Top 5 of All Time!

Emerson?  Really???  Virtually all his success occurred after Laver turned pro and the majors were contested by amateurs only.  When the pros were let in and Laver came back, Emo was without a prayer.  Emo couldn't tie Laver's shoes.  Plus, those 6 Aussie Open wins were at a time when hardly anybody played the tournament who wasn't Australian.  To me it's clear that he definitely does NOT belong on the list.  Ken Rosewall has as much business on the list as Emerson IMO.

I think it's very difficult to rank players across the eras except to say that Federer ranks #1 all time.  For me, Borg and Nadal are clearly top 5 players all time even though Borg retired at 25 and Rafa just turned 25. 

When you watch film of Laver, he looks unimpressive, and when he first turned pro (right after winning his first calendar Grand Slam), he couldn't win a match for a couple of years.  He could barely win points from Pancho Gonzales, who invented pro tennis and beat everybody foolish enough to turn pro.  Sadly, by the time the pros could compete in the majors, Pancho was too old.  By the way, that was ENTIRELY intentional on the part of international tennis.  Still, Laver won the calendar Grand Slam twice, once the first year the pros competed in the majors, and that has to be worth something.

I really can't include Sampras because he was so very average on clay.  You can't be top 5 of all time in my book unless you're an all-surface player.  Clearly Sampras ranks up there with Federer and Borg on grass and pretty darn high on hard courts as well, though.  Now someone will say, "but Borg never won a major on hard courts."  True, but he was competitive at the US Open.  He was the losing finalist 4 times.  I don't believe he ever played the Australian Open.  Compare that to Sampras' one semifinal at Roland Garros.   

So my list is Federer on top, then -- in some undetermined order -- Borg, Nadal, Gonzales and Laver, and I'm not really that sure about Laver.

Last edited by DonDenman (Jun. 22, 2011 10:58am)

Borg and Nadal based on success are about on equal terms. Both dominant on their favorite surfaces. I never have bought into the Laver calendar slam argument. I just don't see it as that impressive considering the times he was playing during.

LOL... I knew it would cause some debate guys hence my reason for posting
I agree it is pretty much impossible to compare different era's, I actually wrote that at the end of my thread but deleted it before I posted, I personally think that the modern player is much faster, stronger and fitter than the Laver, Emerson era but of course technological advances etc have changed things.
Yep Rosewall was a great player Don agreed but he never won Wimbledon.
You can certainly make a case for Borg, he is one of my all time favourites BUT history says he never won a Aussie or US Open, the problem is that prior to 1975 only Roland Garros was not played on the grass, imagine if we still had 3 grass court Slams now, Sampras and Fed would have racked up numerous Slams and Borg for that matter too.
I guess you can make an argument for and against almost every player on the list but it certainly creates a lot of debate huh?
For what it's worth and without worrying about number of Slam wins, which surface they won on etc my top 5 would be completely different, then there would be another list of my top 5 favourite players of all time, and on it goes.

Of the post 1975 era this would be my top 5 currently:
1) Federer
2) Sampras
3) Nadal
4) Borg
5) Agassi

This list probably reflects a truer sense of who is the best, sorry Rod, Roy and Ken etc.
I know I know... Sampras never won at RG and maybe Nadal and Borg should be ahead of him (I think Rafa will get there anyway) but he was so dominant and I am a fan so he stays ahead of Bjorn just.
If Borg had not retired at the age of 26 well......lets not start another debate
We could debate this for years huh.....haha!

Last edited by Tono100 (Jun. 22, 2011 4:25pm)

Graff?? Navritilova?? They were some pretty dominant players of their day.

I was pretty sure I had missed the spelling on those names when I clicked the button. But we are definitely on the same page there Don. Graf and Navratilova are by far two of the most dominant women to play the game. Also worth noting the doubles/mixed doubles prowess of Navratilova.

That's a pretty fair list there Aiur I think the only question is whether Rafa will catch and surpass Roger and thus become THE greatest, a lot depends on whether or not the Fed Express can win more Slams.

I was unaware that Borg played Oz at 17!  Thanks for the info.  Obviously, once was enough for him. 

With the "in recent times" addition to your previous post, I'd say you were right on target IMO.  Serena is the only one recently who has shown any real dominance, but her limited play has not allowed her to dominate the way Martina and Steffi did.  Fairly obviously, the lost scot and I agree with you about that.