10 Greatest Players of All Time (Men & Women) - 2008
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:50 am
Last couple of years after the US Open I've given my all-time top 10s for men & women. Don't know where those threads are, so I'm going to start from scratch here. Note that this is considering singles only.
Men
1. Pete Sampras
Continues to hold on to the #1 spot. However, not only is Federer breathing down his neck, I'm starting to question more and more players who can't play on all surfaces as it really does seem like the era of total serve domination was a temporary product of players getting used to new speeds rather than a fundamental shift in the game.
2. Roger Federer
Had him a #4 last year. Interestingly, even though last year was considered a disappointment, you can still make the argument it was about as impressive as any Sampras ever had. I may move Federer to #1 a year from now even if fails to win another major.
3. Pancho Gonzales
The original Pete Sampras. Gets surpassed largely because of Federer's continued rise in career accomplishment, but I am having questions about his serve-dominated game. Should I really have him as the king of pre-open tennis?
4. Bjorn Borg
Slides with Federer's rise as to be expected. It's been a fascinating year for evaluating Borg though as we've seen his modern equivalent truly arise in Nadal.
5. Jimmy Connors
I remain convinced that he needs to be below Borg, but it's hard to see him any lower. This is a guy who played through Borg & McEnroe's peaks, which were both sky high, who won majors on every surface, could've easily won a Grand Slam if not for some technicalities in the ATP at the time, and whose longevity stacks up with anyone in history.
6. Ken Rosewall
Here begins some actual movement based on my opinion change. Those who've seen these lists before that I've always championed Rosewall, but I dismissed a good amount because I couldn't see him winning majors on anything but clay in the modern era. I look at Nadal's game, which is really not height dependent, and I think Rosewall could've played on anything.
For those not familiar with Rosewall. If you look at the list of true majors won (ignore the pre-open Grand Slam, include instead their pro equivalents), it's startling:
1. Rosewall 19
2. Sampras 14
3. Gonzales 13
(tie) Laver 13
(tie) Federer 13
There are reasons why that 19 is a bit inflated, but since many think of Laver as a GOAT candidate and he played in the same era, that should tell you something about Rosewall.
In the end I leave Rosewall below Connors because I think Connors peak wasn't much less dominant, was against much tougher competition, and Connors longevity matches Rosewll's.
7. Rod Laver
Laver moves up along with Rosewall and for the same reasons, though I know many still won't be satisfied with it.
8. Andre Agassi
Andre is the biggest victim of this mind change I had. I feel like I'm doing him a disservice, but I really do feel like his career was maddenly incomplete mostly because of how erratic he was.
9. Ivan Lendl
Lendl's accomplishments really can be argued to be superior to Connors, who could be argued to be the true #1. I look at Lendl and I just think his accomplishments are inflated by peaking in between really strong "dynasties", and with the aide of being a spearhead in superior training which would mean he'd stand out less in most eras. Along these lines, it really bugs me when a guy can't win on the lead surface of his era, which for him was grass. Sure he came close, but it's not like he had a Nadal like wall in his way, I mean Pat Cash kept him from the title.
10. John McEnroe
It really bothers me to put him so low. Many felt that at the top of his game, he was the greatest in history. But his accomplishments just don't stack up. I mean, Lendl made 19 finals, McEnroe only made 11, the same number as Wilander & Edberg.
It will really be brutal though, if I don't change my mind, this will mean that in another year or two, Mac likely won't be in my top 10. That's just crazy.
Women
1. Chris Evert
I'm sure this seems strange to anyone see this for the first time, so I'll explain again. If you compare Evert and Navratilova's accomplishments, Evert actually comes up on top. Navratilova is considered superior mostly because when they were the top 2 players, Navratilova got the better of the rivalry. However this overlooks the fact that earlier in their career, Evert was the clear #1 in the world and Navratilova often got beat before getting the chance to lose to Evert.
What about Graf? Well...
2. Martina Navratilova
Navratilova (and Evert) gets the nod over Graf because if ignore major titles, Navratilova clearly has the more accomplished career. Why should we ignore major titles? Well we shouldn't ignore them, but the context needs to be understood. If Seles doesn't get stabbed, Graf likely doesn't surpass Martina in major titles. Should we give Graf the nod here because her top competitor was stunted while others' rivals were not? I say no.
3. Steffi Graf
Nothing to say here. I can't imagine the argument that puts Graf any lower.
4. Monica Seles
This is always controversial. Normally I don't give a player credit for what they could have done, but in this special circumstance, I refuse to knock Seles for longevity. One could think of this being me giving Seles credit for the titles I'm saying Graf likely wouldn't have won if a Steffi Graf fan hadn't removed her competition.
5. Margaret Smith-Court
The biggest accomplishment numbers around, but she played in a much more primitive era, and won a huge amount of her majors at the Australian, which wasn't really taken that seriously at the time.
6. Billie Jean King
I'm not meaning to go two contemporaries at a time, I really would like to move King down as she is clearly significantly below Smith. But there's just not another woman worthy of moving here down yet.
7. Serena Williams
Really? Serena isn't worthy of being above King? Remember how spotty the Williams sisters have been. King made almost double the number of major semi-finals as Serena has because there are so many tournaments that Serena loses to women that simply aren't that great. Flat out Serena's got to do more.
8. Venus Williams
Same story as Serena, though I'd actually argue she's in some ways underrated. To me it's actually very close as far as whether she should be rated ahead of her little sis. If Venus were to have a dominant year next year, there really would be no doubt in my mind that she would be the Player of the Decade.
9. Maureen Connolly
Maureen's new to my list. I kept her off before because of her lack of longevity, and I still hold that against here, but that doesn't change the fact she won more majors than every woman not on this list except Helen Wills Moody.
It's scary to think what Connolly would have accomplished if not for injury.
10. Evonne Goolagong
Goolagong slides on to the list because we run out of truly dominant players in modern history. Justine Henin almost certainly would have surpassed her, but then she went and retired. Most interesting fact about Goolagong: Won a major after having a kid.
Men
1. Pete Sampras
Continues to hold on to the #1 spot. However, not only is Federer breathing down his neck, I'm starting to question more and more players who can't play on all surfaces as it really does seem like the era of total serve domination was a temporary product of players getting used to new speeds rather than a fundamental shift in the game.
2. Roger Federer
Had him a #4 last year. Interestingly, even though last year was considered a disappointment, you can still make the argument it was about as impressive as any Sampras ever had. I may move Federer to #1 a year from now even if fails to win another major.
3. Pancho Gonzales
The original Pete Sampras. Gets surpassed largely because of Federer's continued rise in career accomplishment, but I am having questions about his serve-dominated game. Should I really have him as the king of pre-open tennis?
4. Bjorn Borg
Slides with Federer's rise as to be expected. It's been a fascinating year for evaluating Borg though as we've seen his modern equivalent truly arise in Nadal.
5. Jimmy Connors
I remain convinced that he needs to be below Borg, but it's hard to see him any lower. This is a guy who played through Borg & McEnroe's peaks, which were both sky high, who won majors on every surface, could've easily won a Grand Slam if not for some technicalities in the ATP at the time, and whose longevity stacks up with anyone in history.
6. Ken Rosewall
Here begins some actual movement based on my opinion change. Those who've seen these lists before that I've always championed Rosewall, but I dismissed a good amount because I couldn't see him winning majors on anything but clay in the modern era. I look at Nadal's game, which is really not height dependent, and I think Rosewall could've played on anything.
For those not familiar with Rosewall. If you look at the list of true majors won (ignore the pre-open Grand Slam, include instead their pro equivalents), it's startling:
1. Rosewall 19
2. Sampras 14
3. Gonzales 13
(tie) Laver 13
(tie) Federer 13
There are reasons why that 19 is a bit inflated, but since many think of Laver as a GOAT candidate and he played in the same era, that should tell you something about Rosewall.
In the end I leave Rosewall below Connors because I think Connors peak wasn't much less dominant, was against much tougher competition, and Connors longevity matches Rosewll's.
7. Rod Laver
Laver moves up along with Rosewall and for the same reasons, though I know many still won't be satisfied with it.
8. Andre Agassi
Andre is the biggest victim of this mind change I had. I feel like I'm doing him a disservice, but I really do feel like his career was maddenly incomplete mostly because of how erratic he was.
9. Ivan Lendl
Lendl's accomplishments really can be argued to be superior to Connors, who could be argued to be the true #1. I look at Lendl and I just think his accomplishments are inflated by peaking in between really strong "dynasties", and with the aide of being a spearhead in superior training which would mean he'd stand out less in most eras. Along these lines, it really bugs me when a guy can't win on the lead surface of his era, which for him was grass. Sure he came close, but it's not like he had a Nadal like wall in his way, I mean Pat Cash kept him from the title.
10. John McEnroe
It really bothers me to put him so low. Many felt that at the top of his game, he was the greatest in history. But his accomplishments just don't stack up. I mean, Lendl made 19 finals, McEnroe only made 11, the same number as Wilander & Edberg.
It will really be brutal though, if I don't change my mind, this will mean that in another year or two, Mac likely won't be in my top 10. That's just crazy.
Women
1. Chris Evert
I'm sure this seems strange to anyone see this for the first time, so I'll explain again. If you compare Evert and Navratilova's accomplishments, Evert actually comes up on top. Navratilova is considered superior mostly because when they were the top 2 players, Navratilova got the better of the rivalry. However this overlooks the fact that earlier in their career, Evert was the clear #1 in the world and Navratilova often got beat before getting the chance to lose to Evert.
What about Graf? Well...
2. Martina Navratilova
Navratilova (and Evert) gets the nod over Graf because if ignore major titles, Navratilova clearly has the more accomplished career. Why should we ignore major titles? Well we shouldn't ignore them, but the context needs to be understood. If Seles doesn't get stabbed, Graf likely doesn't surpass Martina in major titles. Should we give Graf the nod here because her top competitor was stunted while others' rivals were not? I say no.
3. Steffi Graf
Nothing to say here. I can't imagine the argument that puts Graf any lower.
4. Monica Seles
This is always controversial. Normally I don't give a player credit for what they could have done, but in this special circumstance, I refuse to knock Seles for longevity. One could think of this being me giving Seles credit for the titles I'm saying Graf likely wouldn't have won if a Steffi Graf fan hadn't removed her competition.
5. Margaret Smith-Court
The biggest accomplishment numbers around, but she played in a much more primitive era, and won a huge amount of her majors at the Australian, which wasn't really taken that seriously at the time.
6. Billie Jean King
I'm not meaning to go two contemporaries at a time, I really would like to move King down as she is clearly significantly below Smith. But there's just not another woman worthy of moving here down yet.
7. Serena Williams
Really? Serena isn't worthy of being above King? Remember how spotty the Williams sisters have been. King made almost double the number of major semi-finals as Serena has because there are so many tournaments that Serena loses to women that simply aren't that great. Flat out Serena's got to do more.
8. Venus Williams
Same story as Serena, though I'd actually argue she's in some ways underrated. To me it's actually very close as far as whether she should be rated ahead of her little sis. If Venus were to have a dominant year next year, there really would be no doubt in my mind that she would be the Player of the Decade.
9. Maureen Connolly
Maureen's new to my list. I kept her off before because of her lack of longevity, and I still hold that against here, but that doesn't change the fact she won more majors than every woman not on this list except Helen Wills Moody.
It's scary to think what Connolly would have accomplished if not for injury.
10. Evonne Goolagong
Goolagong slides on to the list because we run out of truly dominant players in modern history. Justine Henin almost certainly would have surpassed her, but then she went and retired. Most interesting fact about Goolagong: Won a major after having a kid.
