Tennis - Top Ten Greatest players of all time.

LordSutch

Just putting it out there "Who do you rate" as the Top Ten Greatest Tennis players of all time.

Obviously ~ if you look at the record books there is a pecking order throughout the decades with Sampras at the "No One Spot" but is that the whole picture? I personally think that the top ten depends on what your personal memories are relating to the excitement & enjoyment of who was playing at the time & also who the opposition was when 'Your Fave' was King.

My Fave "No One" was Bjorn Borg who won 11 grand slam titles by the age of 26, with 6 French opens and 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles 1975-1980. He clearly was a champion on both slow clay courts and lightning fast grass courts at the same time. No other player since Borg has won the French open and Wimbledon combination in the same year & Borg did it 3 consecutive years. Quite Remarkable! Many people forget how Great a player he was. He also made it to 4 U.S. open finals. (He never entered the Austrailian open) but had Borg played past the age of 26 or even made an effort at the Austrailian open he would 'in my opinion' have easily surpassed Sampras’s 14 grand slam titles .................

My top 10 are :

1) Borg
2) Sampras
3) Federer
4) Laver
5) Lendl
6) Agassi
7) Connors
8) McEnroe
9) Edberg
10)Becker

So who's in your Top Ten ?

elmolesto

This thread needs a poll

califano

Where's Arthur Ash?

LordSutch

Looks like lethargy has set-in amongst the viewers :cool:

Sea Devils

1. Roger Federer
2. Pete Sampras
3. Bjorn Borg
4. Rod Laver
5. Ivan Lendl
6. . John McEnroe
7. Andre Agassi
8. Jimmy Connors
9. Stephen Edberg
10. Boris Becker

Sea Devils

rounders123 wrote: »

Where's Arthur Ash?

Three Grand Slam Singles titles doesn't really warrant a top 10 place

califano

Sea Devils wrote: »

Three Grand Slam Singles titles doesn't really warrant a top 10 place

But he was black.

Mikel

ArthurF wrote: »

He clearly was a champion on both slow clay courts and lightning fast grass courts at the same time. No other player since Borg has won the French open and Wimbledon combination

I think that was a lesser achievement in the 70's compared to nadal (doing it once I mean)
The grass at Wimbledon has been changed over the years, it was actually slower in Borgs day. Also the ball wasn't hit as hard so he could get away with his defensive game. He wouldn't win it now playing like that imo

DmanDmythDledge

Mikel wrote: »

I think that was a lesser achievement in the 70's compared to nadal (doing it once I mean)
The grass at Wimbledon has been changed over the years, it was actually slower in Borgs day. Also the ball wasn't hit as hard so he could get away with his defensive game. He wouldn't win it now playing like that imo

I disagree. I think it's easier for clay courts players to make the swith to grass now as it is more similar to clay than it was roughly five years. Maybe it's just the way tennis has gone or players have swithced because of the court, but serve and volley players are getting less success at Wimbledon now.

davyjose

Anyone who won Wimbledon and the Franch back to back 4 times during one of Tennis' most competitive era's is, to my mind, without a doubt the best to have played the game. There is no better than Borg.


I'd also have to strongly challenge for Nadal's place amongst the top ten. Aged 22 and 5 Grand Slams!! Putting Fed anywhere near the top, demands a place somewhere for Nadal IMO

No other player since Borg has won the French open and Wimbledon combination in the same year

Until this year.

My Top Ten:
1 Borg
2 Fed
3 Sampras
4 Agassi
5 McEnroe
6 Laver
7 Lendl
8 Nadal
9 Connors
10 Becker


Becker/Edberg - Edberg Becker. I went with Boris because he lives longer in the memory

Also a special shout out to Mats Wilander, in 12th

I realise Nadal has less than the four below him (counting Edberg and Wilander) and is higher up the list, but (barring injury, and he obv. continues playing) if he doesn't win at least one more I'll buy everyone on this thread, up to now, a new Tennis Racket My bet is he'll finish with about 11/12

Mikel

DmanDmythDledge wrote: »

I disagree. I think it's easier for clay courts players to make the swith to grass now as it is more similar to clay than it was roughly five years. Maybe it's just the way tennis has gone or players have swithced because of the court, but serve and volley players are getting less success at Wimbledon now.

It was much more similar to clay in the seventies though, also the power game hadn't yet arrived so it was possible to sit back and loop heavy topspin groundstrokes.
There are less serve and volleyers succeeding because there are less in the game overall. It would be a long losing season for a pure serve and volleyer. A becker or an edberg would still win there.
Borgs achievement was phenomenal, but he did it without a serve and barely a volley, and in those days no one had the weapons from the back of the court to hurt him.
Post lendl, the power element of the game has changed, I don't think Borg would prosper in the same way playing the same way he did

Mikel

davyjose wrote: »

My Top Ten:
1 Borg
2 Fed
3 Sampras
4 Agassi
5 McEnroe
6 Laver
7 Lendl
8 Nadal
9 Connors
10 Becker

I'm a big fan of Agassi but 4th best ever? not in a million years
I'd have Connors much higher, a true legend, up there with Borg & McEnroe
I don't think you can have Nadal in the top ten yet, he's still just starting, he's awesome though

davyjose

Mikel wrote: »

I'm a big fan of Agassi but 4th best ever? not in a million years
I'd have Connors much higher, a true legend, up there with Borg & McEnroe
I don't think you can have Nadal in the top ten yet, he's still just starting, he's awesome though

Not in a million years? Why not? 8 Majors and a career Grand slam; surely that puts him in with a shout of top five? One of the things I admired about Agassi when I grew up, was his ability to deal with the guys who used to slam serves down the line - your Krajicek's and Ivanisevic's. People here are going on about how Wimbledon favours baseliners more than ever. Well Agassi won it at a time when it was not favourable to be a baseliner at that particular tournament. Aside from that, he brought so much to the game that I will defend to the death* :pac: his right to be called a top five all-timer.

As for Nadal, well since when is 5 Grand Slams just starting? Let's be honest, he's playing Tennis right now to the calibre that puts him inside the top ten. That to me puts him on that list. If he stopped tomorrow, I would still say that only 8 or 9 guys have ever played to that level in their careers.
Besides, putting Fed top, or second, and leaving Nadal off the list, does a certain injustice to the rivalry between the two guys. Namely that more often than not, Nadal has made him look ordinary. I mean you can't inore the guy who beat the "greatest player of all time" 2:1, can you?

*May not include any actual death

Mikel

It depends what you mean by 'greatest'. Agassi was awesome but better than McEnroe? MacEnroe was the most naturally gifted player before the era of Sampras and Federer. Better than Connors? Jimmy won something like 100 career titles, had rivalries with Rosewall, Borg, MacEnroe, must have played at the top level for 20 years.
8 majors is well behind Federer Sampras and co, Agassi was also very one dimensional and flaky when things weren't going his way.
Nadal is just starting because he's 23 or so. A couple of good seasons doesn't rank you with the greatest ever, maybe he'll out achieve all those guys, but he hasn't yet. His performance at Wimbledon was incredible, but it was his first grand slam win not on clay. He's never done anything at the US, but like I say, he's just starting.

davyjose

Mikel wrote: »

Jimmy won something like 100 career titles, had rivalries with Rosewall, Borg, MacEnroe, must have played at the top level for 20 years. 8 majors is well behind Federer Sampras and co

It's equal to connors and McEnroe.

Also if longevity comes into question, then Agassi has outlasted most. I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument here, I just think agassi was the 4th best player, In my admittedly limited experience. If you disagree, throw up your own top ten .

Mikel

davyjose wrote: »

It's equal to connors and McEnroe.

Also if longevity comes into question, then Agassi has outlasted most. I'm not trying to pick holes in your argument here, I just think agassi was the 4th best player, In my admittedly limited experience. If you disagree, throw up your own top ten .

Agassi outlasted most alright, but he did have the benefit of a hiatus of a couple of year. Towards the end of his career his conditioning was phenomenal though. I loved the way he played, and would have liked him to have won more.
I don't think 'greatest' means most talented. If it did, the likes of leconte and Nastase would be in there. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a top ten, and to be honest I don't know what you would do with the guys pre Connors, Laver Gonzalez, Perry, Emerson etc. But if you take the 'modern' game I think you have to start with mcEnroe Borg and Connors though what order you put them in is a matter of preference. Grudgingly I would put Sampras among them just on the no of grand slams, though I don't like him or the way he played.
After them.... Federer I suppose, then maybe lendl and agassi?
I'd like to think Edberg belongs there, i loved that guy, but he had no forehand! Maybe put him level with Becker next.
My point about Nadal was that he hasn't yet made the 'contribution' if thats the right word over a long period of time that those guys did. Each of them would have defined the game at one time or another, huge fan of his though..

ByrdsFan

Borg
Sampras
Federer
Rod Laver
Agassi
McEnroe
Lendl
Nadal
Connors
Becker

davyjose

Mikel wrote: »

Agassi outlasted most alright, but he did have the benefit of a hiatus of a couple of year. Towards the end of his career his conditioning was phenomenal though. I loved the way he played, and would have liked him to have won more.
I don't think 'greatest' means most talented. If it did, the likes of leconte and Nastase would be in there. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a top ten, and to be honest I don't know what you would do with the guys pre Connors, Laver Gonzalez, Perry, Emerson etc. But if you take the 'modern' game I think you have to start with mcEnroe Borg and Connors though what order you put them in is a matter of preference. Grudgingly I would put Sampras among them just on the no of grand slams, though I don't like him or the way he played.
After them.... Federer I suppose, then maybe lendl and agassi?
I'd like to think Edberg belongs there, i loved that guy, but he had no forehand! Maybe put him level with Becker next.
My point about Nadal was that he hasn't yet made the 'contribution' if thats the right word over a long period of time that those guys did. Each of them would have defined the game at one time or another, huge fan of his though..

That's a decent enough argument. I still disagree though: With Nadal I can kinda see where you're going -- he hasn't earned his stripes so to speak, but it's really only a matter of time. You kinda have to recognise the level this guy plays at when people say "we'll see how many GS's he wins besides the French Open" My guess is it'll be 4, maybe 5. And that's excluding the French which will, barring disaster, reach 7-8.
But really, it's his will to win that impresses me so much - I think it was Rome this year when he went 4-0 down against Federer in the first set and won something like 7 games in a row. You just don't do that. He's the kind of person that would excel in anything he attempted.

And while I do think Borg is the best ever -- his French-Wimbledon streak was the most impressive thing in any sport until the days of Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods -- I still can't see any argument to put McEnroe ahead of Sampras/Fed simply because he was 2nd best for at least half his career. And Connors was excellent, but to be fair, almost any argument you give against Agassi, you can use against Connors -- their careers are actually quite similar in some ways: longevity, a sporadic #1 ranking throughout their career and an exceptional record in all tournaments -- I have to give it to Aggassi because he won Wimbledon and French though. And because of all the other arguments I gave

davyjose

ByrdsFan wrote: »

Borg
Sampras
Federer
Rod Laver
Agassi
McEnroe
Lendl
Nadal
Connors
Becker

Yeah, these really are the 10 you have to put there IMO. It changes, but any argument for anyone outside this group falls short IMO.

I'm sure 95% of us are putting Laver there in recognition of his achievements, not because we're entirely au fait with the in's and out's of his game. But the other nine - we've all seen the matches and heard the stories

ByrdsFan

davyjose wrote: »

Yeah, these really are the 10 you have to put there IMO. It changes, but any argument for anyone outside this group falls short IMO.

I'm sure 95% of us are putting Laver there in recognition of his achievements, not because we're entirely au fait with the in's and out's of his game. But the other nine - we've all seen the matches and heard the stories

Exactly man, my earliest memories of tennis, were the finals with becker & edberg in the late 80s, fantastic matches. Same with Agassi & Sampras in the 90s and now Nadal & Federer in the 00s.
There has been so many great players in all eras, but who just did'nt make the cut, but all the above really were the big hitters , as far as slams go anyways. In contribution to the game, most of em knew their duties aswell, tried their best to bring it to a wider audience ,they gave back to the game aswell.

Mikel

davyjose wrote: »

I still can't see any argument to put McEnroe ahead of Sampras/Fed simply because he was 2nd best for at least half his career.

well it's all opinion, but watch the 1984 Wimbledon final and you'll the greatest single display of tennis by any player. I always think that the most recent exploits are overweighted in comparison to what went before

MisterAnarchy

I cant comment on the older players as I havent seen them play enough but I'll pick the best 7 of the last 20 years

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi
4. Connors
5. Edberg
6. Becker
7. Nadal

LordSutch

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I cant comment on the older players as I havent seen them play enough but I'll pick the best 7 of the last 20 years

1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi
4. Connors
5. Edberg
6. Becker
7. Nadal

No BORG :eek:

I understand your young age, but you really do need to see some BORG footage & to read-up on his amazing tennis career (1971-1984) to understand why he so highly thought of & regarded as being one of the best (arguably the Very Best) player of all time ...........