Who is the greatest men’s tennis player ever?
Columnist By David Lord, 6 Jul 2011 David Lord is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Bjorn Borg, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Wimbledon
8,464 reads
Now the 125th Wimbledon is done and dusted, the argument still rages who is the greatest player in the history of men’s tennis. Novak Djokovic played close to perfection during the first two sets in the decider against defending champion Rafael Nadal. But the Serb is way out of “greatest” contention, with only three Slams.
Roger Federer is the popular pick because he’s still playing and holds the Slam singles record – two to the good of Pete Sampras.
But Slam victories mustn’t be the only criteria. The ultimate recognition goes much deeper than that.
The major Slammers:
* Federer (16) has a genuine claim to the title with six Wimbledons, five US Opens, four Australian, and a French from 2003 to current.
* Sampras (14) doesn’t qualify for not reaching a French final, even though he won seven Wimbledons, five US, and two Australian Opens between 1994 and 2002.
* Roy Emerson (12) doesn’t qualify, despite capturing all four Slams – six Australian, two French, two Wimbledons, and two US between 1961 and 1967. Emerson competed in an era when the best players in the world – Frank Sedgman, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, and Rod Laver – had turned pro and were ineligible for Slams
* Rod Laver (11) automatically qualifies as the only two-time Grand Slam champion, winning all four titles in the same calendar year – 1962 as an amateur, and 1969 as a pro – all up four Wimbledons, three Australian, two French, and two US between 1960 and 1969.
* Bjorn Borg (11) doesn’t qualify. He reached three US Open finals, but never an Australian – winning six French and five Wimbledons between 1974 and 1981.
* Bill Tilden (10) doesn’t qualify. He reached two French finals, never an Australian, in his seven US and three Wimbledons between 1920 and 1930.
* Rafael Nadal (10) qualifies with six French, two Wimbledons, an Australian, and US Opens from 2005 to current.
* Ken Rosewall (8) qualifies, despite four losing Wimbledon finals to go with four Australian, two French, and two US between 1953 and 1974.
* Jimmy Connors (8) doesn’t qualify. He never reached a French final, but won five US, two Wimbledons, and two Australian between 1974 and 1985.
* Andre Agassi (8) doesn’t qualify either, despite winning all four Slams – four Australian, two US, a French and Wimbledon between 1992 and 2003. But Agassi won only 65 career titles, well adrift of Laver’s 200, Connors’ 148, Lendl’s 144, Rosewall’s 132, McEnroe’s 104, and Borg’s 101.
* Ivan Lendl (8) qualifies. He lost two Wimbledon finals, but won three French, three US, and two Australian between 1984 and 1990.
* And Fred Perry (8) doesn’t qualify. He won three Wimbledons, three US, an Australian and a French, but only over a three-year period from 1934 to 1936.
* For the record: seven Slams each for John Newcombe, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Richard Sears, William Renshaw, Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, and William Larney.
That leaves Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Federer, and Nadal in the mix for the greatest of all-time.
Tennis turned professional in 1968, well before Lendl, Federer, and Nadal started their careers.
So it’s not a level playing field for Laver and Rosewall who were changing the face of world tennis as professionals well before 1968, and not eligible for Slams, reserved for amateurs.
Laver missed 20 Slams, Rosewall 46. And both were the best in the world during their pro careers.
It’s reasonable to assume Laver would have won 10 more Slams, had he been eligible, taking his tally to 21.
It’s also reasonable to assume Rosewall would have won at least another 15, taking his tally to 23. Leaving Rosewall and Laver as the front-runners.
The clincher: longevity.
There were nine years between Laver’s first and last Australian titles, eight years between his two French, and seven years between his first and last Wimbledons, and his two US.
But Rosewall was in the Wimbledon finals 20 years apart – there were 19 years between his first Australian title and his last – and he won the French 15 years apart – with 14 years the difference between his two US titles.
No player has come within a binocular distance of those staggering stats.
And Rosewall is still, to this day, the oldest Slam finalist at 39 years and 310 days, when he lost the 1974 US Open decider to Jimmy Connors; 18 years Rosewall’s junior.
So everything points to Kenneth Robert Rosewall as the greatest player in the history of men’s tennis.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Bjorn Borg, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Wimbledon
July 6th 2011 @ 7:38am
amazonfan said | July 6th 2011 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Sorry, but I completely disagree. I don’t even consider Rosewall to be among the six greatest players of all time, let alone the greatest. Before I explain why, I want to say that I find your analysis to be extremely weird. You dismiss players who have failed to reach a final of a GS championship, but also dismiss players who won all four slams (Agassi and Perry). You then conclude with Rosewall, who never won Wimbledon, but have included him because was a finalist there four times.
I don’t understand your reasoning as you’re rewarding players for finishing second. It shouldn’t be good enough that Borg was a finalist at the US, Rosewall was a finalist at Wimbledon, Lendl was a finalist at Wimbledon etc… If they didn’t win these tournaments, they shouldn’t be celebrated as highly as those who did win.
Here is the way I see it: (I prioritize post-WWII players who won 11+ slams)
Federer (16)- A major claim, however he’s second on my list, as he has never claimed The Grand Slam.
* Sampras (14)- He’s third on my list, and that he was only ever a semi-finalist disqualifies him.
* Roy Emerson (12)- I disqualify him for the same reason you do. He would be 11th on my list.
* Rod Laver (11)- The greatest of all time, as he claimed The Grand Slam twice. I regard his having accomplished the feat twice as one of the two greatest sporting feats of all time (the other being Bradman’s average), and as such, I consider him automatically to be the greatest tennis player of all time, as well as one of the five greatest athletes of all time.
* Bjorn Borg (11)- He doesn’t qualify, but not because he never made an Australian Open final. Rather, he never won either the Australian or US Opens. Borg is fifth on my list.
* Bill Tilden (10)-He doesn’t qualify as well, but because he never won the French Open (that he never won the Australian doesn’t help his case either.) Tilden isn’t on my list as he won all of his slams before 1930, and with two exceptions, all of my Greatest Ever Players were post-WW II.
* Rafael Nadal (10)- He’ s fourth on my list (just behind Sampras), but will automatically move to third once he wins his 11th slam. He’s unlikely to challenge Federer for second spot, and will never be first as he has not claimed The Grand Slam.
* Ken Rosewall (8)- He’s seventh on my list. Rosewall’s problem is that he never won Wimbledon, which IMO any top five player must do (as it is, all players in my top 6 have won Wimbledon). It’s the greatest prize in tennis, and no number of finals or any longevity records can IMO make up for his having never won it.
* Jimmy Connors (8)- He’s eighth on my list, as he never won the French. He had an opportunity to claim The Grand Slam in 1974, but was banned from contesting the French. That’s purely academic however.
* Andre Agassi (8)-He’s sixth on my list. The reason that I don’t have him higher, even though he claimed all four GS tournaments, is that he only won 8 slams (if he had claimed 11, he would be a contender for the top three).
* Ivan Lendl (8)- He never won Wimbledon, which IMO is the biggest indictment against any candidate for the title of Greatest Ever. Lendl also won just 8 slams. He is 13th on my list, and it should be noted that all but one of the players above him won Wimbledon.
*Fred Perry (8)- He’s 12th on my list. He would be much higher, however he was pre-WW II.
My all-time top 13:
13)Ivan Lendl
12)Fred Perry
11)Roy Emerson
10)John McEnroe
9)Don Budge
8)Jimmy Connors
7)Ken Rosewall
6)Andre Agassi
5)Björn Borg
4)Rafael Nadal
3)Pete Sampras
2)Roger Federer
1)Rod Laver
July 9th 2011 @ 4:59pm
bestywins said | July 9th 2011 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Some facts regarding Rosewell and Laver. Pro tours actually started back in the 1920′s and 30′s. When Laver won his first so called Slam as an amateur the number 1 player in the world of pro’s was Rosewell. He was 29 years old when Laver turned pro so they never met when he was at the top of his game. Imagine if Nadal had only just started playing the Fed express now instead of all the time.
When Laver did turn pro Rosewell dominated him completely. It was only when Rosewell turned 30 in 1965 did Laver start to peg him back and beat him more.
Look what has happened to Fed the last 2 years, he has peaked and is on the way down. Sampars also dropped off at an alarming rate when he did finally start losing
What happened in the 60′s and now is a more complex argument than people think.
No one can compare the two different era’s of then and now and come to concrete conclusions because the technology advances with equipment and also diet and fitness now is unfair to compare. Back then different skills were utilised than today and both of these players were only 5 ft 7 and used finesse and smarts to beat their opponents. They didn’t bludgeon someone off the court with power. Tell me tha last time a 5 ft 7 inch player won a slam ???????
Now we have players well over 6 ft and have racquets these days that can put a ball on the moon with their power.
As the article points out . When pro’s were allowed back in Rosewell still played above his weight and against the upcoming new technology like Aluminium racquets and new modern methods of training were coming in and he still got to a wimb final. That feat in itself is just mindblowing at his age.
I think Rosewell before 1975 and after l can’t split Fed and Nadal.
Cheers
July 18th 2011 @ 6:41am
amazonfan said | July 18th 2011 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Except Rosewall never won Wimbledon. There is no way I can even consider Rosewall to be the best pre-open era if he never won Wimbledon. His making Wimbledon finals just isn’t good enough. I think you’re making too much of Rosewall’s record against Laver and not enough of his failure to win Wimbledon. Wimbledon is arguably the most important tournament in the world, so IMO in order to be the greatest, I think winning Wimbledon is a must.
Also, add to it that Laver claimed The Grand Slam twice (Rosewall never claimed it at all), and as such Laver IMO was the greatest of all time. Rosewall is seventh on my list; Federer is second, Nadal is fourth (will eventually be third.)
June 2nd 2012 @ 1:11am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 1:11am | Report comment
Are you perhaps conflating the best record ever with the best player ever. Some people may see these as the same thing (like you do), but others might only see it as a contributing factor (like bestywins).
I tend to agree with bestywins because when I think about who the best player ever was, it canNOT be someone (Laver) who for years consistently lost against another (better) player (Rosewell) and only started to get on top when that player (Rosewell) turned 30.
So, I tend to think Rosewell is the best ever.
As to who has the best record ever, that is tough. Laver has 11 grand slam titles and two grand slams, but Federer has 16 grand slams all up, five more than Laver. It is a tough call, but I would go with Laver, just.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:15am
amazonfan said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:15am | Report comment
Yes, that’s right. I do think that the best record is the greatest measurement of the best player, especially since I don’t particularly care about talent. IMO the difference between the greats and the greatest is that the greatest may not necessarily be more talented than the greats, but they are able to win and accomplish what matters.
As such, Laver may not have been able to dominate against Rosewall before Rosewall turned 30, yet Laver still managed to claim The Grand Slam twice and to win 11 slams, while Rosewall won just 8, excluding any Wimbledons. We can debate about what would have happened if Rosewall hadn’t turned pro, or if pros were allowed to contest the slams, but Rosewall had plenty of opportunities to win Wimbledon, which he never did.
One last comment. Even if you consider Rosewall to be superior to Laver (which I don’t), how can you consider him to be the best ever if he never won Wimbledon? I don’t understand that, as Wimbledon is by far the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:21am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:21am | Report comment
Good – we have cleared that up. We aren’t using the same criteria to judge the best ever player, so of course we are going to have different views.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:22am
amazonfan said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:22am | Report comment
Well, yes, of course, however why do you dismiss his failure to win Wimbledon?
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:32am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:32am | Report comment
He won plenty of ‘majors’ on grass. My view which places talent above achievement means him winning on a variety of surfaces is more weighty in my consideration of the best ever.
See Sheek’s comment below about comapring titles on different surfaces. Basically, Rosewall’s record is the best on this front.
Ken Rosewell: 23 total majors – 11 on grass; 6 on clay; 6 on indoor wood.
Rod Laver: 19 total majors – 13 on grass; 2 on clay; 4 on indoor wood.
Roger Federer: 16 total majors – 6 on grass; 5 on hardcourt; 4 on rebound ace; one on clay.
Rosewell and Laver never played on hardcourt or rebound ace. Rosewell won more titles on all of the surfaces on which he played than any other player. This (mastery of the game across surfaces) is a very significant indicator of talent, which I place above winning a particular title such as Wimbledon.
In short, I take a substance over form approach, whereas you take a form over substance approach and this explains our differing views.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:38am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:38am | Report comment
Just to finish my point re my previous comment … so when you say he has won Wimbledon, I say that does not mean he couldn’t play on grass. In fact he was brilliant on grass – he just didn’t win Wimbledon. That is a great shame, but it is not point that diminishes his talent and claim on being the best ever.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:39am
amazonfan said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:39am | Report comment
“In short, I take a substance over form approach, whereas you take a form over substance approach and this explains our differing views.”
That’s not true at all. I believe in substance just as much as you do, however we have a different view of it; mine is perhaps more traditional. That Laver won Wimbledon four times isn’t why I consider him to be the best player of all time. Rather, it’s that he claimed The Grand Slam twice.
That you write ‘plenty of ‘majors’ ‘ highlights the difference in our approaches. However don’t be mistaken that I don’t believe in substance.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:43am
amazonfan said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:43am | Report comment
“Just to finish my point re my previous comment … so when you say he has won Wimbledon, I say that does not mean he couldn’t play on grass.”
Not at all.
“In fact he was brilliant on grass – he just didn’t win Wimbledon. That is a great shame, but it is not point that diminishes his talent”
No, it doesn’t.
“and claim on being the best ever.”
I think it does, however we obviously disagree on that.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:52am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:52am | Report comment
The point is this: Rosewell not winning Wimbledon does not evince a weakness in his overall game as he won many major titles on grass (five more than Federer in fact, and second only to Laver).
This distinguishes him from the likes of Sampras who’s overall game was not suited to clay.
So then you ask, what then distinguishes Rosewall from Laver and Federer? Sure he hasn’t won Wimbledon, but that isn’t that significant for me for the reason given above.
That leads me to look at their achievements. No-one won more ‘majors’ than Rosewall – he won four more than Laver in second place. Lave did win two grand slams, and that makes it a very close call.
On paper, this makes it a two horse race, so then that leads me to compare their head-to-head record. They played in roughly the same era (Rosewall was fours years older), and in the mataches that count as a true indication of ability (i.e. before Rosewall turned 30), he (Rosewall) completely dominated Laver.
Like I say in comments below, I end up deferring to what the general opinion amongst tennis pros is (namely, the best ever is either Laver or Rosewall), but it is interesting to note that Laver has been known to say that he thought Rosewall was a better player than he was.
June 2nd 2012 @ 2:55am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 2:55am | Report comment
…. ooops I should have said that most tennis pros think the best ever comes down to Laver and Federer (not Rosewall)
July 6th 2011 @ 8:39am
sheek said | July 6th 2011 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Gee David,
This is a tough one.
I know Wikipedia isn’t the final word on everything, & can be inaccurate, but providing you access anything with some pre-knowledge, it’s a good source for info generally.
There’s an excellent article whereby the wins of all majors in both the amateur & professional era, plus the open era, are all added up. There are 7 majors – Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon Open, US Open, French Pro, Wembley Pro & US Pro.
Here’s the top 10.
1. Ken Rosewell -23 (8 amateurs + 15 pros).
2. Rod Laver -19 (11 amateurs + 8 pros).
3. Roger Federer -16 (all opens).
4. Bill Tilden – 15 (10 amateurs + 5 pros).
5. Pete Sampras – 14 (all opens).
6. Pancho Gonzales – 14 (2 amateurs + 12 pros).
7. Roy Emerson – 12 (all amateurs).
8. Bjorn Borg – 11 (all opens).
9. Don Budge – 10 (6 amateurs + 4 pros).
10. Fred Perry – 10 (8 amateurs + 2 pros).
The article also listed the most singles wins across the amateur, pro & open eras. Laver is way out in front. Here’s the top 12.
1. Rod Laver – 200 singles wins.
2. Jimmy Connors – 149.
3. Ivan Lendl – 146.
4. Jaroslav Drobny – 139.
5. Ken Rosewell – 132.
6. Bill Tilden – 130.
7. Pancho Gonzales – 113.
8. Tony Wilding – 112.
9. Roy Emerson – 110.
10. John McEnroe – 104.
11. Bjorn Borg – 101.
12. Bobby Riggs – 95.
John Newcombe ranks 20 with 70 wins; Andre Agassi 22 with 65 wins; Pete Sampras 23 with 64.
Personally, Laver & Federer are my top 2. The next 5 are between Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Rosewell & Gonzales. I would like to see how Nadal plays out the remainder of his career.
I think someone with the time & inclination could apply mathematical analysis in determining the best ever. The true champion would come from the above 7 players, I would imagine.
July 6th 2011 @ 8:52am
amazonfan said | July 6th 2011 @ 8:52am | Report comment
“Personally, Laver & Federer are my top 2. The next 5 are between Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Rosewell & Gonzales. I would like to see how Nadal plays out the remainder of his career.
I think someone with the time & inclination could apply mathematical analysis in determining the best ever. The true champion would come from the above 7 players, I would imagine.”
And Agassi. I agree that the true champion would come from those players, but I think Agassi would be a major contender as well.
July 6th 2011 @ 9:17am
Fivehole said | July 6th 2011 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Laver – end of story.
July 6th 2011 @ 9:25am
Eric said | July 6th 2011 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Has to be Rod Laver. Two grand slams, and missed 5 years whilst pro. And I think Federer would agree.
July 6th 2011 @ 9:37am
gb said | July 6th 2011 @ 9:37am | Report comment
This is the sort of question that can have tennis and sports fans in general arguing until the cows come home. It is always difficult comparing champions across eras as there are some important things to consider.
The first thing to consider in this day and age (and really for the last 20 years) is that tennis has truly become a global sport. The talent is far far deeper now than when Rosewall, Laver et al were plying their trade. To dominate now like Federer has/had done, then Nadal and now Djokovic is in my opinion much more difficult. Since the 2005 Aus Open won by Marat Safin, every single mens grand slam title since has either been won by the aforementioned three except for Del Potros lone US title in 2009. When it comes to slams, these three modern greats are really dominating the game. In my opinion, even though Roger Federer has not won the “Grand Slam”, his 16 Major Titles for me is the clincher as the greatest of all time (with absolute respect to the Rockhampton Rocker who also happens to be Federers tennis hero).
Secondly, tennis majors are now played across four different surfaces. Once upon a time, all but the french were played on grass. Australian players brought up on these sorts of courts were bound to have a head start against a great deal of their opponents who may not have had the luxury. If you can win all four majors in this day and age on four different surfaces then you deserve a mention as a great (here Agassi gets a nod along with Roger and Nadal). You only have to look at past modern champions who claimed 3 of the 4 to see just how difficult this is/was (Lendl, Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras, Wilander). Its also interesting to note just how close Matts Wilander went in 1988 to claiming the Grand Slam winning 3 of the 4.
When looking at other great champions of the past we cannot forget that is was often difficult to coax some of them down to the Australian Open when it used to be played towards the end of the calendar year and very close to Christmas. Borg and McEnroe are just a couple of champions who rarely made the trip down under (McEnroe did when it was moved to Jan). Given at the time it was played on grass its always interesting to speculate how many Borg may have won if he chose to travel given his utter domination at Wimbledon.
Whilst this does not address all the issues when trying to find a champion, these are a couple of things I think are important to consider when trying to pick one.
As for me, its quite simple. With his 16 titles to date, his sublime talents and sheer artistry, for me it has to be Roger Federer.
July 6th 2011 @ 11:57am
Mals said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:57am | Report comment
I think it could be argued that the majors are now played over 3 surfaces:- grass, clay & hard court. The US Open uses DecoTurf & Aus Open Plexicushion. They are similar hardcourt surfaces. Aus Open until 2008 was Rebound Ace & this had a higher ball bounce than the US Open hard court.
June 2nd 2012 @ 1:22am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 1:22am | Report comment
You place a lot of emphasis on Federer’s 16 titles, but you ignore the Amateur and Pro titles players won pre the open era.
Have a look at Sheer’s list above, which includes these titles. On that count, the top three are:
1. Ken Rosewell -23 (8 amateurs + 15 pros)
2. Rod Laver -19 (11 amateurs + 8 pros)
3. Roger Federer -16 (all opens)
July 6th 2011 @ 11:00am
sheek said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:00am | Report comment
GB,
What you say about the surfaces is quite correct. Until 1978, Wimbledon, US & Australian Opens were played on grass, & the French Open on clay. In 1978, the US Open moved to acrylic hardcourt. In 1988, the Australian Open moved to synthetic hardcourt (rebound ace). The Wimbledon Open has always remained grass & the French Open has always remained clay.
However, it is instructive to take into consideration the professional championship tournaments held from the early 1920s until the open era was declared in 1968.
There were 3 pro championship tournaments – French Pro, Wembley Pro & US Pro. Keep in mind virtually all the best tennis players eventually became professional before the open era.
The French Pro was usually played on clay, though interestingly, it was played on grass from 1963-67. The US Pro varied over the course of its life, changing from grass to indoor wood & back again. Interestingly, from 1963-67 it was played on indoor wood. The Wembley Pro was usually always played on indoor wood.
So to suggest only the modern players from 1988 onwards have played on a variety of surfaces is obviously incorrect. Those amateurs moving to professional ranks had to learn to play on indoor wood, besides grass & clay.
So either way, it comes down to Laver & Federer, I believe. I lean towards Laver but in order to make a definitive statement one way or the other would require more comprehensive scrutiny.
However, I would caution the younger generation not to be blinded by their ignorance of tennis history prior to circa 1988, or even the amateur/pro divide until 1968. And I would caution the older generation not to be blinded by nostalgia!
July 6th 2011 @ 11:21am
gb said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Sheek, I must admit to being ignorant of these pro championship tournaments that were held from the 20s to the late 60s so i stand corrected on limiting the surfaces to just grass and clay in the early days. Another thing to consider as well is the advances in racquet technology that has changed the game in many ways. Often players can overwhelm opponents through sheer force and literally bludgeon their way to a win. Again, this is where i think Federer does stand up. He is not the most poweful of modern players and has more sophistication to his game and an unparralelled shot making ability. Players from the bygone era perhaps had to rely more on touch and finesse given the slower balls and wooden racquets. This is not to say that the earlier era did not have so-called power players as I am pretty sure Bill Tilden and Don Budge were noted big servers. Judging by the size of Rod Lavers left forearm he also was a powerful player. Whilst most of my knowledge of tennis is limited to the last 25 odd years, i am still mindful of those from earlier times. As such, its always fascinating to argue the merits of those players who were the masters of their eras and comparing their respective careers.
July 6th 2011 @ 11:44am
sheek said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:44am | Report comment
That’s okay GB,
It’s in situations like this, we can all learn something from each other…..
June 2nd 2012 @ 1:31am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 1:31am | Report comment
True about Federer’s mastery of the racquet and him not relying on brut force for his results. He has one of the smallest racquet heads on the tour, which means it is less powerful than those using a big racquet head.
That said, I think it is hard to compare players between eras on this score because of the dramatic changes in racquet technology. This makes racquet skills between eras impossible to compare as they were using completely different (i.e. incomparable) tools.
However, if one disagrees with me here it would be hard to beat what Rosewell could do with his wooden racquet. He was all finesse.
July 7th 2011 @ 12:12am
amazonfan said | July 7th 2011 @ 12:12am | Report comment
The US Open was also held on clay. It was held on clay from 1975 through to 1977. Interestingly Jimmy Connors became in 1976 the *first of five players ever to win slams on three different surfaces. He is also the only player to win the US Open on three different surfaces; grass in 1974, clay in 1976, and hardcourt in 1978, 1982, and 1983. He truly was extraordinary.
*Wilander, Agassi, Federer, & Nadal are the other four.
July 6th 2011 @ 11:29am
me too said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
laver
rosewell
federer
nadal
sampras
- personally
but whilst the general public would accept laver’s exclusion from grand slam tournaments, given he won a second grand slam when returning, i rarely hear the same belief in rosewell.
so would guess laver, federer, nadal, sampras, borg.
July 6th 2011 @ 11:33am
sheek said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Here’s some info on the pro circuit & it’s 3 most successful players – Gonzales, Rosewell & Laver.
US Pro – ran from 1927 to 1967 (except for 1944)
Wembley Pro – ran from 1934 to 67 (no comps 40-48 & 54-55)
French Pro – ran from 1930 to 67 (no comps 40-52, 54-55 & 57)
Of course, all 3 comps continued after the open era was declared in 1968, but they no longer held their pre-eminence. Also, as you can see, both Wembley & French Pros suffered from periods of non-competition.
The only times all 3 comps were up for grabs (the triple crown) was between 1934-39 & again 1958-67 (the latter decade can be regarded perhaps as the ‘golden era’ of the pro circuit).
The leading pro majors winners were as follows:
1. Ken Rosewell – 15.
2. Pancho Gonzales – 12.
3. Rod Laver – 8.
4 (eq). Ellsworth Vines & Hans Nusslein – 5 each (both pre-WW2).
6 (eq). Bill Tilden & Don Budge – 4 each (both pre-WW2).
Gonzales (b. 1928) won the US Pro 7 successive times 1953-59 & Wembley Pro 3 successive times 1950-52. Gonzales turned pro in 1950.
Rosewell (b. 1934) won the French Pro 7 successive times 1960-66 & Wembley Pro 4 successive times 1960-63. Rosewell turned pro in 1957.
Laver (b. 1937) won the Wembley Pro 4 successive times 1964-67, US Pro in 1964, 66-67 & the French Pro in 1967. Laver turned pro in 1963.
The ONLY player to win the “triple crown” was Rod Laver, & he did so in the very last year of the pro era, in 1967.
Between 1963-67, all 15 pro majors were shared between Rosewell & Laver, playing on grass (US Pro), indoor wood (Wembley Pro) & clay (French Pro).
Anyone wanting to determine who is the greatest tennis player of all time, simply can’t ignore the professional era that ran roughly from 1927-67. It’s true tennis is today a truly global sport, while technology has changed equipment significantly.
However, even back in the 1960s, irrespective of where the best players came from, the competition was still intense for the top 10 or so players.
July 6th 2011 @ 11:36am
Willy said | July 6th 2011 @ 11:36am | Report comment
It’s Laver by a mile.
Even the modern contenders like Sampras and Federer have admitted as much.
July 6th 2011 @ 12:04pm
gb said | July 6th 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
I would expect Sampras and Federer to say as much..they are both modest champions and very mindful of the legacies of past champions. Laver will always be in contention as number one courtesy of his two Grand Slam achievements.
July 6th 2011 @ 12:18pm
clipper said | July 6th 2011 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
David, I think it’s a bit unfair to not qualify Bjorn Borg because he never reached an Australian Open final – he only ever played once, and never came back! Plus he retired early, at 26. He also played in four US open finals, not three.
A lot of players skipped the Australian for a while, and as a result the field was weaker, and some players would have an inflated GS record because of it. So although you could say Laver and Rosewall could have won many more GS, had they been professional, you could equally say Borg, and even Connors could have a higher GS record if they had played more Australian Opens.
Here would be my top 10
10 – Fred Perry
9 – Don Budge
8 – John McEnroe Unbeatable when his was at the top – unfortunately it wasn’t that long
7 – Andre Agassi
6 – Jimmy Connors due to his longevity, like Rosewall, and his never say die approach
5 – Ken Rosewall
4 – Rafael Nadal would move him up 1 if he gets a couple more slams
3 – Björn Borg
2 – Roger Federer
1 – Rod Laver
Pretty close finish, if Roger got another couple of slams and could even his H to H record with Nadal, I would put him first
Did not include Sampras – Only 1 SF appearance at the French takes a swag of points away from being a complete Tennis player.
June 2nd 2012 @ 1:40am
Cal Pruiti said | June 2nd 2012 @ 1:40am | Report comment
You put Federer second partly due to his less than impressive head to head record against Nadal, yet you put Laver first despite his unimpressive record against Rosewell before Rosewell turned 30.