[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by J99

Anyway, your argument doesn't work cause what happened the next 2 times they met at the French when Rafa was healthy, oh yeah, Rafa won in straights, cya.

Cause one guy can't win once and then another guy win next time, nah. You're exactly why I've always hated Rafatards and why I don't miss him on tour.

[Cereal Killer]

Just because he has issues with his knees doesn't mean he only loses when he is not healthy. That's ridiculous.

[J99]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Cause one guy can't win once and then another guy win next time, nah. You're exactly why I've always hated Rafatards and why I don't miss him on tour.

I'm not a Rafatard or whatever you think, but you only hate cause you know how good he is, I'm actually a Murray fan, like you seem to be, but I like alot of players too, I like and respect Rafa, so does Murray you should know, mostly though I probably support the game of tennis, and whenever I see mistruth's etc., I'm going to call them out.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by J99

I'm not a Rafatard or whatever you think, but you only hate cause you know how good he is, I'm actually a Murray fan, like you seem to be, but I like alot of players too, mostly though I probably support the game of tennis, and whenever I see mistruth's etc., I'm going to call them out.

Fanbase worse than the player, same as Nole's who I'm pretty neutral towards but his fans are a lot worse. A lot of those calling out Johnny's choices in this thread are blind colour-to-the-mast tards when he's done a good job.

[J99]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Fanbase worse than the player, same as Nole's who I'm pretty neutral towards but his fans are a lot worse. A lot of those calling out Johnny's choices in this thread are blind colour-to-the-mast tards when he's done a good job.

Are you calling Murray's fans poor, and you are one too?

[J99]

Originally Posted by silver lining

Just because he has issues with his knees doesn't mean he only loses when he is not healthy. That's ridiculous.

I didn't say that, I said most of the time on clay this is the case, he loses more on other surfaces when healthy obviously.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by J99

Are you calling Murray's fans poor, and you are one too?

One or two are biased but generally OK. Much smaller fanbase than the three main ones so you don't notice clowns.

[J99]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

One or two are biased but generally OK. Much smaller fanbase than the three main ones so you don't notice clowns.

Something you should know about Murray is that he holds Rafa in very high regard, you should too if you support him properly.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by J99

Something you should know about Murray is that he holds Rafa in very high regard, you should too if you support him properly.

K.

Back to the topic anyway.

What would an Open Era top 55 look like? Only saw a top 30. Be interesting to see the careers of one off slam winners being enough to beat the likes of Rios etc in the table.

[allpro]

it still boggles my mind that connors played gonzales (uso champ 1948), rosewall, emerson, laver AND sampras, agassi (ao champ 2003), courier, and bruguera, and virtually everyone else in-between. he went 6-6 vs. edberg despite all their encounters taking place when he was 32-39 y.o.

[Han Solo]

Originally Posted by J99

What, who did he beat, a low seeded unproven Soderling at the time, Soderling did not beat Rafa there, Rafa was injured, and Del Po who was also unproven at that level at the time, that match probably gave Del Po the confidence and experience he needed to beat him at the US, but he wasn't ready to do it at the French, so there was no way Fed wasn't going to win it unless Rafa was there.

...That's weird, then. I could have sworn watching the match the score was 6-2, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6, with Soderling winning three of those sets. Sure enough, I checked it on the internet and that seems to have been the score. I thought when one player takes three sets and the other only one, then the player with three sets has beaten the other one.

Have the rules changed?

[jjc225]

I understand total lifetime wins is not an altogether satisfactory measure of quality. So this is what you can do, although I haven't crunched the numbers yet for everybody. You can start by looking at lifetime wins and losses. Then subtract from these numbers performances in grand slam events. With these non-slam lifetime win-loss totals you multiply wins by winning percentage (which is wins squared divided by wins + losses). Then you go to the slam data for each player, and do the same thing, multiply wins by winning percentage. You then add the two totals, and voila, you have a neat and tidy calculation of lifetime achievement that takes into account how players did in slams. I will start calculating the numbers for the major players and get back with a preliminary report.

Oh, and if you want the slam performance to count for more, you can weight it accordingly, for example, multiplying the slam figure by some whole number (2, 3, 4)? But this would be highly arbitrary as there is no clear understanding of how much more a slam should count over non-slam performance.

[Honestly]

I agree Groove, Murray don't belong in the top 55 of all time. He just won his first slam. It's early days.

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

K.

Back to the topic anyway.

What would an Open Era top 55 look like? Only saw a top 30. Be interesting to see the careers of one off slam winners being enough to beat the likes of Rios etc in the table.

I'll do you 46 better.

Top 101 of Open Era, rough list, slam results:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Nadal
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Agassi
8. Mac
9. Wilander
10. Edberg
11. Becker
12. Djokovic
13. Newcombe
14. Laver
15. Rosewall
16. Vilas
17. Courier
18. Ashe
19. Kodes
20. Guga
21. Nastase
22. Hewitt
23. Safin
24. Rafter
25. Kafelnikov
26. Smith
27. Bruguera
28. Kriek
29. Murray
30. Roddick
31. Chang
32. Ivanisevic
33. Gerulaitis
34. Stich
35. Ferrero
36. Cash
37. Tanner
38. Orantes
39. Gimeno
40. Moya
41. Korda
42. Krajicek
43. Muster
44. Panatta
45. Edmondson
46. Noah
47. Del Potro
48. T. Johansson
49. Gomez
50. Costa
51. Teacher
52. Gaudio
53. Roche
54. Martin
55. Pioline
56. Mecir
57. Corretja
58. Curren
59. Soderling
60. Denton
61. Okker
62. Nalbandian
63. Leconte
64. Tsonga
65. Solomon
66. Berdych
67. P. Dent
68. Metreveli
69. F. Gonzalez
70. Gottfried
71. Medvedev
72. Crealy
73. Coria
74. Proisy
75. Franulovic
76. Baghdatis
77. Norman
78. Pecci
79. Schuettler
80. Rios
81. Parun
82. Warwick
83. Sadri
84. Enqvist
85. Clement
86. Lloyd
87. Pilic
88. Pernfors
89. Rusedski
90. Washington
91. Berasategui
92. Marks
93. Mal Anderson
94. Verkerk
95. Puerta
96. Lewis
97. Henman
98. Davydenko
99. Ferrer
100. Grosjean
101. Tommy Haas

Let the disagreements begin.

[rocketassist]

Good effort, of course it's a statistical list without the in depth add-ons.

Kriek would be lower on my list.
Rios would be a lot higher on my list.
Davydenko would be a lot higher on my list.

For a top 55 open era I would do:

1 Federer
2 Sampras
3 Borg
4 Nadal
5 Lendl
6 Agassi
7 Connors
8 McEnroe
9 Edberg
10 Wilander
11 Becker
12 Laver
13 Djokovic
14 Newcombe
15 Rosewall
16 Vilas
17 Courier
18 Ashe
19 Kodes
20 Nastase
21 Hewitt
22 Kuerten
23 Kafelnikov
24 Safin
25 Rafter
26 Smith
27 Roddick
28 Bruguera
29 Murray
30 Ferrero
31 Ivanisevic
32 Chang
33 Moya
34 Cash
35 Muster
36 Stich
37 Gerulaitis
38 Orantes
39 Rios
40 Nalbandian
41 Davydenko
42 Krajicek
43 Johansson
44 Del Potro
45 Gimeno
46 Noah
47 Panatta
48 Kriek
49 Tanner
50 Costa
51 Gomez
52 Corretja
53 Soderling
54 Edmondson
55 Teacher

There's mine. Argue it people.