[Smiling Buddha]

Originally Posted by Smiling Buddha

Amateur slams should not be included in major count as the best players did not compete in them. Laver has 8 pro slams and 5 slams in the open era so he has 13 majors. Maybe he edges out Sampras as the second greatest of all time because of his grand slam and calendar year grand slam.

I would tremendously appreciate it if someone would address this and explain to me the discrepancy between amateur and pro slams.

[noddzy]

Some footage of Laver v Rosewall @RG. Rosewall's serve (compared to Laver) seems to be quite pathetic, and he also uses the slice BH all the time. But superb net play from both

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by Smiling Buddha

I would tremendously appreciate it if someone would address this and explain to me the discrepancy between amateur and pro slams.

It's a slippery slope, mate. If I chose not to count amateur slams, I'd also have to question whether to count the AO from the 70's and early 80's.

I have instead decided to count amateur slams, pro slams, and Open Era slams as all equal statistically. What weight anyone else places upon them is their prerogative.

You could also make the argument that pro slams should not count because the top amateurs did not play them, and most pro slams had only 8 or 12 draws, 16 tops. I MIGHT have seen a 32 draw pro slam, but that is rare as diamonds, while the amateurs had to play 64 or 128 draws.

So it is all a slippery slope.

[Nathaliia]

It's an insane work you have done... I just don't share the enthusiasm about the 1800s champions if you get my drift... it was different tennis, not enough competitions, travels so difficult and stuff...

[Johnny Groove]

So Nathii, you aren't exactly a Renshawtard

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Nathaliia

It's an insane work you have done... I just don't share the enthusiasm about the 1800s champions if you get my drift... it was different tennis, not enough competitions, travels so difficult and stuff...

no shit....all those mugs in 1910's and 1920's are champions now? ok .....

[Nathaliia]

no i mean all this homo neandertalensis tennis...
before tilden at the very least

[Mr.Michael]

Originally Posted by Nathaliia

no i mean all this homo neandertalensis tennis...
before tilden at the very least

Tilden made sure the word homo wouldn't be forgotten.

I'm so sorry. I know that was stupid.

[Mr.Michael]

Originally Posted by Saberq

no shit....all those mugs in 1910's and 1920's are champions now? ok .....

I don't think they were mugs. They were cool cats and propably didn't choke that bad. I'm pretty sure Anthony Wilding would kick your ass 6-3,6-2. And you wouldn't get a single point from Borotra. They could use real tennis racquets and play with sweaters and white trousers and you still wouldn't have any chance.

[samanosuke]

Rosewall's serve . Reminds me on Dent's serve motion, just 100 kmh slower . These guys with wooden rackets had beautiful one handed BHs . Shame they didn't get a chance to play with today's technology

[thrust]

Originally Posted by Shinoj

You have to bear in mind that your judgment about less talent and more physical aspect would hold true only in these homogenized courts. Speed up the court little like what happened at the O2 courts you would see some completely different results; likes of Djokovic and Nadal getting bundled out; others would argue that Nadal and Djokovic were tired; but i am not entirely convinced about it.


I very much agree with Laver on the list at # 1 and at worst #2 because he was quite ahead of the time they were playing.

Apart from all the talents that he had you could see that he had a champions mentality and that means he would be very successful in most of the eras. Its not easy competing at the Age of 38 at the very Top level and giving them a run for their money. From one of the videos posted in one of the thread, he was playing Bjorn Borg who was aged just 18 and Laver was 36 and he drove Borg to a 4th or a 5th Set. You could see that he was something special.

I have no doubt that he would not be less than 5 in todays Era. If you take in account of such factors like being a better physical built, having Modern Equipments and a better tactical awareness about the game. I am sure it would be between Federer and Laver with Nadal dominating on Clay. But overall it would be between Laver and Federer. I have no doubt about it.

Have a problem with likes of Rosewall,Tilden and co. I can only speak for Rosewall as i had seen only his video. And i could see that he played at a Pace which was appropriate for that time. he used to meander at the court; but that was enough for that Era. Had a half baked forehand and backhand. Thats why i said those guys were very good but only for that time but Laver was a step or two ahead of them.

The fact IS that Rosewall won his first slam in 53, his last in 72. Laver won his last slams in 69, Rosewall won 3 between 70-73. At 39 he reached 2 slam finals, one just 2 months short of his 40th birthday. As Bud Collins once said, Laver had the advantage over Ken between 65-70,but not in the biggest matches. Rosewall's game, he being only 5-7, was not based on power. He relied on speed, footwork and placement of ground strokes and volleys. According to Arthur Ashe, Ken was the best volleyer in the game at that time. I remember one USO match with Rosewall against Charlie Passeral. Charlie was a big guy with a big serve. Before the match began, Tony Trabert said that he would bet that Ken would serve more aces than Charlie. Trabert was right. Some experts thought that Ken's serve was weak becuse he was a natural lefty who was taught to play as a right hander. Still his serves were very effective due to precise placement. Ken Rosewall is one of the very greatest players of all-time. His accomplishments for over 20 years, prove that fact.

[DLobb]

Mention of Rosewall leads me to consider Rosewall's own personal ranking of the world's greatest ever tennis players in an interview he gave to an Italian magazine in 2010.
1)Hoad
2)Gonzales
3)Laver
4)Federer
Rosewall played against these players, apart from Federer, hundreds of times.
Gonzales himself, in an interview in 1995, rated Hoad's game as the best ever.
Laver has not committed himself to a ranking, but in early 1963 he was skunked 13-0 in a head to head tour by Hoad.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by DLobb

Mention of Rosewall leads me to consider Rosewall's own personal ranking of the world's greatest ever tennis players in an interview he gave to an Italian magazine in 2010.
1)Hoad
2)Gonzales
3)Laver
4)Federer
Rosewall played against these players, apart from Federer, hundreds of times.
Gonzales himself, in an interview in 1995, rated Hoad's game as the best ever.
Laver has not committed himself to a ranking, but in early 1963 he was skunked 13-0 in a head to head tour by Hoad.

these old timers are such mugs...I mean Hoad number 1?WTF????????????.................Have Rosewall dude if you played in this era guess what you would have in common with Murray? ........Fed is number 1

[Ash86]

I find this list very interesting in terms of learning more about the history of the sport & the achievements of earlier greats but ultimately I think it's main flaw is in trying to equate the achievements of those playing the sport in 1912 to those playing it in 2012. The Bill Tilden's of the world I'm pretty sure would find the recent US Open Final for example quite alien & as far from the sport they played as you can get - technology has changed the sport & it has also become far more gruelling. Winning for stretches of 20 years would clearly not be possible for any player now due to the style of the game - yet by ranking achievements based on finals and years at the top of the game these players may languish far below past greats.

Personally I'd look at Open Era only & also think far too much credit is given to getting to a final rather than winning a slam. Nadal should be above Lendl by now - he has a career slam & more total slams. Simple question: would a tennis player rather have Nadal's career or Lendl's? None would choose Lendl's. They'd rather 10 slams out of 14 than 8 out of 19. So how is Lendl ranked higher than him on the all time list? Similarly for players like Borg & Nadal the uniqueness of achievements such as 3 Channel Slams for Borg - 5 Wimbledons & 6 French in an era when no one else could make that transition; and 81 wins on clay for Nadal plus the 'clay slam' need to be factored in. It's not pure numbers - it's impact on the game & the legacy they left. Borg & Nadal to me have had more of an impact than Rosewall for example...

Still - very thorough & interesting!

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Ash86

So how is Lendl ranked higher than him on the all time list?

It's quite easy in reality, you are making the same mistake as many do. If it was just based on Slams, Gaudio would be better than Nalbandian.

If you are not prepared or willing to look at the times and conditions Lendl played in, just applying modern methods to it. Nadal has cashed in surface homogenisation something Lendl didn't.