Fremen
Louie
Yinette PerezGreatest of all Time?
June 20th 2009 06:29
Honestly, I'm a bit sick of this question, because really, there are so many answers, and there isn't really a way to define "greatness". We can obviously say that there is HUGE doubt now, since Federer secured his 14th. What does this mean for the rest? I'm not so sure...
The way I see it, there are lots of niches inside of the tennis world, and like team sports, such as football, which tends to classify players by position (i.e. Tom Brady is the highest scoring quarterback, Randy Moss has the best single season TD receptions, Emmett Smith is one of the best Running Backs of all time), I see Tennis as not a sport in which someone can be the best of all time, but the best of an era, or the best at a certain skill.
Also, this list is exclusively for men's tennis. I'm not so well verse in women's tennis since I, personally don't enjoy watching it as much. For some reason, it just rarely seems to have the same tenacity or athletic display that men's tennis does, for me. That would be a whole different discussion, but it would probably end up with Graf, Navratilova, BJK, Evert, and Court.
My (personal) list of greats:
Most Dominant Players: Bill Tilden (Pre-Open Era), Pete Sampras (Open Era)
Honorable Mention: Roger Federer
This is for very specific reasons. I'm sure people like Borg, Laver, or even Federer could make this in other people's minds, but the way I see dominance is is that it's not only dominating (being #1 is only a prerequisite here), but also dominating for a period of time. Both Bill and Pete dominated for a little more than 5 years each, Bill in 1920-1926, and Pete in 1993-1998. Big Bill had an impressive .936 win-loss ratio, while Pete conquered his way to 14 finals without a French. In an age where Men's tennis has depth like it does today, Pete's records are the best of all time. Federer hasn't beat him yet (since Nadal is still up in the head to head), but I think he'll do it soon and take over in this category.
Most Successful Player: John McEnroe
Now, some of you out there reading are probably like, "You CANNOT be serious!" The way I define success is a mix of longevity and winning tournaments while staying one of the most dominant players of his time. The reason I picked Jonny Mac over others is that he won the most tournaments. Quite simply, nobody could touch him back in the day (as far as how active he was), and his on court antics (not really a fitting word, is it?) made him one of the most endeared and popular sports figures of his time. His success on and off the court almost forces me to put him in this spot.
Best Longevity: Andre Agassi
Simply put, he produced the best results, when he was the oldest. He won the 2003 AO at age 33.
Quickest Peak: Michael Chang
I'm not too sure how to word this one, but again, simply put, he won the French Open in 1989 and became the youngest Open Champion of all time (at a young 17).
Best Slow Courter: Bjorn Borg
Come on, Roland Garros and Wimbledon are called the "Borg Combo" collectively. Is this one even debatable? Borg played professional tennis for a mere 8 years (successfully, which is relatively short) and he won these two three times in the same year and five other times off set (making 11 total). He never won a hard court open, but to be honest, I don't think that detracts from his career all that much. Considering how much more prestigious Wimbledon is and how entertaining slow courts are, I think he's totally in the same conversation as the other legends. He's also the most dominant player ever at Roland Garros. Nadal is coming close, but needs 2 more until he can grab about tying Borg (and at this rate, like Borg, I think he'll do it).
That's it for now, but I'll post more later. My reasons:
1) I'm tired, and I've been working on this for two days with no end in sight (there are just so many players I want to cover and so little time).
2) There are too many more things to do and I think it's best to post this now. Plus I kinda need more people to read this...so tell your friends and link this site everywhere!
3) I'm tired.
Did I say that yet? Cuz, I am. I just watched around 2 hours of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, and after that adrenaline rush that was the 5th set, I think it's time to sleep. I'll continue this article in segments later when I have nothing newer/better to write about as a kind of fallback topic.
Just some notes about players I haven't talked about enough who will probably be the next ones I talk about : Nadal, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Emerson, Laver.
I'm also going on vacation for a week or so, so I'll try to keep up with Wimbledon ...but it's kinda vacation, so no promises.
The way I see it, there are lots of niches inside of the tennis world, and like team sports, such as football, which tends to classify players by position (i.e. Tom Brady is the highest scoring quarterback, Randy Moss has the best single season TD receptions, Emmett Smith is one of the best Running Backs of all time), I see Tennis as not a sport in which someone can be the best of all time, but the best of an era, or the best at a certain skill.
Also, this list is exclusively for men's tennis. I'm not so well verse in women's tennis since I, personally don't enjoy watching it as much. For some reason, it just rarely seems to have the same tenacity or athletic display that men's tennis does, for me. That would be a whole different discussion, but it would probably end up with Graf, Navratilova, BJK, Evert, and Court.
Pete Sampras
Disclaimers: I am a huge advocate of American Tennis, and while I try to be fair, I'm always going to think (internally of course) that Pete is the best. Sorry folks, but living in a country that had Tilden, Ashe, Connors, McEnroe, Chang, Agassi, Sampras and Roddick kind of skewed my opinion a little.
My (personal) list of greats:
Most Dominant Players: Bill Tilden (Pre-Open Era), Pete Sampras (Open Era)
Honorable Mention: Roger Federer
This is for very specific reasons. I'm sure people like Borg, Laver, or even Federer could make this in other people's minds, but the way I see dominance is is that it's not only dominating (being #1 is only a prerequisite here), but also dominating for a period of time. Both Bill and Pete dominated for a little more than 5 years each, Bill in 1920-1926, and Pete in 1993-1998. Big Bill had an impressive .936 win-loss ratio, while Pete conquered his way to 14 finals without a French. In an age where Men's tennis has depth like it does today, Pete's records are the best of all time. Federer hasn't beat him yet (since Nadal is still up in the head to head), but I think he'll do it soon and take over in this category.
Most Successful Player: John McEnroe
Now, some of you out there reading are probably like, "You CANNOT be serious!" The way I define success is a mix of longevity and winning tournaments while staying one of the most dominant players of his time. The reason I picked Jonny Mac over others is that he won the most tournaments. Quite simply, nobody could touch him back in the day (as far as how active he was), and his on court antics (not really a fitting word, is it?) made him one of the most endeared and popular sports figures of his time. His success on and off the court almost forces me to put him in this spot.
Best Longevity: Andre Agassi
Simply put, he produced the best results, when he was the oldest. He won the 2003 AO at age 33.
Quickest Peak: Michael Chang
I'm not too sure how to word this one, but again, simply put, he won the French Open in 1989 and became the youngest Open Champion of all time (at a young 17).
Best Slow Courter: Bjorn Borg
Come on, Roland Garros and Wimbledon are called the "Borg Combo" collectively. Is this one even debatable? Borg played professional tennis for a mere 8 years (successfully, which is relatively short) and he won these two three times in the same year and five other times off set (making 11 total). He never won a hard court open, but to be honest, I don't think that detracts from his career all that much. Considering how much more prestigious Wimbledon is and how entertaining slow courts are, I think he's totally in the same conversation as the other legends. He's also the most dominant player ever at Roland Garros. Nadal is coming close, but needs 2 more until he can grab about tying Borg (and at this rate, like Borg, I think he'll do it).
That's it for now, but I'll post more later. My reasons:
1) I'm tired, and I've been working on this for two days with no end in sight (there are just so many players I want to cover and so little time).
2) There are too many more things to do and I think it's best to post this now. Plus I kinda need more people to read this...so tell your friends and link this site everywhere!
3) I'm tired.
Did I say that yet? Cuz, I am. I just watched around 2 hours of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, and after that adrenaline rush that was the 5th set, I think it's time to sleep. I'll continue this article in segments later when I have nothing newer/better to write about as a kind of fallback topic.
Just some notes about players I haven't talked about enough who will probably be the next ones I talk about : Nadal, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Emerson, Laver.
I'm also going on vacation for a week or so, so I'll try to keep up with Wimbledon ...but it's kinda vacation, so no promises.
| 32 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
