On the Booker, I’m afraid they have in fact done exactly what I have done here and taken it further by declaring a winner. The Best of the Booker was recently held (after 40 years) and after declaring a short list a public vote was held and Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children got the nod.

Something else about Newcombe. He didn’t play Wimbledon in 72/73 when he would have been close to favourite, yet he still won three.

Another (outside) contender for the Aussies list – Mervyn Rose, French open winner ’58 and one of the few claycourt specialists we have produced.

Regain the number one ranking in the world and break Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slams.

Even if he wins a solitary title at Roland Garros, it won’t solidify his place atop the all-time pantheon if he doesn’t accomplish those two things.

When I first started following sport (late 60s), Hoad was often spoken off in reverent tones. Not so much today.

I’m a big fan of Newc, who like Hoad, played good tennis while still being a ‘lad’. Could either have been better had they taken their tennis more seriously? Or was this just part of their personality.

Although Emmo benefitted from so many key players absent on the prop circuit, he was still a good player in his own right. Rochey suffered ‘tennis elbow’ at 23-24, & this seemed to inhibit his development.

Shouldn’t let personalities influence, but am not a fan of Hewitt at all. In his younger days, when he seemed to have limitless energy, his court coverage papered over technical deficiencies. Now he’s slower around the court, he can’t hide those deficiencies.

Finally, a generalisation. The number of GS wins tells you some things about players. But often its the opinion of peers that really counts. Although the drawback here is that players are inclined to talk up other players from their own era, naturally.

Same with us fans. For example, you say o & so from when I was in my 20s was the best ever, therefore corollary is, the era of my 20s is the best ever, etc. We all like to think we lived in the best of times.

I think that match between Gonzales and Pasarell shows why the tie breaker is such a good idea. Or is it? I remember Pasarell went on to be a decent player.

You’ve dug up some interesting stuff, and I must admit I’ve been doing a bit of reading myself. Gonzales is an enigmatic case. I was surprised at how strong his case for being all time no. 1 is, especially the opinion of those who saw him at his peak. Hard to gauge when we are used to judging players on Grand Slam wins. Kramer apparently dominated him when he first joined the pro ranks, but as Kramer declined Gonzales matured and took over as no. 1. He had the wood on Sedgman, and later Rosewall. Hoad seems to have been his first real challenge in the late fifties. Indeed by all accounts Hoad seems to be the only player Gonzales both feared and respected. “He was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me. I think his game was the best ever, better than mine,” said Gonzales. You can’t ignore that. If you look at Hoad’s year in ‘56, just missing the Grand Slam at the U.S. and also winning all the major clay tournaments (French, Italian, German) when he was essentially an attacking serve volleyer, then winning Wimbledon again in ‘57 before turning pro, it’s pretty impressive. He also dominated Laver in the early ‘60’s. Inconsistency and laziness seems to be the cross against Hoad’s name. He always remained the lad from Glebe.

There seems to be an extra factor involved with any player who was able to achieve world no.1 for any significant period of time. These guys have more than just their shots to play with. Mental toughness and the ability to find a way to win against any other player is a huge part of it. I have a feeling that most people would rate Connors higher than Newcombe, but I remember Newcombe could beat Connors before he retired. The great players find a way to play their strengths to their opponents weakness, and that is the challenge Federer now faces with Nadal and Djokovic.

Interesting that the AP list rates Emerson so highly. Without meaning to slight him I have always felt that his GS wins were due to all the best players being pro and him having free reign. I guess the sixties will always be a contentious period in tennis because of the amateur/pro divide.

The list of Aussies is a talking point in itself. I think I’d go along with it for the most part. I’d be tempted to swap Newk and Emmo around and of course I can’t really gauge Brooks. Would Hewitt make it now? He was no.1 for longer than Rafter. Tony Roche and Pat Cash are probably the only others who would have a claim, but they would probably be correct at 12 and 13.

I’d go along with the top 5 in the AP womens list, too. But the Williams sisters would have strong claims now.

Your article encouraged me to chase up some scraps I had. In December 1999, Associated Press came up with the following top men & women tennis players of the 1900s. The number of 1st votes is in brackets.

Men: Women:

1. Laver (47) 1. Graf (52)
2. Sampras (39) 2. Navratilova (51)
3. Tilden (38) 3. Court (40)
4. Borg (29) 4. King (39)
5. Budge (28) 5. Evert (38)
6. Hoad (19) 6. Lenglen (30)
7. McEnroe (19) 7. Moody (29)
8. Emerson (18) 8. Connolly (18)
9. Rosewell (18) 9. Seles (7)
10. Kramer (16) 10. Goolagong (5)
11. Connors (13) 11. Gibson (4)
12. Gonzales (12) 12. Bueno (4)
13. Agassi (10)

Not to be outdone Tennis magazine issue Dec 99/Jan 00 came up with the following lists.

1. Sampras & Graf
2. Agassi & Seles
3. Laver & Navratilova
4. Borg & Moody
5. McEnroe & King
6. Lendl & Evert
7. Emerson & Court
8. Ashe & Lenglen
9. Becker & Austin
10. Connors & Dupont

I’m inclined to think AP were more accurate in their assessment. Note this is all pre-Federer. The final list is provided by Australian Tennis’ highly respected journalist/writer/historian Alan Tengrove. In the early 2000s, he nominated the following 10 greatest Aussie male tennis players.

1. Rod Laver
2. Lew Hoad
3. Ken Rosewell
4. Norman Brookes
5. Roy Emerson
6. John Newcombe
7. Frank Sedgman
8. Jack Crawford
9. Pat Rafter
10. Neale Fraser

A final word or a few on Pancho Gonzales. Born 1928. US singles 1948-49. Wimbledon & French doubles 1949. Davis Cup winner 1949. Wembly pro singles champion 1950, 51, 52, 58. Wembly pro doubles champion 1950, 51, 52, 56, 58. Champion’s champion pro round robin tournament 1954, 56, 57, 58 & 59, drew 23-23 (matches) with Hoad.

He was ranked #1 amateur in 1948-49, & when tennis went open in 1968, was ranked #9 at age 40. In a Wimbledon round match of 1969, he beat the much younger fellow American Charlie Pasarell in a monumental 112 game marathon: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9.

Over to you, Rory!

It’s possible we’re still waiting to see the greatest tennis player of all time. There’s an argument that a player who wins all 4 majors more than once can claim bagging rights because he will have won on 4 different surfaces (since we moved to 4 different surfaces).

I accept the arguments against Agassi. Yes, he won all 4 majors on different surfaces, but perhaps not enough to be acclaimed the greatest ever. But I for one, am a huge fan of his.

My personal favourite is Laver, however I have read several different sources that argue Gonzales might have been the greatest ever, although you wouldn’t know from his GS records. During his professional career, he pretty well dusted Kramer, Hoad, Rosewell & Laver, etc. I think I would pick Gonzales to play for my life.

It would be interesting to dig up the one on one career stats here. Great article, BTW.

The French Open is always a bone of contention – how much stock should we put in the fact that some never win it? Yes, Agassi won it and Federer hasn’t but on the other hand Agassi didn’t have to face Nadal in the final as Federer has the last three years, and the one before that in the semi.

Sampras was at a loss on clay, as Lendl was on grass.

McEnroe over Connors and Lendl is also a tough call, but I’m making it based on my feeling that McEnroe was a more gifted player than either and at his best was better, certainly not in the sportsmanship department, though Connors had his moments too. It’s a personal judgement but nice point about doubles – McEnroe was also one of the great doubles players.

I’ve left Fred Perry out on the basis that as far as I can see from the history books, he had an ongoing rivalry with Budge and Ellsworth Vines, but it seems to be Budge who edged out the other two, just.

Emerson was obviously a very good player but he benefitted from Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall et al all playing in the pro ranks. He would not have snagged all those Grand Slams if he had to face them.

Conners and Lendl not only won 8 Grand Slams to McEnroe’s 7, they also won significantly more singles titles.

According to the ATP, Conners won 109, Lendl 94 and McEnroe 74.

You can argue yourself into the ground over tennis.

For example, Agassi is the only player to win all 4 Grand Slams on at least three different playing surfaces. Is that a more impressive accomplishment than Laver winning all 4 in the same year?? Granted Laver won the two most important hardcourt tournaments that year as well as the leading indoor tournaments, but you can see why people fix the 15 Grand Slams as Federer’s mark.