personal problems etc. During that time period she lost something like 6-7 consecutive times to Sabatini despite owning her prior to that, and after that.


For what it's worth, I liked Graf and never followed Nav because I was too young, not born, or not into tennis. I just look at the numbers and circumstances and can't come up with any other conclusion that Nav>Graf.


Well the numbers point to graf and the circumstances are so hypothetical and filled with what ifs that you obviously came to the wrong conclusion. The end. ;)

Chloe le Bopper
03-13-2004, 05:47 PM
not all of the numbers point to Graf. Most of them in fact, do not.

My conclusion isn't wrong, and neither is yours.

Dirk
03-13-2004, 07:18 PM
Oh come on Seles was actually getting much fitter during 93. She would have won so many more slams including maybe a wimbly. Graf lost to Gab because of Gab's game, once she changed her tactics she owed her.

J. Corwin
03-13-2004, 09:10 PM
WyveN, points can be countered yes...but so can your points. No opinion is right or wrong. And if you read carefully you would have noticed that I said Graf would come into the equation if it was only based on singles. I said I'd pick between Graf and Nav.

The End ;)

WyveN
03-14-2004, 01:41 AM
Oh come on Seles was actually getting much fitter during 93. She would have won so many more slams including maybe a wimbly. Graf lost to Gab because of Gab's game, once she changed her tactics she owed her.

Seles would have won more slams but only around 2 of Grafs imo. Although she would take some of players like Pierce, Sanchez etc

Graf lost to Gab because she slumped 91-93..........from 1990 to 1992 Sabatini won 7 out of 8 matches between her and Graf, with Graf's only win coming 8-6 in the 3rd set.

Outside of that period Graf won 28 matches to 4

WyveN
03-14-2004, 01:42 AM
not all of the numbers point to Graf. Most of them in fact, do not.


Navratilova gets credit points because of longetivity which makes her the leader of such categories as most matches won, most career titles etc but Graf leads in all the significant categories apart from most Wimbledons won

Domino
03-14-2004, 06:44 AM
Way off topic here people. This is the topic for MENS tennis top 10 number 1s. Sigh, oh well. I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but Evert won just as many singles slams as Martina, but less doubles and mixed doubles.

rassklovn
03-14-2004, 06:48 AM
Domino, I know GWH and myself tried to keep this on topic, then again it's easy for me as I hate the WTA and won't comment on it.

Chloe le Bopper
03-14-2004, 07:00 AM
Navratilova gets credit points because of longetivity which makes her the leader of such categories as most matches won, most career titles etc but Graf leads in all the significant categories apart from most Wimbledons won
Look... you're more than welcome to think Steffi is the best thing since sliced bread, and that Nav's numbers can all be excused for such and such a reason, but Steffi's can not because that would just be "speculation" and "what ifs" (as if your "Monica wouldn't have won more than two of her slams" line wasn't a gigantic fucking "what if")... that is dandy.

You don't have to agree with me. Saying that I'm mistaken or whatever is just stupid, though. I never said that you were, I've just interpreted the data the same way. There are many respectable tennis analysts who agree with me, and some who don't.

You are arguing in circles, though, and it's bothering me.

So I'm going to end it here.

J. Corwin
03-14-2004, 07:21 AM
WyveN just has a problem with people having opinions that differ from his. If people don't agree with him, they're automatically "wrong" or "mistaken".

WyveN
03-14-2004, 08:03 AM
Look... you're more than welcome to think Steffi is the best thing since sliced bread, and that Nav's numbers can all be excused for such and such a reason, but Steffi's can not because that would just be "speculation" and "what ifs" (as if your "Monica wouldn't have won more than two of her slams" line wasn't a gigantic fucking "what if")... that is dandy.


which is exactly why all "what ifs" should be ignored

WyveN
03-14-2004, 08:03 AM
WyveN just has a problem with people having opinions that differ from his. If people don't agree with him, they're automatically "wrong" or "mistaken".

If I had a problem with people having different opinions from me I would be here arguing 24 hours a day.

The only time I question other peoples opinions is when they are based on stupidity and offer no justification of that opinion.

J. Corwin
03-14-2004, 09:23 AM
Based on stupidity? It's only stupidity to state that other people's opinions are based on stupidity.

There is no clear distinction of who has achieved more. If Nav or Graf has overshadowed the other in every single aspect of their career, then ok, one is clearly better. But both these women have areas where she has achieved more than the other.

All I have said is that I can see the argument for both and I'd choose between those two. Mea culpa.

J. Corwin
03-14-2004, 09:27 AM
If you didn't have a superiority complex more people would be happy to discuss/debate with you.

WyveN
03-14-2004, 11:04 AM
If you didn't have a superiority complex more people would be happy to discuss/debate with you.

Thank you for the advice but I really don't need it

My primary reason for being here is entertainment, not intellectual tennis discussions and debates.

WyveN
03-14-2004, 11:08 AM
Based on stupidity? It's only stupidity to state that other people's opinions are based on stupidity.


Yet if you reread your statement a few times, that is exactly what you are doing.


There is no clear distinction of who has achieved more. If Nav or Graf has overshadowed the other in every single aspect of their career, then ok, one is clearly better. But both these women have areas where she has achieved more than the other.

All I have said is that I can see the argument for both and I'd choose between those two.

I realise what you said, all the 4 times you said it.

TennisLurker
03-14-2004, 03:16 PM
Graf was slumping during the time Seles dominated due to personal problems etc. During that time period she lost something like 6-7 consecutive times to Sabatini despite owning her prior to that, and after that.



Graf started owning Sabatini after 1993 because Sabatini just stopped being a top player after 1993.
2 years without winning a title.
Sabatini had been in the top 5 since 1987 (top 3 since 1990) and she dropped of the top 5 in 1993, the year of the stabbing.
In the french open, just three weeks after the stabbing of Seles she had a devastating loss to mary Jo Fernandez, losing 61 67 68 after leading 61 51 40-15 and she never recovered.
And for example, not only Sabatini never defeated again graf after that loss, she never defeated again players she owned just a month before that loss like Conchita Martinez or Sanchez Vicario.
Gabby really sucked a lot her last three years, that is why she retired so young.


omg, this is so wtaworldish.

Action Jackson
03-14-2004, 03:36 PM
Vilas was Borg's bitch when it came to clay and Vilas was a clay legend who knew how to hit a hard single hand backhand.

Borg might have owned him on the court, it didn't stop them going out and I don't see anyone having a Borg like record at the French Open.

I am trying to get his back on topic.

I will rephrase that Vilas if Borg wasn't around probably would have won more French Opens.

But I still say Connors even though he had a superior record against those guys on clay, he never beat them in Europe, he wasn't even good enough in France to get to meet Borg in a semi let alone a final, his best performance was a semi.

TennisLurker
03-14-2004, 03:40 PM
I think Vilas was the bitch of all the swedes.

Did he have a chance agaisnt Wilander in 1982?
At least he won a set and played a tie break.

Is that match worth buying? I think I can get it.

TennisLurker
03-14-2004, 03:41 PM
Connors never won a tournamnet on red clay methinks.

Action Jackson
03-14-2004, 03:53 PM
I think Vilas was the bitch of all the swedes.

Did he have a chance agaisnt Wilander in 1982?
At least he won a set and played a tie break.

Is that match worth buying? I think I can get it.

Yes, Vilas had a chance he won the 1st set 6-1, Wilander was nervous in the beginning and Vilas had the backhand working very well. Then Wilander dug in and won the second set 7-6 and then after that wasn't missing anything at all and killed him in the 3rd 6-0, and then the lastset was close but Wilander had nerves of steel and held on for the title.

As for getting that match were you a Wilander fan? That match was the one that got me really into tennis, Borg got me interested in it a bit, then Wilander confirmed it, so for me yes, for you I don't know.

The best thing was he apologised for boring the crowd after he won the final.

TennisLurker
03-14-2004, 04:00 PM
Ive only seen the french open final he lost to Lendl, and I liked that match quite a lot.

Action Jackson
03-14-2004, 04:02 PM
Connors never won a tournamnet on red clay methinks.

You're right Connors won 69 titles most of them in North America. The Euro events he won were on grass or indoors.

For the record Lendl won 94 titles he won 5 Masters series events and 2 Masters before he managed to win a Slam.

Chloe le Bopper
03-14-2004, 05:23 PM
which is exactly why all "what ifs" should be ignored
There would be nothing wrong with this arguement, if you had not gone ahead and made your own!

I didn't criticize you for your "what ifs" (I disagreed with it, but didn't fault you for coming up with one), while you told me that my arguement was weak because it was laced with them (meanwhile, I don't even need the "what ifs" to make an arguement for Nav).

Sigh.

J. Corwin
03-14-2004, 06:13 PM
Yet if you reread your statement a few times, that is exactly what you are doing.



I realise what you said, all the 4 times you said it.

Just making sure cuz it can be tough to tell with you.
It's ok to be a hypocrite on a message board.

Chloe le Bopper
03-15-2004, 07:18 AM
My foot hurts. I think that my tendonitis has flared up again.