GOAT - debata

[robpal]

Nie tylko bilans w sezonie się liczy (w ten sposób należy Djokovicia natychmiast jako kandydata na GOAT-a liczyć, bo dominacja w tym sezonie niesamowita, a mimo wszystko brakuje mu jeszcze osiągnięć, żeby rozważać go w takich kategoriach)
Dla mnie najważniejsza jest ilość tytułów wielkoszlemowych i umiejętność wykrzesywania z siebie "co najlepsze" w najważniejszych turniejach.

Nie należy też zapominać, że kiedyś rywalizacja w tenisie była dużo, dużo mniejsza niż teraz.

[Wujek Toni]

To niezaprzeczalne, że radził sobie na niej słabo, ale gdyby nie Kafelnikov w 1996 roku, to Pistol wygrałby RG i jest to tak samo prawdopodobne jak to, że Borg miałby 16-17 Szlemów, żeby grał do 30-stki.

Ostrożnie z takimi stwierdzeniami. Jak się zaczyna od "gdyby na RG w 2009 roku Nadal nie przegrał z Soderlingiem..."(dalej wiadomo co), to spotyka się to z natychmiastową krytyką

Może zabrzmi to śmiesznie/głupio, ale dla mnie Sampras to podobny typ do Nadala Hiszpana, poniekąd obraźliwie, nazywa się "beneficjentem wolnych nawierzchni", to samo tyczy się Pete'a, który był za to beneficjentem nawierzchni szybkich, bo oprócz cegły grało się na szybszej Australii, szybszych kortach w USA i dłuższy sezon w hali. Styl miał idealnie podpasowany pod taką grę, na cegle w zasadzie nie zaistniał (jedyny sensowniejszy wynik na miarę jego legendy to wygrany Rzym) i sądzę, że dzisiaj ugrałby góra połowę tego, co wygrał.

Czyli mam rozumieć, że Nadal wygrałby wszystkie Szlemy w latach 90-tych, na zabójczo szybkim Wimbledonie i nieporównywalnie szybszych od aktualnych US i AO Open, mając za przeciwników specjalistów od tych nawierzchnii?

[DUN I LOVE]

Ostrożnie z takimi stwierdzeniami. Jak się zaczyna od "gdyby na RG w 2009 roku Nadal nie przegrał z Soderlingiem..."(dalej wiadomo co), to spotyka się to z natychmiastową krytyką

Robpal, znamy się nie od dziś i bardzo dobrze znasz mój stosunek do gdybania. Mając to na uwadze, celowo podkreśliłem słowo "gdyby".

Może zabrzmi to śmiesznie/głupio, ale dla mnie Sampras to podobny typ do Nadala Hiszpana, poniekąd obraźliwie, nazywa się "beneficjentem wolnych nawierzchni", to samo tyczy się Pete'a, który był za to beneficjentem nawierzchni szybkich, bo oprócz cegły grało się na szybszej Australii, szybszych kortach w USA i dłuższy sezon w hali. Styl miał idealnie podpasowany pod taką grę, na cegle w zasadzie nie zaistniał (jedyny sensowniejszy wynik na miarę jego legendy to wygrany Rzym) i sądzę, że dzisiaj ugrałby góra połowę tego, co wygrał.

Ja bym wskazał też głowę. W swoich optymalnie granych meczach obaj byli mentalnie jak ze skały.

[Wujek Toni]

Nie wiem co to za wyczyn być mentalnie ze skały, gdy ma się zaufanie do własnego ciała i wiadomo, że jest się w stanie zawsze przebić , nawet na środek , tę jedną piłkę więcej od rywala.
Siłę psychiczną zawodnika poznaje się w momentach kryzysowych, a nie gdy ów znajduje się na tak zwanej "fali". Dowód? Po dwóch porażkach z ręki Novaka, Nadal omal nie wtopił z Isnerem meczu otwarcia na RG, przegrywając przy okazji dwa tie-breaki.

W czasach dominacji Federer też był uważany za psychicznie nienaruszalnego, ileż to razy wyciągał podanie z 0-40, nawet w trudnych momentach? Bo ja nie jestem w stanie tego zliczyć. I nie wynikało to z jego stalowych nerwów, tylko zaufania we własne podanie przede wszystkim( nogi, patrz akapit wyżej).

[robpal]

Czyli mam rozumieć, że Nadal wygrałby wszystkie Szlemy w latach 90-tych, na zabójczo szybkim Wimbledonie i nieporównywalnie szybszych od aktualnych US i AO Open, mając za przeciwników specjalistów od tych nawierzchnii?

Grałby inaczej niż teraz. Przecież on w 2004, 2005 roku grał normalnego, w miarę ofensywnego tenisa (wygrywając Mastersy na hardzie i w hali), bez puszczania rogalików co druga piłka.
Poza tym, nie wiem co oznacza "specjalista od hardu". To akurat podłoże dość uniwersalne i większe czy mniejsze szanse mają wszyscy, nie raz widzieliśmy epickie pojedynki "ziemniaków" z graczami s&v. Finał Wimbledonu Nadal zrobił już w 2006 roku i powtórzył to w każdym występie. Tak więc beneficjentem nie jest, bo już gdy zaczął grać, było tam wolno. Co najwyżej ma "styl gry dopasowany do nawierzchni wolnych", nikt specjalnie dla niego kortów nie zwalnia.
I dziwi mnie absolutne przekonanie, że Nadal na szybszych nawierzchniach nic by nie ugrał i zarazem pewność, że Federer grając stylem dominant baseliner by kosił tam wszystkich, z Samprasem na czele, który np. na Wimbledonie dominował jeszcze bardziej niż Szwajcar To tak, jakby w ciemno założyć, że Hiszpan by sadził cały czas swoje baloniki, a Federer by się "rzecz jasna" przerzucił na s&v. Jak Rafa zaczynał karierę, to był "nieoszlifowany" i mógł pójść w każdą stronę, zarówno defensywną, jak i agresywną.

[DUN I LOVE]

Czyli mam rozumieć, że Nadal wygrałby wszystkie Szlemy w latach 90-tych, na zabójczo szybkim Wimbledonie i nieporównywalnie szybszych od aktualnych US i AO Open, mając za przeciwników specjalistów od tych nawierzchnii?

Grałby inaczej niż teraz.

Jest to ciekawy problem, niestety nie do odgadnięcia. Ja jednak uważam, że w erze specjalizacji, Nadal grałby raczej tak samo (ew. bardzo podobnie), co skutkowałoby dominacją na cegle i średnimi wynikami na innych nawierzchniach.

Hiszpan w tym temacie - niebezpiecznie się robi.

[robpal]

Hiszpan w tym temacie - niebezpiecznie się robi.

Czemu niebezpiecznie? W kategorii GOAT-a nie da się go rozpatrywać, ale że temat ślizga się też po okolicach, to zahaczy i o Rafę, który niewątpliwie jest w ścisłym topie tenisistów wybitnych a niektóre rekordy wyśrubował niesamowicie

[DUN I LOVE]

Podpuszczam. W mojej liście (której poukładanej nie mam) Hiszpan mieści się w Top-12, może nawet top-10.

[jonathan]

Nie ma większego sensu przerzucać jakiegoś tenisisty do minionej epoki, ale...

Zdecydowanie i Nadal, i Djoković nie mieliby żadnych szans z Samprasem i Agassim na hardzie przy tamtym sprzęcie i stylu gry. Co do Pete'a, to tylko Federer w absolutnie szczytowej formie mógłby zagrozić mu w Wimbledonie - cały czas mówimy o tamtych warunkach, czyli bardzo szybkiej trawie i sztywniejszych ramach. Rafa wyróżnia się oczywiście tytułami na mączce, ale z kolei nadgarstek by mu odpadł, gdyby próbował grać te swoje topspiny takimi rakietami jak Courier czy Andre 20 lat temu w słynnym finale RG 1991.

15 lat temu odebranie serwisu Samprasa na trawie było wyczynem, podobnie - wygranie wymiany z Agassim na hardzie wymagało świetnych zdolności (tzw. shot-making), bo nie dałoby się tak bronić jak to teraz robią Nadal, Djoković czy nawet Federer. Naciągi znacznie ułatwiają returny, więc dzisiaj trzeba więcej biegać i raczej trzymać się linii końcowej, a za zbyt pochopne pójście do przodu można został błyskawicznie ukaranym. Obecnie mamy trzech nietuzinkowych mistrzów, z których jedynie Szwajcar wyróżnia się jeszcze w miarę tradycyjnym podejściem, czyli opiera grę głównie na precyzji uderzeń i agresywnym ataku z półwolejów czy przy siatce, ale większość prezentuje atletyczny tenis oparty na wytrzymałości, która kiedyś nie była aż tak bardzo potrzebna. Sprinterskie umiejętności a la Rafa nie pomogłyby w tamtych czasach zreturnować piłki zagranej ostrym slajsem na szybkiej trawie - lądowałaby ona w siatce albo na aucie i tyle. Po prostu wraz z wyrównaniem różnic nawierzchni kortów oraz postępie technologicznym w rakietach i naciągach zmienił się obraz gry i pojawił się inny typ tenisowego wojownika, co oczywiście nie znaczy wcale, że ta generacja jest lepsza.

[robpal]

Zdecydowanie i Nadal, i Djoković nie mieliby żadnych szans z Samprasem i Agassim na hardzie przy tamtym sprzęcie i stylu gry.

Oni by już nie mieli szansy na sprzęcie każdym innym, niż w zasadzie kopia ich własnego. Jakby dać Rafie rakietę Rogera, to by ostrzeliwał trybuny. W drugą stronę też by było śmiesznie, choć pewnie nie aż tak bardzo

[sheva]

Is Roger Federer playing better than ever?

Spoiler:

Before we start, a prediction; you will find below, unless you are the first poster, a rather lively debate. It's going to be argumentative, and it could get a little rough in there, but it's going to be passionate and that's what these pages are all about!

The debate began on the radio last week, leading to a minor stir in the press and replies to @5livetennis in a total twitter-tizzy.

The question is about Roger Federer, the six-time ATP World Tour Finals champion who sealed the 2011 title at the O2 in London with a three set win over brave Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in a stirring final on Sunday.

Whether now, at the age of 30 and with a world ranking of three, Federer may actually be a better player than, say, five years ago as the undisputed world number one.

Before you hurl blog-bog in my direction (please, my suit needs to stay fresh for our end of season lunch) remember I am simply posing the question rather than put my neck on the chopping board. For now.

Can anyone say for certain that Roger Federer is a worse player these days? He may look it, statistically, but as he said the other day; "It's only logical to improve as a player".

So is he actually better? Is there an argument which would stand tall in the court of BBC Blogdom? Either way, I want to hear it.

My first thought on the matter is that it's too easy to base any claim of Federer decline on losing more matches than he used to, or his woeful (!) ranking, or his inconsistency.

He loses more matches because he's got a handy trio - Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray - as his nearest rivals. His other losses this year have come to fine talents Tomas Berdych, Tsonga and Richard Gasquet with his defeat to Jurgen Melzer in Monte Carlo the only real shocker.

First Nadal and then Djokovic raised the performance bar, just as Federer did a few years back. That, in part, explains the inconsistency as he can't dominate like a few years back.

But, more importantly, players believe they can beat him now. They don't check out mentally like they used to, therefore comeback wins are more frequent against a Federer perceived as being more fallible.

Should this not always have been the case? Lower-ranked players used to be beaten in the locker room and this invincibility factor unquestionably played a big part in Federer's peak 2004-2007 period.

Now he faces greater belief, harder ball, tougher matches, more losses. Does that make him a weaker player, or not?

What about his game. The serve appears just as good, the slider out to the forehand side of the deuce court particularly effective, but I think he misses more volleys.

His backhand is better. More variety, fewer frames. ("Everyone played into my backhand", he said this week, "so it was always going to get better") He may be a touch slower, that's the common consensus, but has anyone clocked him on sprints lately?

His movement appeared slightly better in his all-conquering pomp yet, again, how do we prove this is not a consequence of a better ball coming at him? Is he just being made to look slower?

And so we come to the area where he has really taken a hit in the last two years; closing out matches from winning positions.

Match points against Djokovic in the US Open, a two set lead over Tsonga at Wimbledon. More got away back in 2010; close matches with Berdych and Monfils spring to mind.

He could, of course, do nothing about the amazing forehand return Djokovic hit in New York, scraping the line in the semi-final, but these are not positions one would have expected the "old" Federer to let slip.

Even on Sunday night at the O2 we saw him blowing a 5-3 lead in the second set and a 5-2 lead in the subsequence tie-break.

Fresh belief of his opponents - Tsonga hit some great shots with his back to the wall, like at Wmbledon - or mental deterioration on Federer's part?

It was interesting to hear him speak about needing to recharge mentally after "doubts" surfaced in the wake of the US Open.

He skipped Asia and has not lost a match (17-0) since his New York defeat. He says he's tired but he looks fresh.

Thanks to Djokovic, the level of men's tennis has hit new heights this year. I remember sitting with Murray, can't remember where, and he said the standard has gone through the roof even in the relatively short time he's been around.

Federer's title success at the ATP Tour Finals, a third trophy in as many tournaments at the end of the season, sets him up perfectly for 2012, a huge year for him with the Olympics and the challenge of ending a two year major drought.

He'd love nothing more than to show the kids he can still improve, can be a better player, and if that happens he wins more majors. His rivals have made him appear in decline but, come the start of the year, they could be looking over their shoulders at the man with the experience, the desire and - still - the talent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanover ... bette.html

[Joao]

Ken Rosewall: The Real GOAT? What About Roger Federer or Rod Laver?

Spoiler:

The last couple of years, tennis fans and pundits have been engaged in a GOAT debate.

Eurosport is even running a fictive GOAT tournament, where the readers decide who proceeds in each round—helped by tennis writer Simon Reed's own pick and analysis.

Is Federer the GOAT, ahead of all the other contenders?

More and more people, who buy into the argument of there being a GOAT, seem to believe so due to his play and to his records. The other top contenders for the title are the usual suspects: Rod Laver, Björn Borg, and Pete Sampras.

Most have left Sampras out of the discussion after Federer beat his Grand Slam record. After all, Federer has won on all surfaces and Sampras only made it to the semis of Roland Garros once.

But Borg is still mentioned.

The iceman retired early and there is a lot of speculation on what could have been. Heck, he only went to Australia once so in effect he was really just playing three Slams a year and retired early.

Furthermore, his win percentage overall in his career and in the Slams he entered, are slightly better than the Swiss Maestro's, though not by much. As Federer has continued to extend his Grand Slam record, even the name of Borg seems to have somewhat vanished from the GOAT discussion.

Now only one man is left: Rod Laver, the two-fold calendar GS winner (1962 as an amateur and 1969 as professional).

He stands at 11 Slams, but more importantly there are those five years from 1963-1967, where he was in his prime and was banned from the Slams as he turned pro as pro's weren't allowed to enter the Slams before the Open Era began in 1968.

How many could he not have won, if he had not shut himself out by turning pro?

More than 20 is often presumed.

Some say 25.

Tim Ruffin declares 19 to be the number given that he won eight pro Slams during his five years of the professional tour (Four times at the Wembly Pro Championship, three times the U.S. Pro Championship, and one time the French Pro Championship).

Problem is, we cannot simply add these to his existing 11.

Why?

Because he captured six amateur Slams, including one of his Calendar Slams, while the majority of the top players already had turned pro and thus were banned.

In Laver's 1962 Calendar Slam, Rosewall was equally impressing on the pro tour, winning seven of the eight most important tournaments.

In 1963 during Laver's first year on the pro tour, he lost his first eight meetings against Lew Hoad and 11 out his first 13 to Rosewall. He continued to be beaten throughout the year by Rosewall.

It's hard to imagine that Laver would have owned those players in 1962 or before had they been allowed to compete against him, especially, as there is widespread agreement, that the best pro's were better than the best amateurs.

Laver's 1963 record bears evidence to that.

However, did you notice that he did not have any Australian Pro Championships?

It did not exist.

We can make the following qualified guesses: Laver would have two of his six amateur Slams but he would have an extra three to four Pro Championships had there been an Australian Pro Championship (He won three-four times respectively on the other two Pro Championships played on grass).

Thus, we end up with 18-19 yet again.

But what about Rosewall?

Born in 1934, four years before Laver, he holds four Grand Slams as an amateur and four Grand Slams as a professional. However, whereas Laver won all his Grand Slam titles between 1960-69, in a decade he was clearly dominating, Rosewall won his between 1953 and 1972!!

Rosewall was banned from the Grand Slams for 11 years—a period in which he won 15 Pro Championships plus. We may imagine an additional number of the non-existing Pro Australian Championship, where he won four of his eight Grand Slams ( in '53, '55, '71 and '72).

But, we must also subtract a couple of Rosewall's amateur titles as Pancho Gonzales clearly was the No. 1 pro player throughout the 50's.

We end up with this estimate: one out of his four amateur Slams plus 15 Pro Slams plus five Australian Pro Slams (five Wembly, two U.S. (out of the six he played, he was absent for six years) and eight French Pro Championships), making it a total of 21.

Given his winning record in Australian Open, we might even put the Australian Pro's higher.

With statistics alone one could therefore argue that neither Federer, nor Laver is the GOAT.

Rosewall is.

But statistics alone doesn't do it.

Federer has clearly been the most successful tennis players of the last decade. Likewise was Laver in the 60's (being No. 1 from '64-'69) and Pancho Gonzales in the 50's.

That leaves Rosewall with no decade to dominate although he did dominate the early 60s and he did own the French Pro Championship. He won it eight times plus an additional two French Open's (some of the Pro's were on indoor wood, which is more remiscent to hard court than to clay). He did not even participate there in the 70's, where he won three other Grand Slams of his eight official Slams.

Rosewall did not have the almost decade-long dominance of Gonzales, Federer and Laver. But he did something neither of them did: He won Slams in three different decades and was in the top-20 for 25 consecutive years from 1952-77 both as an amateur and a pro.

Maybe he is not the GOAT, maybe the concept doesn't make sense. But if we are discussing it, at the very least, he deserves to be at the very top of the discussion.

After all, Laver's part in the discussion is always connected to him being the only one with two Calendar Slams (this is obviously not the only reason, but please show me an argument including Laver as the GOAT not mentioning this as one of the main reasons).

But it should be clear, that Laver would not have had two, but only one, had he been competing against top pro's like Rosewall in 1962.

The argument against both Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and all of the other old greats for that matter would obviously be the overall quality of the field, but that is the inevitable problem when you try to do the impossible: compare eras.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3587 ... -rod-laver

[Joao]

Najlepsi tenisiści wg. Sport Ilustrated

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... ent.1.html

[Robertinho]

Nawet dość sensowny ten ranking.

[DUN I LOVE]

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=186049

Ranking 55 najlepszych tenisistów w historii sporządzony przez jednego z userów MTF. Napracował się chłopak, nie ma co. Patrząc na 2 pierwsze miejsca można byłoby pomyśleć, że to Joao, ale niska pozycja Borga temu wyraźnie jednak zaprzecza.

[Joao]

Nie ma co fajny ranking. W 10 Tilden,Gonzales i Rosewall i Budge . Trochę za nisko (poza 10) Connors i McEnroe.

[Robertinho]

Dziwny trochę ranking, ale jako ciekawostka interesujący.

[Robertinho]

Zaraz zaprzęgnę towarzystwo do dywagowania o jutrzejszych meczach.

[Joao]

Analyzing the Greatest Players of All Time

Spoiler:

Who is the greatest tennis player of all time?

This is a question that is discussed almost daily in the tennis world. But how does one compare players from different generations? How would Pete Sampras fair against Don Budge or Jack Kramer or Bill Tilden? What about Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal playing against Rod Laver or Ivan Lendl?

There was one tennis insider and Wimbledon champion who had a unique perspective on all of the all-time greats in men’s tennis mentioned above in that …he saw them all play! The man is Sidney Wood, who before his death in 2009 at the age of 97, wrote about and compared the greatest players of all-time and documented his thoughts in writing, that was published in 2011 in his post-humously published memoir called THE WIMBLEDON FINAL THAT NEVER WAS…AND OTHER TENNIS TALES FROM A BYGONE ERA

Wood’s chapter called “Analyzing the Greatest Players of All Time” is excerpted below…



******

Bill Tilden vs. Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi? Given today’s immensely more power-packed racquets, who would pick up the marbles? And how about Rod Laver, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, René Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Ellsworth Vines, Bobby Riggs, Lew Hoad, Tony Trabert, Frank Sedgman, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl or Stefan Edberg?

Such questions are constantly put to every player whose repute and venerable status give credence to one’s observations, and even present-day tournament players and chroniclers of the game have an abiding interest in the player-comparison opinions of those they consider eminently qualified.

In fact, at an International Tennis Hall of Fame dinner at Newport a few years ago, Bud Collins, the globe-trotting tennis sophisticate, who was aware that I’d qualified for my first Wimbledon at the unlikely age of 15 in 1927, surprised me with the Tilden-contra-the-world question. He told me the sport of tennis was in need of a book by someone who had seen all the great matches and played “everyone” and that I was also the only guy still around who could first-hand compare and record what every tennis buff would hope to know. Computers now spit out weekly rankings of over 1,000 players on a weekly basis, but back when punch cards were its high-tech breadwinners, national amateur rankings were determined by committees appointed by each country’s tennis association (no more than fifty players were ever rated in the United States) and rankings of the world’s top 10 were decided by a succession of self-appointed London sports columnists whose judgments sometimes appeared based as much on favoritism as fact. Add to this the fact that from 1930, when “Big Bill” Tilden departed the amateur ranks, until 1968, when Jack Kramer led the pro contingent into the “Promised Land of Open Tennis,” the pros were barred from all major tournaments and excluded from the world rankings. This rendered the rankings meaningless as a measurement of the world’s best. Also prior to 1968, virtually every newly-anointed amateur champion would be lured to the pay-for-play game, thereby stripping the amateur ranks of its marquee drawing cards and permitting as yet unproven contestants to be crowned No. 1 in the world of “officially-sanctioned” tennis.

The effect of this double standard? Just tote up the number of stadium-filling superstars lost to the major amateur events through the schism: Tilden in 1931, Cochet in 1933, Vines in 1934, Perry in 1937, Budge in 1939, Riggs in 1941, Kramer in 1948 (following the five-year World War II gap) and, during the next two decades, Gonzales, Sedgman, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert and Laver all bid adieu to the trophy-only circuit.

With each season’s cumulatively diminished quality of competition, the paths to Grand Slam glories were measurably eased for the succeeding year’s hopeful. Put another way, with Wimbledon as our focus, Tilden would have been the bettors’ favorite to garner another two wins; Budge, at least another four or five; Riggs, Kramer and Gonzales, three to five each. As for Trabert, Hoad, Rosewall and Laver, who knows how many among them? Pre-1968 winners such as Wood (ouch, that’s me!), Ted Schroeder, Yvon Petra, Vic Seixas, Jaroslav Drobny, Bob Falkenburg, Budge Patty, Dick Savitt, Ashley Cooper, Alex Olmedo, Neale Fraser, Chuck McKinley, Roy Emerson and Manolo Santana all would have been hard pressed to squeeze out even an occasional win against their abdicated amateur opponents.

Three all-important extenuations bear on the records of our brightest of stars and we must comment on their merits in order that the reader may interpret their relative importance, vis-a-vis the overall picture of the half century under review. For example, the first U.S. airborne wayfarers to Wimbledon and Paris were in 1946. Before that time, the boat trip to Europe was a five-day affair plus the absolutely essential need of a week to find your land legs. Each year you could safely predict that half the top seeds who would debark from the boat from Wimbledon to the United States to compete, usually the next day, in the Meadow Club tournament, and would be out of the singles after the first or second round, would be left to quench their frustrations on the sunny Atlantic sands of Southampton. All in all, it took about eight weeks to make the scene at both Paris and Wimbledon, while from Australia, this period was more than doubled. Often the trip was economically or otherwise unfeasible for the reasonably-pure amateur of those days.

The second consideration was the advent of World War II, which resulted in a six-year championship hiatus from 1940 to 1946 at Wimbledon, Paris and Australia; and, with most of the players in the service, there was a low-level entry at Forest Hills. In virtually every sport, leading athletes lost out on the opportunity to enhance their records during their prime competitive years. In tennis, this especially affected players such as Don Budge, Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer.

The final consideration has to be the development of pro tour tennis, which lured the leading performers to its ranks and prevented their participation in the four major events and Davis Cup. Until 1968, these men were precluded from defending their Wimbledon, Forest Hills and other crowns by the simon-pure rules in effect.

When Rod Laver went pro in 1963, he was fresh off winning his first Grand Slam, in which he dominated and beat everyone in the amateur kingdom. But, here again, there was quite a way to go before he would become a case-hardened touring pro. Though there were to be no more head-to-head professional barnstorming matches, Rod met Gonzales in meaningful tournament matches over a two-year span but could win only a few. How would he have fared after more seasoning and the years had cooled some of Pancho’s fire, we’ll never know.

Also until 1968, Davis Cup regulations prohibited professionals from competing for their countries and over the previous ten years, during which there was high-purse pro tennis decimating the upper reaches of the amateur lists, the world’s best were not participating. This is sad for such a long-recognized important goodwill-builder among nations to be only a minor factor in the considerations of the player’s individual world ranking.

A fair question would be to ask where I get the gall to take on this project. At the age of 14, and almost 90 pounds, I won the Arizona men’s singles, which earned me entry to that year’s U.S. Nationals, the modern-day US Open. The following spring, I was shipped to Paris for the French Championships and shockingly won two rounds to become the youngest ever male qualifier for Wimbledon. There, I played defending champion René Lacoste on the hallowed Centre Court on opening day. In 1931, I became the youngest-ever Wimbledon men’s singles champion at the age of 19 (Boris Becker broke my record in 1985 when he won the title at the age of 17). From that time on, through to the late 1970s (doubles only towards the end!), I was privileged to compete against virtually every top player in the world. At the start of the organized pro game, I invented and patented the cushioned, transportable Supreme Court, which is still used for indoor events, and I was not displeased to be reminded by an old AT P buddy that there was no way the pro indoor circuit could have gone full bore had I not dreamt up the concept.

It is these years of experience and fraternal relationships that permit me to confidently assess the pecking order and relative aptitudes of my tennis brethren in our star-studded galaxy from nearly the dawn of competitive tennis, my aim being not to determine who belongs in any year’s top 10, but how the best would stack up against the best, in any year, past or present.

I’m positively no misogynist, so why would I not have included all those richly deserving ladies in this discussion? I have been present, or have viewed on TV, virtually all important women’s matches going back to the Helen Wills (Moody) era, and I do indeed have opinions as to which stars of the gentler gender belong on which rungs of the all-time ladder of tennis greatness. However, it would not only be more appropriate, but a better qualified assessment if such an analysis were undertaken by one of their own leading ladies who has shared the competitive scene.

My rankings are based essentially on win/loss records in important events, primarily the four majors – the Grand Slams – and the pre-1968, head-to-head pro tours, with appropriate credits accorded Davis Cup competition and other important events. What lies behind the printed scores is what determines the placement of each of the world’s great players. For instance, for many years certain tournaments have traditionally counted more than others. After 1946, when the top-amateur turns-pro system resumed, the purely pro events such as the U.S. Pro Championships, Wembley, and the WCT Finals in Dallas became important. Finally, judgments have to be made of the relative value that should be attached to such factors as longevity, consistency, two-man tour results and the ability to win on the slow as well as the fast surfaces.

The Top Fifteen
1. Don Budge: A no-brainer. In 1938, Don was the first winner of the Grand Slam and for six decades he has been recognized by his peers as the one player to have commanded not only every shot in the book for every surface, but also to have been blessed with the single most destructive tennis weapon ever—a bludgeon backhand struck with a sixteen ounce “Paul Bunyan” bat. All opposed? You might first want to check out Jack Kramer’s required reading, The Game. Jake knows all, tells all. Wrote Kramer in the book, published in 1979, “Don is still the best player I ever saw, and (Ellsworth) Vines is next. Right away a lot of people are going to say I’m an old timer, pushing the guys of my era. Don’t I know that the human body runs faster and jumps higher now than in the 1930s? And I say, yes, I know that, and will you please name me a better hitter than Ted Williams and a better singer than Caruso?… I feel fairly confident in saying that Budge was the best of all. He owned the most perfect set of mechanics and he was the most consistent…Day in and day out, Budge played at the highest level. He was the best.”

2. Jack Kramer: The choice is clear to me, but may be less so to certain of today’s forty to fifty-year-olds; but even a scan of Jake’s professional stats tells you why he was a rung above Pancho Gonzales (who in turn handled all the rest).

3. Bill Tilden: Most sports fans know Bobby Riggs (thanks in part to Billie Jean King, who beat him in the famed 1973 “Battle of the Sexes” match), René Lacoste and Fred Perry (their shirt labels!), but poor Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, Pancho Segura—even Budge, Kramer and Gonzales!—are becoming shadowier with time and better remembered by historically disposed fans. But everyone has heard of William T. Tilden. In his day, Big Bill was as world famous as Jack Dempsey, Bobby Jones—even Babe Ruth! He changed the game’s image from a side-court chair, standing-room sport to a stadium- packed, crowd-pleaser (it was Bill who paid the freight on America’s first tennis stadium at Forest Hills). The press named his pile-driver first serve “The Cannonball” and, allowing for the transformation of tennis racquets, no one other than Frank Shields and Ellsworth Vines ever owned one better. Bill’s enduring record on every surface—an absolute master of every shot in the book—make him a shoo-in for third on my list. Were there more witnesses around who’d seen Tilden play everyone in sight until the age of 48, I might well be sued for leaving him off the top. In spite of his constantly troubled lifestyle, Bill, together with his mighty contemporaries, Jones and Ruth, must go in the books as a once-in-a-century sports aberration.

4. Pancho Gonzales: Other than for his nemesis Kramer, Pancho dominated the pro touring field after leaving the amateur ranks after winning the 1949 U.S. Championships. He had many one-sided win records against such Grand Slam event champions-turned-pro as Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert and Ken Rosewall.

5. Rod Laver: He won the first of his double Grand Slams as an amateur in 1962, but in his 1969 win he had every active pro in the game to vanquish. His only significant tournament disappointment was his failure to win a WCT title, losing two finals to an inspired Ken Rosewall (their second match in 1972 was one of the greatest I’ve ever seen). There will understandably be many who can’t comprehend why I place a two-time Grand Slam titleholder midway among the first ten, but in my opinion, when comparing Laver’s strokes to these other great champions, this is the position in which I feel he belongs.

6. Pete Sampras: You know all about those weeks without end as numero uno, his multiple Slam record, especially his virtual ownership of Wimbledon’s Centre Court. His understandably respectful peers were resigned to playing second fiddle to Pete, but they looked forward to ambushing him on slow clay. But it is Pete’s inability to capture a single French Championship – perhaps to equate with Ivan Lendl’s frustrating naughts at Wimbledon – that puts a hold on marking him ahead of other unbeatables who’ve done it.

7. Fred Perry: Where do you put a player who practically waltzed through three straight Wimbledons and two of our national singles, plus an Australian and French for sweeteners? This, of course, is Fred Perry who did his winning when all the big guns except Vines were around to test him. After he turned pro, Fred played a 61-match neck-and-neck tour with Vines, 1936-37 (Vines won, 32-29), but he began to sag a bit thereafter (Vines beat him head-to-head 49-35 in 1937-38). Barnstorming was not this Britisher’s cup of tea, but he belongs at no less than number seven among the splendid ones.

8. Bjorn Borg: Bjorn practically toyed with everybody through an astounding six French Open wins, but none of us sage old timers gave him a chance to make it past the second round on Wimbledon’s fast grass. Yet overnight, our high-roller, backcourt habitue became a demon volleyer and for five consecutive years, he made mincemeat out of such grass-court winners as Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe. Borg stood an impossible four to five feet behind the baseline to take first serves, but was so fast out of the blocks that few wide slices got past him. He was one hell of an athlete. Could he have continued his dominance on the hard courts of the US Open, Borg would have been a shoo-in to be ranked ahead of all others, but on the hard courts of Flushing Meadows, his second delivery lacked the weight to defend against McEnroe’s chip-and run-in tactics, and Bjorn had to settle for a runner-up role.

9. Ivan Lendl: To me, Ivan was an enigma wrapped in a Centre Court frustration. He’d gladly have refunded Wimbledon’s first prize guineas several times over for just one win, but his best chance was in 1987, when he lost to the lower-ranked Pat Cash. Lendl beat all comers hollow on everything but grass, so why couldn’t he make it? Unlike Borg, no matter how many hours he ultimately spent striving to become a volleyer, habit was too strong. On crucial points, he couldn’t bring himself to leave the baseline and rush to the net, where Bjorn never feared to tread. Nonetheless, with three US Open titles, three French Open titles and two Australian Open titles and an astonishing 11 runner-up showings at majors (totaling 19 Grand Slam tournament finals), how can he not rate an upper berth-spot.

10. Jimmy Connors: Jimmy won eight major singles titles and was an eight-time runner-up. He failed to win only in France where he was unable to capitalize on his flat-hitting power. I was among those who urged Jimmy to stop feeling he had to bury every ball from the baseline, but it wasn’t until his waning years in the big time that the light finally dawned. In his later years, he was a born-again net rusher, but think how many of those lost finals he could have converted to victories had he unshackled his game and groundstroke fixation a decade earlier.

11. John McEnroe: McEnroe’s most remarkable season was 1984. He lost just 13 games in two final-round, straight-set wins in major finals over Connors (Wimbledon) and Lendl (US Open). That’s incredible. At the French, he had Lendl nailed but admitted he blew it and lost after leading two-sets-to-love. If the TV could have been programmed to cut out all but John’s shots in play, you would have been admiring perhaps the most naturally gifted shot-maker ever to play tennis. McEnroe’s great record of three Wimbledon and four U.S. titles, plus four major runner-up showings, puts him high on our ladder, but with even a modicum of self discipline (and regard for our game’s image), I’d bet he could have traded his odorous court garbage for more than just a few more wins.

12. Boris Becker: I’ve had a personal interest in Boris and his career ever since 1985 when he cleaned Kevin Curren’s clock to take the first of his three Wimbledon titles while erasing my 54-year span of being its youngest winner. Boris had a serve with an affinity for the Centre Court turf. He can give you a heavy whack with both his first or second, or slice it with wicked deception. He won one U.S. singles title and two in Australia, but Roland Garros refused to succumb to his power game.

13. Roy Emerson: When Roy wound up on his serve, he looked as if he were bowing to Wimbledon’s Royal Box, which could be habit-formed from having accepted the winner’s trophy there successively in 1964 and 1965. Elsewhere he walked off with two U.S., two French and a mere six Australian singles titles. Although these were before the Open era of tennis (1968), don’t knock it. Roy had what it takes.

14. Stefan Edberg: Stefan is almost a throwback to bygone years when the big events were on grass and 80 percent of the game’s best were serve-and-volleyers. Edberg’s was not a big serve, but his sure-handed, superbly-reflexed and fearless net play won him two titles at Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open, plus a runner-up showing at the French in 1989. How many more would be crowding his trophy room if he could have waltzed in behind such trenchant deliveries as McEnroe’s, Becker’s, Ivanisevic’s, Sampras’s and Krajicek’s? Double maybe?

15. René Lacoste: Inventor of the first ball-throwing machine, the metal racquet and, of course, the chemise Lacoste, René had a tennis game that was every bit as mechanical as his creative brain. As the leader of the Four Musketeers of the courts (with Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra and Jacques Brugnon), René combined his Maginot Line defense game with pinpoint angled, counter-attacking ripostes. His two Wimbledon, two U.S. and three French wins were against such toughies as Bill Tilden and his compatriots Cochet and Borotra.



You might notice that there are some major omissions from this list of top 15 players of all time. Of course missing are the greatest players of the current era, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, as well as Andre Agassi, a winner of eight majors, including a career Grand Slam. My father was fortunate to have the opportunity late in his life to watch these three compete, but was not able to put his thoughts down on paper as part of this compilation. However, he was a big fan of all three players and would no doubt have place them in at least the top 10 of this list. Of Federer, he said he was the most intelligent player he had seen in over 50 years. Of course winning more major singles titles than any other man would place him near the top of this list. Unfortunately, my father passed away just months before Federer won the 2009 French Open that completed his career Grand Slam, and his record-breaking 15th major singles title weeks later at Wimbledon.

In addition to admiring Nadal’s ferocious physical game, my father admired Nadal’s great sportsmanship. My father came from an era in which sportsmanship was expected and the rule of the day. Nadal’s character and how he presents himself was not lost on him. While my father was not around to see Nadal clinch his career Grand Slam at the 2010 US Open, that milestone achievement would have rated him very high on this list.

Agassi was a player who grew on my father. When he first burst on the scene, my father detested his long hair and look – preferring the clean cut style of his own era. In fact, he would often go out of his way to not watch Agassi play. Through the years, however, he began to appreciate him more and admired his strength, speed and the way he played and took great joy in watching him in action. If Agassi’s final body of work (established after my father’s writing) is considered, he too would rank well against the players mentioned in this list, especially with his eight majors that included at least one each of the Big Four.

- David Wood

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6007

[Joao]

Who are the 10 greatest tennis players of open era?

Spoiler:

By Darren Walton, 8 Jan 2011

As Rafael Nadal strives to become only the third man ever – and first since 1969 – to hold all four grand slam trophies at once at this month’s Australian Open, tennis writer Darren Walton ranks the greatest players of the open era (1968-2011) from 10 down to one:

10. STEFAN EDBERG: – Unlike the small army of Swedes who stampeded the ATP Tour following the baseline footsteps of the trailblazing Bjorn Borg, Edberg was a graceful serve-volleyer who came within one tantalising set of achieving the career grand slam. Despite losing the 1989 French Open final in five sets to 17-year-old Michael Chang, Edberg remains the only player ever to claim a junior grand slam, having swept the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US under-18 championships in 1983, the unique feat serving as the appetiser to a stellar pro career.

He wound up a decade later with six grand slam crowns from 11 finals, three Davis Cup trophies and 72 weeks’ service as world No.1. He is one of only eight men to have held the year-end top ranking for consecutive seasons. A model sportsman and unflappable performer, his one-time record 53 straight major appearances is testimony to the fire that burned within. In retirement, Edberg carries that same ruthless competitive streak into national-level squash tournaments and he is also said to be nigh unbeatable in “rackleton” – a multi-sport event featuring tennis, squash, badminton and table tennis.

9. JOHN MCENROE: The Superbrat will forever be remembered for his wild, unrestrained outbursts and signature “you cannot be serious” ranting at umpires, but tennis purists prefer to marvel at his mastery with the racquet. With a mixture of junk, touch and grace and in possession of a unique and deceptive back-to-his opponent serve, McEnroe snared seven grand slam titles from 11 finals, had 14 stints totalling 170 weeks atop the rankings and halted Bjorn Borg’s record five-year Wimbledon reign in one of the greatest matches of all-time in 1981. The German-born firebrand also enjoyed the most dominant season of the 43-year professional era in 1984, winning 82 of 85 matches, a record that only Roger Federer (81-4 in 2005) has ever come close to matching. But to sporting neutrals McEnroe’s volcanic temper overshadowed his winning ways and, among the more notable of his tantrums, he was fined $US7500 and banned for three weeks for demanding an umpire in Stockholm to “answer the question, jerk” and ejected from the 1990 Australian Open for swearing at the umpire, supervisor and tournament referee. For all that, he’s now regarded as the premier TV commentator and analyst in the game.

8. JIMMY CONNORS: Arguably the greatest competitor of all-time, unquestionably the most enduring, James Scott Connors enjoyed an extraordinary career spanning three decades. Among his catalogue of highlights and achievements, he won eight majors from 14 finals, won more titles (109) and matches (1242) than any man in the modern era – at a staggering 82.4 per cent strike rate – and was world No.1 on nine different occasions for some 268 weeks, including five straight years from 1974-78. He spent a dozen years ensconced in the world’s top three and was a fixture in the top 10 for a phenomenal 16 consecutive seasons (1973-88). Connors was also the first man to win grand slam titles on three different surfaces – clay (when the US Open was contested on dirt in 1976), grass and hard courts. He finally signed off after the most emotion-charged encore in tennis history, a pulsating four-hour comeback victory over Aaron Krickstein in the 1991 US Open quarter-finals on his 39th birthday. The maverick American made almost as many headlines off the court, briefly engaged to Chris Evert before settling with playboy model Patti McGuire, with whom he had two children.

7. IVAN LENDL: He had less friends in the locker-room than major titles, but Ivan The Terrible – as he was often labelled – was one hell of a tennis player, as evidenced by his winning record over fellow greats John McEnroe (21-15), Jimmy Connors (22-13), Mats Wilander (15-7) and Boris Becker (11-10). All up, he made 19 grand slam final appearances – less than only Roger Federer (22) – including eight straight at Flushing Meadows. A modern-day pioneer of the baseline power game, the Czech-born court bully, who won eight majors incidentally, occupied top spot in the rankings for 270 weeks, behind only Pete Sampras (286) and Federer (285) and is in an elite group of only eight men to have contested all four grand slam finals. Having won three of the four, super-fit Lendl’s obsession became triumphing at Wimbledon and he even skipped Paris a couple of times in desperate pursuit of his holy grail. Alas, he never broke through. But with 94 career titles – second to Connors – and as the only man ever to have won at least 90 matches in three consecutive years (1980-82), Lendl’s place in tennis history is secure. Upon retirement, he took up golf but never quite made it professionally despite reaching a scratch handicap.

6. ANDRE AGASSI: Surely the most successful pigeon-toed athlete of all-time. Undoubtedly the highest earner in tennis, with his and wife Steffi Graf’s wealth estimated to be near enough to a billion dollars. Known on tour as The Punisher for his brutal groundstrokes, Agassi was the first man (and one of only two along with Rafael Nadal) to achieve the career “golden slam” – winning all four majors plus an Olympic gold medal. The eight-times major champion and 15-times finalist swears his infamous mullet wig cost him at least one more slam – when he feared the shocking hairpiece would fall off in the 1990 French Open final against Andres Gomez – and one wonders how many more he missed out on while plunging to No.141 in the world while married to Brooke Shields and fraternising with Barbra Streisand in the mid-1990s. Amazingly, Agassi recovered to reach four straight grand slam finals in 1999-2000 – one of the rarest feats in tennis – and add four more majors to his collection to take his tally to 101 weeks atop the rankings. Oh, and can anyone else say they beat Pete Sampras 14 times, or boast of 30 grand slam singles trophies in the family household?

***5. ROD LAVER: The Rockhampton Rocket was 30 and in the twilight of his celebrated career when he entered the professional ranks yet remains the only man in the 43-year open era to have pulled off the calendar-year slam with victories at the 1969 Australian, French and US Open championships plus Wimbledon. He also achieved the slam as an amateur in 1962 and Lord only knows how many more majors he would have amassed if not banned from the pro tour between 1963 and 67. As it was, he piled up 11, including five in the open era. And the five-year exile couldn’t stop Laver becoming the first player ever to earn $US1 million in prize money. He didn’t need a wheelbarrow for his cash, though. Laver’s left (hitting) forearm, measuring an abnormal 30cm, was the same size as world heavyweight boxing champion Rocky Marciano’s so when he unleashed one of his famous whip-like backhands, it often didn’t make it back over the net.

4. RAFAEL NADAL: At just 24, the modest Majorcan has already achieved feats most players dream of. His numbers are staggering. Success at last year’s US Open gave Nadal the full grand slam set – the second-youngest of only seven men in history to complete the sweep – and he will arrive at this month’s Australian Open hoping to join Laver and 1930s great Don Budge as only the third man ever to hold all four major trophies at once. Barely halfway into his career, Nadal sits fourth on the all-time grand slam leaderboard with nine majors. The all-court master is nigh unbeatable on clay, his lone defeat in six French Open campaigns coming while troubled by a knee injury. But confirming his all-court prowess, apart from Bjorn Borg, Nadal is the only man in the open era to have achieved the French Open-Wimbledon double more than once (2008 and 2010). And only Federer has conquered Nadal at The All England Club since 2005. Throw in two Davis Cups, an Olympic gold medal, a record 18 Masters Series titles and 70 weeks as world No.1 and an enviable 14-8 winning record over Federer and Nadal has done it all. The single-minded Spaniard may well have raised eyebrows with his lunch snubbing of the Queen at Wimbledon last year, but there is no doubting his own place in tennis royalty.

3. BJORN BORG: Tragically for tennis lovers, the ice-cool Swede was on display for an all-too-brief 10-year-career. But before retiring at just 25, Borg accrued 11 grand slam titles – the third-most in the modern era behind only Federer (16) and Sampras (14) – from 27 entered at a wondrous 41 per cent strike rate. All up, he won 89.2 per cent of his grand-slam singles matches. Both are men’s open-era records that have stood for 30 years. Borg’s adaption from clay to grass is also legendary, with the baseline master completing the French Open-Wimbledon double a record three straight times (1976-78). Had he bothered playing the Australian Open more than once, during a time when mostly locals and lesser lights reigned Down Under, it’s likely Borg would have challenged Federer’s sweet 16 majors. And despite jostling with fellow legends John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, Borg spent 109 weeks atop the rankings. And with 33 consecutive singles victories from 1973-80, Borg is also arguably the greatest-ever Davis Cup performer. On and off the court, the Scandinavian heart-throb transcended the sport like no other. He was the first tennis player ever feted like a rock star and to have women throw him their underwear.

2. PETE SAMPRAS: In a tremendous display of longevity, Pistol Pete won the first of his 14 slams at only 19 and last at 32, both in New York. Sampras rode his clutch serve and killer forehand to an unmatched seven Wimbledon crowns plus five US Open titles and two Australian Open triumphs, owned the top ranking for a record 286 weeks in total – one more week than Federer – and finished top dog for an unrivalled six consecutive years from 1993 to `98. He lost only four grand slam finals out of 18 and eclipses Federer for several big records. Alas, the American cannot be considered the greatest because of his dismal claycourt record. Sampras never made one final at Roland Garros, only ever reached the last four once in 12 attempts and averaged less than two wins a visit to the French capital. Sadly for Sampras, about 80 of his trophies and other priceless memorabilia were stolen this year – but he stopped the search for the Musketeers’ Cup long before that.

1. ROGER FEDERER: The Swiss master ended all arguments when he completed the career grand slam at the 2009 French Open. The once-in-a-lifetime talent owns a mountain of mind-boggling records – including 16 major trophies and 237 consecutive weeks as world No.1. He is the only man ever to contest all four grand slam finals in three different years and is the only player in history to win two different grand slam events for five consecutive years (Wimbledon 2003-07 and US Open 2004-08). Few could have imagined the mighty career ahead when, as a 19-year-old, Federer broke the Wimbledon domination of seven-times champion Sampras in 2001. At his most dominant, the freakish Federer reached 10 consecutive grand slam finals and a surely never-to-be-repeated 18 out of 19 (from 2005 to 2010), 22 in total and an almost incomprehensible 23 successive grand slam semi-finals and won 22 tour finals on the trot. If not for Nadal, the 29-year-old probably would have collected four more titles in Paris and three of his six other major final defeats were in five sets. In total, Federer has accounted for a dozen different rivals in grand slam finals. His crazy stats aside, the 29-year-old has achieved all he has with unrivalled on-court elegance, wielding his racquet like a stylish wand in a manner that may never be seen again. In truth, he could probably beat most social players with a frying pan. The undisputed tennis king.

(*** While Rod Laver won a total of 11 grand slam titles throughout his career, only his achievements from his professional career were considered for this exercise.)

BY THE NUMBERS – HOW THE GREATEST TENNIS PLAYERS OF THE PROFESSIONAL ERA (1968-2011) STACK UP:-

1.ROGER FEDERER (Switzerland)

Pro career: 1998-

Career win-loss record: 746-174 (81%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 208-31 (87%)

Career finals win-loss record: 66-28

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 16-6

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 54-7 (4-1)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 43-11 (1-3)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 55-6 (6-1)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 56-7 (5-1)

Weeks at No.1: 285

2.PETE SAMPRAS (USA)

Pro career: 1988-2002

Career win-loss record: 762-222 (77%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 203-38 (84%)

Career finals win-loss record: 64-24

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 14-4

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 45-9 (2-1)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 24-13 (0-0)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 63-7 (7-0)

US Open win-loss record and record in finals: 71-9 (5-3)

Weeks at No.1: 286

3.BJORN BORG (Sweden)

Pro career: 1972-82

Career win-loss record: 608-127 (83%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 141-17 (89%)

Career finals win-loss record: 63-26

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 11-5

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 1-1 (0-0)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 49-2 (6-0)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 51-4 (5-1)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 40-10 (0-4)

Weeks at No.1: 109

4.RAFAEL NADAL (Spain)

Pro career: 2001-

Career win-loss record: 475-101 (82%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 120-17 (88%)

Career finals win-loss record: 43-13

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 9-2

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 25-5 (1-0)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 38-1 (5-0)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 29-4 (2-2)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 28-7 (1-0)

Weeks at No.1: 70

**5.ROD LAVER (Australia)

Pro career: 1968-77

Career win-loss record: 413-107 (79%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 60-10 (86%)

Career finals win-loss record: 47-23

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 5-1

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 6-1 (1-0)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 13-1 (1-1)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 22-3 (2-0)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 19-5 (1-0)

Weeks at No.1: none (only contested three grand slam events after advent of rankings in 1973)

6.ANDRE AGASSI (USA)

Pro career: 1986-2006

Career win-loss record: 870-274 (76%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 224-53 (81%)

Career finals win-loss record: 60-30

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-7

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-5 (4-0)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 51-16 (1-2)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 46-13 (1-1)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 79-19 (2-4)

Weeks at No.1: 101

7.IVAN LENDL (Czech Republic/USA)

Pro career: 1978-1994

Career win-loss record: 1071-239 (82%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 222-49 (82%)

Career finals win-loss record: 94-52

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-11

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-10 (2-2)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 53-12 (3-2)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 48-14 (0-2)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 73-13 (3-5)

Weeks at No.1: 270

8.JIMMY CONNORS (USA)

Pro career: 1970-1992

Career win-loss record: 1242-277 (82%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 232-49 (83%)

Career finals win-loss record: 109-54

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 8-7

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 10-1 (1-1)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 40-13 (0-0)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 84-18 (2-4)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 98-17 (5-2)

Weeks at No.1: 268

9.JOHN MCENROE (USA)

Pro career: 1977-1992

Career win-loss record: 875-198 (82%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 167-38 (81%)

Career finals win-loss record: 77-31

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 7-4

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 18-5 (0-0)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 25-10 (0-1)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 59-11 (3-2)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 65-12 (4-1)

Weeks at No.1: 170

10.STEFAN EDBERG (Sweden)

Pro career: 1983-1996

Career win-loss record: 806-270 (75%)

Grand slam win-loss record: 177-47 (79%)

Career finals win-loss record: 41-36

Grand slam finals win-loss record: 6-5

Australian Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 55-10 (2-3)

French Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 30-13 (0-1)

Wimbledon win-loss record and (record in finals): 49-12 (2-1)

US Open win-loss record and (record in finals): 43-12 (2-0)

Weeks at No.1: 72

(** While Rod Laver won a total of 11 grand slam titles throughout his career, only his achievements from his professional career were considered for this exercise.

(*** Statistics up to date as at January 7, 2011).

http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/01/08/wh ... s-players/